# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imperialism is a system where one powerful nation occupies, controls and exploits smaller nations. Several European nations were imperial powers prior to World War I. Imperial rivalry and competition for new territories and possessions fuelled tension between major European nations and became a factor in the outbreak of war.

What is imperialism?

As mentioned above, imperialism is a system where a large, powerful nation dominates and exploits smaller nations, which are known as colonies. Together, the imperial power and her colonies are known as an empire.

In most cases, the imperial nation is euphemistically referred to as the 'mother country'. It establishes control over its colonies against their will - for example, through infiltration and annexation, political pressure, war or military conquest. Once control is established, this territory is claimed as a colony.

Colonies are governed by either the imperial nation, a puppet government or local collaborators. A military presence is often stationed in the colony, to maintain order, suppress dissent and uprisings and deter imperial rivals.

Imperialism can have military or geopolitical advantages but its main lure is economic. Colonies exist chiefly to enrich the imperial power. This may involve the supply of precious metals or other resources, such as timber, rubber, rice or other foodstuffs. Colonies can also be invaluable sources of cheap labour, agricultural land and trading ports.

The British Empire

Prior to World War I the world's largest, richest and most dominant imperial power was Great Britain.

The British Empire famously occupied one-quarter of the globe ("the sun never sets on Britain" was a famous slogan of the mid-19th century). British colonial possessions in the late 1800s included Canada, India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, several Pacific and Caribbean Islands, South Africa, Rhodesia, Egypt and other parts of Africa.

Many of these colonies were acquired with little difficulty. Others took more time, effort and bloodshed to conquer. Britain's acquisition of South Africa, for example, followed costly wars against the Zulus (native tribes) and Boers (white farmer-settlers of Dutch extraction).

British imperialism was focused on maintaining and expanding trade, the importation of raw materials and the sale of manufactured goods. Britain's imperial power was reinforced by her powerful navy, the world's largest, and a fleet of mercantile (commercial) vessels.

Other European imperial powers

France was another significant imperial power. French imperial holdings included Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), some Pacific islands and several colonies in west and north-west Africa.

The German Empire included Shandong (a province of China), New Guinea, Samoa and other Pacific islands, and several colonies in central and south-west Africa. The Spanish Empire had once included the Philippines and large parts of South America, though by the early 20th century Spain's imperial power was dwindling.

Empires closer to continental Europe included Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman sultanate. Russia ruled over Finland, Poland and several central Asian regions as an imperial power. Russia's disastrous war against Japan in 1904-5 was an attempt to extend her imperial reach into Korea and northern China.

Despite condemnation of European imperialism in America, the United States also engaged in some empire building, particularly towards the end of the 1800s. Here is a list of the more significant imperial powers of the early 1900s:

Global empires in 1914

The British Empire took in India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, parts of North Africa, islands in the Pacific and Caribbean and concessions in China.

Russia ruled modern-day Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Georgia and several regions in central Asia, such as Kazakhstan. Russia also had colonial interests in East Asia, including a concession in China.

France maintained colonies in modern-day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, areas of West Africa and India, small possessions in South America, and islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.

Germany had seized control of modern-day Tanzania, Namibia and Cameroon in Africa, German New Guinea, some Pacific islands and an important concession in Shandong (China).

Austria-Hungary possessed no colonies outside Europe but was an empire nonetheless, ruling over several different regions, ethnic and language groups. Among its regions were Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Galicia, Transylvania, the Tyrol and, after 1908, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Spain once possessed a large empire that included Cuba, the Philippines and large areas of South America - but by 1914 the Spanish were left with only tiny colonial territories in the Americas and north-west Africa.

The United States was a relative newcomer to imperialism but by 1914 had gained control of the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and several islands in the Pacific. Though later absorbed into the United States, both Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands might be considered colonial acquisitions.

The Ottoman Empire was once the largest empire in the world, taking in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and much of northern Africa. Ottoman territory had shrunk significantly but by 1914 the sultanate retained the heart of its old empire: modern-day Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Armenia and Macedonia.

Portugal in 1914 was the imperial ruler of modern-day Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Goa (India) and East Timor (Indonesia).

Belgium was one of the smallest nations in Europe but still possessed a significant African colony (Belgian Congo) as well as a small concession in China.

Holland had several small colonial possessions in South America (Dutch Guyana), Asia (Batavia, or modern-day Indonesia) and the Pacific.

Italy by 1914 had moved into northern Africa, annexing modern-day Libya, Somalia and Eritrea. It also held a small concession in China.

The scramble for Africa

The second half of the 1800s produced a significant 'rush for empire'. This desperate push for new colonies was fuelled by rising nationalism, increasing demand for land and dwindling opportunities at home. Two relative newcomers to empire-building were the newly unified nations of Germany and Italy.

The man who helped construct the German state in the 1870s, Otto von Bismarck, showed little interest in gathering colonies - but Bismarck's view was not shared by other Germans. Organisations like the Colonial League (formed 1882 in Berlin) whipped up support for German imperial expansion.

The Kaiser and his advisors formulated their own imperial designs, mostly focused on Africa. In 1884, Germany acquired Togoland, the Cameroons and South-West Africa (now Namibia). Six years later, a sizeable swathe of East Africa fell under German control and was renamed Tanganyika (now Tanzania).

This African colonisation was well received in Germany but it caused problems in Britain and France. Many in London dreamed of a British-owned railway running the length of Africa ("from Cairo to the Cape"). German control of eastern Africa was an obstacle to this vision.

Two Moroccan crises

The scramble for empire in Africa also sparked several diplomatic incidents. Two significant crises stemmed from events in Morocco in north-west Africa. Though not a French colony, Morocco's location placed it within France's sphere of influence. Paris sought to establish a protectorate in Morocco, the German Kaiser intervened.

In 1905, Wilhelm II travelled to the Moroccan city of Tangier, where he delivered a speech supporting the idea of Moroccan independence. This antagonised the French government and precipitated a series of angry diplomatic responses and feverish press reports.

A second crisis erupted in 1911. As the French were attempting to suppress a rebellion in Morocco, the Germans landed an armed vessel, the Panther, at the Moroccan port of Agadir - a landing made without permission, prior warning or any obvious purpose. This incident triggered an even stronger reaction and brought France and Germany to the brink of war.

These acts of German provocation were not designed to encroach into Morocco or expand its empire, but to drive a wedge between France and Britain. It had the opposite effect, strengthening the Anglo-French alliance and intensifying criticism of German Weltpolitik and 'gunboat diplomacy' in both France and Britain.

The decaying Ottoman Empire

Imperial instability was another contributor to European tensions. Critical problems in the Ottoman Empire created uncertainty in eastern Europe and threatened to upset the balance of power.

Described by satirists as the 'Sick Man of Europe', by the second half of the 1800s, the Ottoman sultanate was in rapid political, military and economic decline. The Ottomans were defeated in several wars including the Crimean War (1853-56), Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) and First Balkans War (1912-13). These defeats, along with rising nationalism and revolutions in Ottoman-controlled regions, resulted in gradual but significant losses of territory.

With the Ottoman Empire shrinking and at risk of collapse, Europe's other imperial powers clamoured to secure territory or influence in the region. Austria-Hungary hoped to expand into the Balkans; Russia moved to limit Austrian expansion while securing access to the Black Sea; Germany wanted to ensure the security and completion of its Berlin-to-Baghdad railway.

Britain and France also had colonial and trade interests in the region. The 'Eastern question' - the issue of what would happen in eastern Europe as the Ottomans withdrew - was an important talking point of the late 19th century. These developments drew the Great Powers of Europe into the Balkan sphere, creating opportunities for rivalry and increased tensions.

1. Imperialism is a system where a powerful nation-state seizes or controls territories outside its own borders. These territories are claimed and governed as colonies.

2. Several European nations maintained empires in the decades before World War I. The British Empire was by far the largest, spanning around one-quarter of the globe at one point.

3. The pre-war period saw European powers scramble to acquire the new colonial possessions. Much of this occurred in Africa, where Britain, France and Germany all vied for land and control.

4. This 'scramble for empire' fuelled rivalry and led to several diplomatic incidents, such as two Moroccan crises that were largely precipitated by the German Kaiser.

5. The decline of another imperial power, the Ottoman Empire, attracted the attention of European powers, who sought territory, influence or access in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

Title: "Imperialism as a cause of World War I"
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/imperialism/
Date published: May 21, 2020
Date accessed: August 09, 2023
Copyright: The content on this page may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imperialism (the practice of maintaining colonies) and imperial rivalry (competition for new or existing colonies) were significant causes of World War I.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assassination in Sarajevo as Cause (article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Assassination in Sarajevo as Cause (article)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In another time and another set of circumstances, the assassination in Sarajevo of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have caused outrage, but not a world war. But coming as it did after two decades of tension within Europe generally and the Balkans specifically, the murder of the Austrian royal proved a flashpoint in history. It generated a wave of anti-Serbian sentiment within the Austro-Hungarian empire, providing Austrian military leaders - who had long fancied a war of suppression against the troublesome Serbs - with the perfect excuse for one. Backed by Germany and its strutting, cock-sure kaiser, Austria-Hungary's aggression catapulted Europe into crisis, threats and war.

Franz Ferdinand was the nephew of the Austro-Hungarian emperor Franz Josef, and had been the heir to the imperial throne since 1889. Educated in history and the classics, the archduke was intelligent, well-informed and more worldly than most (in the 1890s he had completed a 'grand tour' across three continents, which included a lengthy stay in Australia). Ferdinand could also be strong-willed to the point of stubbornness. An example of this was his determination to marry a non-royal, Sophie Chotek, against all advice from his family and political leaders; the marriage was approved but was morganatic, meaning that Ferdinand's children could not succeed him as emperor. Ferdinand's politics were surprisingly liberal: he believed that rights, freedoms and concessions to the empire's ethnic groups might need to be considered; he also expressed the view that the growth of revolutionary movements in the Balkans was, in part, the product of Austro-Hungarian heavy-handedness. These views put him at odds with his uncle, the emperor, and Vienna's conservative political and military elite. It also made Ferdinand's eventual fate more of a tragedy, since he was one of the few men broad-minded enough to save the ailing empire.

"The assassination at Sarajevo was certainly the crucial precedent of the European war that its conspirators had sought, but was not the historical cause. Nearly sixty years later Vaso Cubrilovic, who as a historian had taught forty years at the University of Belgrade, insisted that the seven young men were not responsible. 'The outbreak of the war had nothing to do with individuals. The war had deep roots, including the disruptive effects of rapid industrialisation in old feudal societies ... The assassination acted as a lever, prying the various powers into predictable paths."
J. Bowyer Bell, historian

On June 28th 1914, Ferdinand and his wife were touring Sarajevo, then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, now the capital of Bosnia. They were targeted by a small band of Serbian nationalists, who had been inflamed by Austria's takeover of Bosnia-Herzegovina. No strangers to political violence, a faction of this group plotted to assassinate the archduke in the streets of the city. At 10.10am they launched their first attempt. Cabrinovic, a Serbian youth, threw a small bomb towards the open-topped car carrying Ferdinand and his wife - however the bomb bounced harmlessly off the rear of the car, then detonated beneath the vehicle following, destroying it and wounding more than a dozen people. Cabrinovic fled, swallowing a suicide pill then jumping into a nearby river; he could not even get that right, vomiting up the pill and landing in water that was barely ankle-deep. He was soon captured, while his collaborators watched as the royal car sped away. They slunk away into Sarajevo's backstreets, thinking their opportunity had passed and the plan had failed.

They would have been right if not for some fortuitous luck. Franz Ferdinand interrupted his schedule to call at the hospital, to check on those wounded in the earlier attack. After leaving the hospital his car drove down the wrong street and ended up outside a sandwich shop. One of the assassins, Gavrilo Princip, emerged from the shop, having just bought his lunch. Princip drew two pistols and fired at the royal car: his first shot struck the archduke's wife Sophie in the stomach, the second hit Ferdinand's throat. Again the car sped away to seek medical help, arriving at the governor's residence minutes later. Sophie died before she could be removed from the car; Franz Ferdinand was hauled inside but died on a chaise lounge minutes later. The murder of this comparatively popular royal incited a flood of anti-Serb protests and violence in many Austro-Hungarian cities, including Sarajevo itself. Serbian stores and buildings were vandalised and some suspected Serb nationalists were beaten up. Across Europe there was widespread shock at the murder, along with messages of support for Vienna and encouragements for her to take tough action against the terrorists.

The immediate response of the Austro-Hungarian regime was to demand an inquiry into the assassination and those involved, to be conducted on Serbian soil by Austrian authorities. But the Serbian government rejected this, declaring that Serbian officials had no involvement whatsoever in the killings and that "the matter did not concern the Serbian government". This precipitated the 'July crisis', a month of ultimatums, threats and bickering, during which the leaders of Europe advanced the case for both war and peace. Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were buried in a family castle in Austria, after a private funeral which no foreign royals or dignitaries were invited to (not even the German kaiser or Emperor Franz Josef himself attended). Gavrilo Princip and all but one of his associates were captured, interrogated by Austro-Hungarian authorities and placed on trial. Some were executed, however since contemporary laws prohibited the execution of anyone under 20, most of the conspirators were given 20-year prison sentences. Princip was spared because of his age but he suffered terribly in jail, contracting tuberculosis and later having an arm amputated. He died in April 1918, six months before the end of the war he had helped instigate.

1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was an Austrian royal, a nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and the heir to his throne.
2. The archduke was intelligent, worldly and liberal-minded, which set him at odds with his conservative family.
3. In June 1914 Ferdinand was touring Sarajevo, Bosnia, when he fell victim to a terrorist gang of Serbian nationalists.
4. The assassins were young, nervous and clumsy but one, Princip, stumbled across the duke's car.
5. Both Ferdinand and his wife were shot in their open-topped car and died within an hour, while Princip and his collaborators were soon arrested. The murder caused outrage around the world.

© Alpha History 2014. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn, Jim Southey and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn et al, "Assassination in Sarajevo" at Alpha History, https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/assassination-in-sarajevo/, 2014, accessed [date of last access].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In another time and another set of circumstances, the assassination in Sarajevo of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have caused outrage, but not a world war. But coming as it did after two decades of tension within Europe generally and the Balkans specifically, the murder of the Austrian royal proved a flashpoint in history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Though their significance is often misunderstood or exaggerated, alliances are one of the best-known causes of World War I. While alliances did not force nations to war in 1914, they nevertheless drew them into confrontation and conflict with their neighbours.

What is an alliance?

An alliance is a political, military or economic agreement, negotiated and signed by two or more nations. Military alliances usually contain promises that in the event of war or aggression, signatory nations will support their allies.

The terms of this support are outlined in the alliance document. They can range from financial or logistic backing, like the supply of materials or weapons, to military mobilisation and a declaration of war against the aggressor.

Alliances may also contain economic elements, such as trade agreements, investment or loans.

Origins of the alliance system

In many respects, the pre-war alliance network as a byproduct of European geopolitics. Europe had long been a melting pot of ethnic and territorial rivalries, political intrigues and paranoia.

France and England were ancient antagonists whose rivalry erupted into open warfare several times between the 14th and early 19th centuries. Relations between the French and Germans were also troubled, while France and Russia also had their differences.

Alliances provided European states with a measure of protection. They served as a means of guarding or advancing national interests while acting as a deterrent to war. They were particularly important for Europe's smaller or less powerful states.

Anti-Napoleonic alliances

During the 1700s, kings and princes regularly formed or re-formed alliances, usually to protect their interests or to isolate rivals. Many of these alliances and alliance blocs were short-lived. Some collapsed when new leaders emerged; others were nullified or replaced by new alliances.

The rise of French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 1800s ushered in a brief period of 'super alliances'. European nations allied themselves either in support of Bonaparte or to defeat him. Between 1797 and 1815, European leaders formed seven anti-Napoleonic coalitions. At various times these coalitions included Britain, Russia, Holland, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Spain and Portugal.

After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815, European leaders worked to restore normality and stability to the continent. The Congress of Vienna (1815) established an informal system of diplomacy, defined national boundaries and sought to prevent wars and revolutions. The congress system worked for a time but started to weaken in the mid-1800s.

The late 19th century

Imperial interests, changes in government, a series of revolutions (1848) and rising nationalist movements in Germany, Italy and elsewhere saw European rivalries and tensions increase again in the mid-1800s.

During the late 19th century, European leaders continued to form, annul and restructure alliances on a regular basis. The alliance system during this period is often attributed to German chancellor Otto von Bismarck and his attitude of realpolitik.

Some individual agreements signed during this period include:

The Treaty of London (1839)

Though not a formal alliance, this multi-lateral treaty acknowledged the existence of Belgium as an independent and neutral state. Several of Europe's great powers, including Great Britain and Prussia, were signatories to this treaty.

Belgium had earned statehood in the 1830s after separating from southern Holland. The Treaty of London was still in effect in 1914, so when German troops invaded Belgium in August 1914, the British considered it a violation of the treaty.

The Three Emperors' League (1873)

The Three Emperors' League was a three-way alliance between the ruling monarchs of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. It was engineered and dominated by the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck, who saw it as a means of securing the balance of power in Europe.

Disorder in the Balkans undermined Russia's commitment to the league, which collapsed in 1878. The Three Emperors' League, without Russia, came to form the basis of the Triple Alliance.

The Dual Alliance (1879)

The Dual Alliance was a binding military alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. It required each signatory to support the other if one was attacked by Russia. It was signed after the collapse of the Three Emperors' League and during a period of Austro-Russian tension in the Balkans.

The Dual Alliance was welcomed by nationalists in Germany, who believed that German-speaking Austria should be absorbed into greater Germany.

The Triple Alliance (1882)

This complex three-way alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy was motivated chiefly by anti-French and anti-Russian suspicions and sentiment.

Each of the three signatories to the Triple Alliance was required to provide military support to the others, if one was attacked by two other powers - or if Germany and Italy were attacked by France.

Italy, a newly formed nation that was weak militarily, was viewed as a minor partner in this alliance.

The Franco-Russian Alliance (1894)

This military alliance between France and Russia restored cordial relations between the two imperial powers. It was, in effect, a response to the Triple Alliance, which had isolated France.

The signing of the Franco-Russian Alliance was an unexpected development that thwarted German plans for mainland Europe. The alliance angered Berlin and triggered a more aggressive shift in its foreign policy.

The Franco-Russian Alliance also provided economic benefits to both signatory nations. It gave Russia access to French loans and provided French capitalists with access to Russian mining, industry and raw materials. This was an important factor in the industrialisation of Russia over the next two decades.

The Entente Cordiale (1904)

Meaning 'friendly agreement', the Entente Cordiale was a series of negotiations and agreements between Britain and France, finalised in 1904.

The Entente ended a century of hostility between the two cross-channel neighbours. It also resolved some colonial disagreements and other minor but lingering disputes.

The Entente was not a military alliance since neither signatory was obliged to provide military support for the other. Nevertheless, it was seen as the first step towards an Anglo-French military alliance.

The Anglo-Russian Entente (1907)

This agreement between Britain and Russia eased tensions and restored good relations between London and Saint Petersburg.

Britain and Russia had spent much of the 19th century as antagonists. They went to war in the Crimea (1853-56) and later twice neared the brink of war.

The Anglo-Russian Entente resolved several points of disagreement, including the status of colonial possessions in the Middle East and Asia. It did not involve any military commitment or support.

The Triple Entente (1907)

This treaty consolidated the Entente Cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Entente into a three-way agreement between Britain, France and Russia.

Again, The Triple Entente was not a military alliance - but the three Ententes of 1904-7 were important because they marked the end of British neutrality and isolationism.

Secrecy and hidden clauses

Unlike most multilateral agreements today, these alliances and ententes were formulated behind closed doors and only revealed to the public after signing.

Some governments even conducted negotiations without informing their other alliance partners. The German chancellor Bismarck, for example, initiated alliance negotiations with Russia in 1887 without informing Germany's major ally, Austria-Hungary.

Some alliances also contained 'secret clauses' that were not publicly announced or placed on record. Several of these secret clauses only became known to the public after the end of World War I. The secretive nature of alliances only heightened suspicion and continental tensions.

Secret clauses

An additional factor in the outbreak of war were changes to European alliances in the years prior to 1914. A clause inserted into the Dual Alliance in 1910, for example, required Germany to directly intervene if Austro-Hungary was ever attacked by Russia.

These modifications were ostensibly small but they further strengthened and militarised alliances. It is debatable whether these changes increased the chances of war or simply reflected the rising tensions of the period.

The impact of the alliance system as a cause of war is often overstated. Alliances did not, as is often suggested, make war inevitable. These pacts and treaties did not disempower sovereign governments or drag nations into war against their own will.

The authority and final decision to mobilise or declare war still rested with national leaders. It was their moral commitment to these alliances that was the telling factor. As historian Hew Strachan put it, the real problem was that by 1914, "nobody was prepared to fight wholeheartedly for peace as an end in itself".

A historian's view:
"Models of the war's causality have often expressed contemporary international relations. During the Cold War and the division of the world into two, there was a tendency to view international relations before 1914 as bipolar, and divided between two rigidly separated and rival blocs in which power, prestige and security were key determinants; and in which emphasis was placed on the alliance system in the war's causes... Analysis turned on how far war was accidental (or 'system generated') and how far it was willed by governments."
John Horne

1. The alliance system was a network of treaties, agreements and ententes that were negotiated and signed prior to 1914.

2. National tensions and rivalries have made alliances a common feature of European politics, however, the alliance system became particularly extensive in the late 1800s.

3. Many of these alliances were negotiated in secret or contained secret clauses, adding to the suspicion and tension that existed in pre-war Europe.

4. The Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) formed the basis of the Central Powers, the dominant alliance bloc in central Europe.

5. Britain, France and Russia overcame their historical conflicts and tensions to form a three-way entente in the early 1900s.

Title: "Alliances as a cause of World War I"
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/alliances/
Date published: August 9, 2017
Date accessed: August 07, 2023
Copyright: The content on this page may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Probably the best-known cause of World War I was the system of alliances that developed in pre-war Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World War I, known as the "war to end all wars," occurred between July 1914 and November 11, 1918. By the end of the war, over 17 million people had been killed, including over 100,000 American troops. While the causes of the war are infinitely more complicated than a simple timeline of events, and are still debated and discussed to this day, the list below provides an overview of the most frequently-cited events that led to war.

Mutual Defense Alliances

Countries throughout the world have always made mutual defense agreements with their neighbors, treaties that could pull them into battle. These treaties meant that if one country was attacked, the allied countries were bound to defend them. Before World War 1 began, the following alliances existed:

Russia and Serbia

Germany and Austria-Hungary

France and Russia

Britain and France and Belgium

Japan and Britain

When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia got involved to defend Serbia. Germany, seeing that Russia was mobilizing, declared war on Russia. France was then drawn in against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany attacked France by marching through Belgium pulling Britain into war. Then Japan entered the war to support its British allies. Later, Italy and the United States would enter on the side of the Allies (Britain, France, Russia, etc.).

Imperialism

Imperialism is when a country increases their power and wealth by bringing additional territories under their control, usually without outright colonizing or resettling them. Before World War I, several European countries had made competing imperialistic claims in Africa and parts of Asia, making them points of contention. Because of the raw materials these areas could provide, tensions around which country had the right to exploit these areas ran high. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I.

Militarism

As the world entered the 20th century, an arms race had begun, primarily over the number of each country's warships, and the increasing size of their armies-countries began training more and more of their young men to be prepared for battle. The warships themselves increased in size, number of guns, speed, method of propulsion, and quality armor, beginning in 1906 with Britain's HMS Dreadnought. Dreadnoughtwas soon out-classed as the Royal Navy and Kaiserliche Marine quickly expanded their ranks with increasingly modern and powerful warships.

By 1914, Germany had nearly 100 warships and two million trained soldiers. Great Britain and Germany both greatly increased their navies in this time period. Further, in Germany and Russia particularly, the military establishment began to have a greater influence on public policy. This increase in militarism helped push the countries involved into war.

Nationalism

Much of the origin of the war was based on the desire of the Slavic peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to no longer be part of Austria-Hungary but instead be part of Serbia. This specific essentially nationalistic and ethnic revolt led directly to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which was the event that tipped the scales to war.

But more generally, nationalism in many of the countries throughout Europe contributed not only to the beginning but to the extension of the war across Europe and into Asia. As each country tried to prove their dominance and power, the war became more complicated and prolonged.

Immediate Cause: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

The immediate cause of World War I that made the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, and nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. In June 1914, a Serbian-nationalist terrorist group called the Black Hand sent groups to assassinate the Archduke. Their first attempt failed when a driver avoided a grenade thrown at their car. However, later that day a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip shot the Archduke and his wife while they were driving through Sarajevo, Bosnia which was part of Austria-Hungary. They died of their wounds.

The assassination was in protest to Austria-Hungary having control of this region: Serbia wanted to take over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The assassination of Ferdinand led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. When Russia began to mobilize to defend its alliance with Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia. Thus began the expansion of the war to include all those involved in the mutual defense alliances.

The War to End All Wars

World War I saw a change in warfare, from the hand-to-hand style of older wars to the inclusion of weapons that used technology and removed the individual from close combat. The war had extremely high casualties over 15 million dead and 20 million injured. The face of warfare would never be the same again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Top 5 Causes That Led to World War I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World War I, known as the "war to end all wars," occurred between July 1914 and November 11, 1918. By the end of the war, over 17 million people had been killed, including over 100,000 American troops.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 4 M-A-I-N Causes of World War One in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Militarism is a belief or system where the military is exalted and its needs and considerations are given excessive importance or priority. Militarism was a powerful force in 19th and early 20th century Europe. While militarism alone did not start World War I, it fuelled a potent arms race and undermined the role of diplomacy as a means of resolving disputes.

Defining militarism

Militarism is a philosophy or system that emphasises the importance of military power. Alfred Vagts, a German historian who served in World War I, defined it as the "domination of the military man over the civilian, an undue preponderance of military demands, an emphasis on military considerations".

In militaristic nations, generals and admirals often act as de facto government ministers or officials, advising political leaders and influencing domestic policy. Not surprisingly, this leads to significant increases in defence and arms spending.

Late 19th and early 20th-century militarism fuelled an arms race that gave rise to new military technologies and increased defence spending. Militarism also shaped culture, the press and public opinion. Newspapers held up military leaders as heroes, painted rival nations as dangerous aggressors and regularly speculated about the possibility of war.

The other 'isms'

Militarism and two other 'isms', nationalism and imperialism, were all intrinsically connected. They were systems, ideologies or ways of thinking that reinforced and strengthened each other.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, military power was considered a measure of national and imperial strength. A powerful state needed a powerful military to protect its interests and support its policies. Strong armies and navies were needed to defend the homeland, to protect imperial and trade interests abroad and to deter threats.

War was avoided where possible - but it could also be used to advance a nation's political or economic interests. As the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote in 1832, war was "a continuation of policy by other means".

In the 19th century European mind, politics and military power became inseparable, much like politics and economic management have become inseparable in the modern world. Governments and leaders who failed to maintain armies and navies to protect the national interest were considered weak or incompetent.

Prussian militarism

The German-speaking Kingdom of Prussia is considered the wellspring of European militarism. Prior to the unification of Germany in 1871, Prussia was the most powerful of the German kingdoms. After unification, the German government and armed forces were based on the Prussian model and many German politicians and generals were Junkers (land-owning Prussian nobles).

The Prussian army was reformed and modernised in the 1850s by Field Marshal von Moltke the Elder. Under von Moltke's leadership, Prussia's army implemented new strategies, improved training for its officers, introduced advanced weaponry and adopted more efficient means of command and communication.

Prussia's crushing military defeat of France in 1871 proved its army as the most dangerous and effective military force in Europe. This victory also secured German unification, meaning that Prussian militarism and German nationalism became closely intertwined.

Prussian commanders, personnel and methodology became the nucleus of the new German imperial army. The German Kaiser was its supreme commander; he relied on a military council and chief of general staff, made up of Junker aristocrats and career officers. When it came to military matters, the Reichstag (Germany's elected civilian parliament) had no more than an advisory role.

Militarism elsewhere

Elsewhere in Europe, militarism was more restrained and less flagrant, yet it remained a potent political and cultural force.

British militarism was more subdued than its German counterpart but nevertheless still evidence. Military power was considered essential for maintaining Britain's imperial and trade interests. The Royal Navy, by far the world's largest naval force, was engaged in protecting shipping, trade routes and colonial ports. British land forces kept order and imposed imperial policies in India, Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

British attitudes to the military underwent a stark transformation during the 1800s. During the previous century, many Britons considered armies and navies a necessary evil. Their ranks were filled with the dregs of the lower classes, their officers were often failed aristocrats and neer-do-wells. These attitudes had changed by the mid-19th century, with soldiering seen more as a noble vocation, a selfless act of service to one's country. As in Germany, British soldiers were glorified and romanticised in the press and popular culture.

Whether serving in Crimea or the distant colonies, British officers were hailed as gentlemen and sterling leaders. Enlisted men were well-drilled, resolute and ready to make the ultimate sacrifice 'for King and Country'. The concept of soldiers as heroes was epitomised by Tennyson's 1854 poem The Charge of the Light Brigade and reflected in cheap 'derring-do' novels about foreign wars and battles, both real and imagined.

Military modernisation

Military victories, whether in colonial wars or major conflicts like the Crimean War (1853-56) or the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), only increased the prestige of European militaries and further intensified nationalism.

In contrast, a military defeat (such as Russia 's defeat by Japan in 1905) or even a costly victory (like Britain in the Boer War, 1899-1902) might expose problems and heighten calls for military reform or increased spending.

Virtually every major European nation engaged in some form of military reform and renewal in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In Germany, military expansion and modernisation were heartily endorsed by the newly crowned Kaiser, Wilhelm II, who wanted to claim his country's "place in the sun".

In Britain, the arms race was driven not by the monarchy but by public interest and the press. In 1884 the prominent newspaperman W. T. Stead published a series of articles suggesting that Britain was unprepared for war, particularly in its naval defences. Pressure groups like the British Navy League (formed 1894) agitated for more ships and personnel. By the early 1900s, the Navy League and the press were calling on the government to commission more Dreadnoughts (battleships). One popular slogan was "We want eight [Dreadnoughts] and we won't wait!"

The arms race

As a consequence, European military expenditure between 1900 and 1914 sky-rocketed. In 1870 the combined military spending of the six great powers (Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy) totalled the equivalent of £94 million. By 1914, it had quadrupled to £398 million.

German defence spending during this period increased by a massive 73 per cent, dwarfing the increases in France (10 per cent) and Britain (13 per cent). Between 1898 and 1912, the German government passed five different Fleet Acts to expand the country's naval power.

Russian defence spending also grew by more than one third. Russia's embarrassing defeat by the Japanese (1905) prompted the tsar to order a massive rearmament program. By the 1910s, around 45 per cent of Russian government spending was allocated to the armed forces, in comparison to just five per cent on education.

Military expansion

Every major European power, Britain excluded, introduced or increased conscription to expand their armies. Germany added 170,000 full-time soldiers to its army in 1913-14 while dramatically increasing its navy.

In 1898, the German government's fourth Fleet Act ordered the construction of 17 new vessels. Berlin also led the way in the construction of military submarines; by 1914 the German navy had 29 operational U-boats. This rapid growth in German naval power triggered a press frenzy and alarm in Britain. London responded to German naval expansion by commissioning 29 new ships for the Royal Navy.

The following table lists estimated defence and military spending in seven major nations between 1908 and 1913 (figures shown in United States dollars):

New technologies and weapons

This period saw significant changes to the quality of military weapons and equipment, as well as their quantity. This not only made these weapons more powerful and more deadly but they could be mass-produced at staggering levels. Sir Edward Grey, reflecting on his service as British foreign secretary in July 1914, said that:

"A great European war under modern conditions would be a catastrophe for which previous wars afforded no precedent. In old days, nations could collect only portions of their men and resources at a time and dribble them out by degrees. Under modern conditions, whole nations could be mobilised at once and their whole lifeblood and resources poured out in a torrent. Instead of a few hundreds of thousands of men meeting each other in war, millions would now meet - and modern weapons would multiply manifold the power of destruction. The financial strain and the expenditure of wealth would be incredible."

After studying the lessons of the Crimean War and other 19th century conflicts, military industrialists developed hundreds of improvements and rushed them to patent. The most significant changes improved the calibre, range, accuracy and portability of heavy artillery. During the American Civil War (1861-65), heavy artillery could fire up to 2.5 kilometres (1.5 miles) at best. By the early 1900s, this range had almost tripled.

Explosive shells were developed, giving single artillery rounds greater killing power wherever they landed. These advances allowed artillery shelling and bombardments to become standard practice along the Western Front during World War I.

First developed in 1881, machine guns also became smaller, lighter, more accurate, more reliable and much faster, some capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute.

Small arms also improved significantly. The effective range of a rifle in the 1860s was around 400 metres. In contrast, the British issue Lee-Enfield .303 could hit a target more than two kilometres away.

Barbed wire, an invention of the 1860s, was also embraced by military strategists as an anti-personnel device. While historians often disagree on the reasons for the arms race, there is no doubt that the development of this new weaponry changed the face of modern warfare.

A historian's view:
"The belief in war as a test of national power and a proof of national superiority added a scientific base to the cult of patriotism... In Britain, a real effort was made to teach boys that success in war depended upon the patriotism and military spirit of the nation, and that preparation for war would strengthen 'manly virtue' and 'patriotic ardour'."
Zara Steiner

1. Militarism is the incorporation of military ideas, priorities and personnel into civilian government - and a belief that military power is essential for national strength.

2. Militarism was strongest in Germany, where the Kaiser relied heavily on his military commanders and the civilian legislature ( Reichstag) exerted little or no control over the military.

3. Militarists were also driven by experiences and failures in previous wars, such as the Crimean War, Boer War and Russo-Japanese War.

4. Militarism, combined with new weapons, emerging technologies and developments in industrial production, fuelled a European arms race in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

5. Influenced by nationalism and advice from military commanders, European governments ramped up military spending, purchasing new weaponry and increasing the size of armies and navies.

Title: "Militarism as a cause of World War I"
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/militarism/
Date published: September 21, 2020
Date accessed: January 31, 2021
Copyright: The content on this page may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Militarism is a belief or system where the military is exalted and its needs and considerations are given excessive importance or priority. Militarism was a powerful force in 19th and early 20th century Europe. While militarism alone did not start World War I, it fuelled a potent arms race and undermined the role of diplomacy as a means of resolving disputes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's possibly the single most pondered question in history - what caused World War One? It wasn't, like in World War Two, a case of a single belligerent pushing others to take a military stand. It didn't have the moral vindication of resisting a tyrant.

Rather, a delicate but toxic balance of structural forces created a dry tinder that was lit by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. That event precipitated the July Crisis, which saw the major European powers hurtle toward open conflict.

M-A-I-N

The M-A-I-N acronym - militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism - is often used to analyse the war, and each of these reasons are cited to be the 4 main causes of World War One. It's simplistic but provides a useful framework.

Militarism

The late nineteenth century was an era of military competition, particularly between the major European powers. The policy of building a stronger military was judged relative to neighbours, creating a culture of paranoia that heightened the search for alliances. It was fed by the cultural belief that war is good for nations.

Germany in particular looked to expand its navy. However, the 'naval race' was never a real contest - the British always s maintained naval superiority. But the British obsession with naval dominance was strong. Government rhetoric exaggerated military expansionism. A simple naivety in the potential scale and bloodshed of a European war prevented several governments from checking their aggression.

Alliances

A web of alliances developed in Europe between 1870 and 1914, effectively creating two camps bound by commitments to maintain sovereignty or intervene militarily - the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance.

The Triple Alliance of 1882 linked Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.

The Triple Entente of 1907 linked France, Britain and Russia.

A historic point of conflict between Austria Hungary and Russia was over their incompatible Balkan interests, and France had a deep suspicion of Germany rooted in their defeat in the 1870 war.

The alliance system primarily came about because after 1870 Germany, under Bismarck, set a precedent by playing its neighbours' imperial endeavours off one another, in order to maintain a balance of power within Europe

Imperialism

Imperial competition also pushed the countries towards adopting alliances. Colonies were units of exchange that could be bargained without significantly affecting the metro-pole. They also brought nations who would otherwise not interact into conflict and agreement. For example, the Russo-Japanese War (1905) over aspirations in China, helped bring the Triple Entente into being.

It has been suggested that Germany was motivated by imperial ambitions to invade Belgium and France. Certainly the expansion of the British and French empires, fired by the rise of industrialism and the pursuit of new markets, caused some resentment in Germany, and the pursuit of a short, aborted imperial policy in the late nineteenth century.

However the suggestion that Germany wanted to create a European empire in 1914 is not supported by the pre-war rhetoric and strategy.

Nationalism

Nationalism was also a new and powerful source of tension in Europe. It was tied to militarism, and clashed with the interests of the imperial powers in Europe. Nationalism created new areas of interest over which nations could compete.

For example, The Habsburg empire was tottering agglomeration of 11 different nationalities, with large slavic populations in Galicia and the Balkans whose nationalist aspirations ran counter to imperial cohesion. Nationalism in the Balkan's also piqued Russia's historic interest in the region.

Indeed, Serbian nationalism created the trigger cause of the conflict - the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The spark: the assassination

Ferdinand and his wife were murdered in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Bosnian Serbian nationalist terrorist organization the 'Black Hand Gang.' Ferdinand's death, which was interpreted as a product of official Serbian policy, created the July Crisis - a month of diplomatic and governmental miscalculations that saw a domino effect of war declarations initiated.

The historical dialogue on this issue is vast and distorted by substantial biases. Vague and undefined schemes of reckless expansion were imputed to the German leadership in the immediate aftermath of the war with the 'war-guilt' clause. The notion that Germany was bursting with newfound strength, proud of her abilities and eager to showcase them, was overplayed.

The almost laughable rationalization of British imperial power as 'necessary' or 'civilizing' didn't translate to German imperialism, which was 'aggressive' and 'expansionist.' There is an on-going historical discussion on who if anyone was most culpable.

Blame has been directed at every single combatant at one point or another, and some have said that all the major governments considered a golden opportunity for increasing popularity at home.

The Schlieffen plan could be blamed for bringing Britain into the war, the scale of the war could be blamed on Russia as the first big country to mobilise, inherent rivalries between imperialism and capitalism could be blamed for polarising the combatants. AJP Taylor's 'timetable theory' emphasises the delicate, highly complex plans involved in mobilization which prompted ostensibly aggressive military preparations.

Every point has some merit, but in the end what proved most devastating was the combination of an alliance network with the widespread, misguided belief that war is good for nations, and that the best way to fight a modern war was to attack. That the war was inevitable is questionable, but certainly the notion of glorious war, of war as a good for nation-building, was strong pre-1914. By the end of the war, it was dead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's possibly the single most pondered question in history - what caused World War One? It wasn't, like in World War Two, a case of a single belligerent pushing others to take a military stand. It didn't have the moral vindication of resisting a tyrant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nationalism as a Cause of World War I | Facts & Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nationalism can be defined as a deep sense of patriotism. Nationalists hold their country in high regard and place its interests above those of other nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Six Causes of World War I

The First World War began in the summer of 1914, shortly after the assassination of Austria's Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, and lasted more than four years, ending in 1918. The Great War left more than 20 million soldiers dead and 21 million more wounded, which can be attributed to trench warfare and the number of countries involved in the war. For aspiring historians, understanding the causes of World War I are equally as important as understanding the conflict's devastating effects. Though the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the direct precipitating event leading to the declaration of war, there were many other factors that also played a role in leading up to World War I (WWI).

European Expansionism

In the 1900s, several European nations had empires across the globe, where they had control over vast swaths of lands. Prior to World War I, the British and French Empires were the world's most powerful, colonizing regions like India, modern-day Vietnam and West and North Africa. The expansion of European nations as empires (also known as imperialism) can be seen as a key cause of World War I, because as countries like Britain and France expanded their empires, it resulted in increased tensions among European countries. The tensions were a result of many colonies often being acquired through coercion. Then, once a nation had been conquered, it was governed by the imperial nation: many of these colonial nations were exploited by their mother countries, and dissatisfaction and resentment was commonplace. As British and French expansionism continued, tensions rose between opposing empires, including Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, leading to the creation of the Allied Powers (Britain and France) and Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) during World War I.

Serbian Nationalism

Nationalism was one of many political forces at play in the time leading up to World War I, with Serbian nationalism in particular, playing a key role. Serbian nationalism can be dated to the mid- and late-1800s, though two precipitating nationalism events are directly linked to the start of WWI. In the Balkans, Slavic Serbs sought independence from Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and in 1878, they tried to gain control of Bosnia and Herzegovina to form a unified Serbian state. With the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Serbian nationalism continued to rise, culminating in the assassination of the Archduke of Austria in 1914 by a Bosnian Serb and officially triggering the start of the Great War.

The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand

On June 28, 1914, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip. Ferdinand was chosen as a target because he was to be the heir of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On the day of his assassination, the Archduke traveled to Sarajevo to inspect imperial armed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, former Ottoman territories acquired by Austria-Hungary in 1908. While Ferdinand was traveling in an open car in Sarajevo, Princip fired into the car, shooting Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. Following the assassination, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which was rejected and led Austria-Hungary to declare war against Serbia, with German support. Russia then came to Serbia's defense, therefore initiating the First World War.

Conflicts over Alliances

In the age of imperialism prior to World War I, countries throughout Europe had created alliances. The alliances promised that each country would support the other if war ever broke out between an ally and another Great Power. Prior to WWI, the alliances of Russia and Serbia; France and Russia; Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary; Britain, France and Belgium; France, Britain and Russia; and Japan and Britain were firmly in place. The alliance, between France, Britain and Russia, formed in 1907 and called the Triple Entente, caused the most friction among nations. Germany felt that this alliance surrounding them was a threat to their power and existence. As tensions continued to rise over alliances, the preexisting alliances fed into other countries declaring war against one another in the face of conflict. These conflicts over alliances - which forced nations to come to the defense of one another - led to the formation of the two sides of World War I, the Allied and Central Powers. By the start of the war, Italy and the United States entered on the side of the Allied Powers, which consisted of Russia, France and Great Britain. The Central Powers, alternately, consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.

The Blank Check Assurance: Conspired Plans of Germany and Austria-Hungary

The alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary at the start of World War I is also commonly known as the "blank check assurance." In July 1914, during a meeting between members of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, the Ambassador to Berlin, the German Emperor and the German Chancellor, Germany offered Austria-Hungary unconditional support in the wake of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. This "blank check," via unconditional support, sought military and political triumph in securing the Balkans. It also gave Austro-Hungarian leaders the confidence needed to embark on war against Serbia. Today, historians regard it as one of the most controversial decisions in the history of modern warfare, particularly because Germany failed to withdraw the unconditional support when given the opportunity. It is also widely recognized as one of the main reasons Germany is seen as responsible for the escalation and continuation of World War I.

Germany Millenarianism - Spirit of 1914

Millenarianism is a belief held by a religious, political or social group or movement that a coming major transformation will occur, after which all things will be changed. For Germany, leading into World War I, historians report that the Spirit of 1914 was high, with support from the German population for participation in the war. The German government believed that the onset of war and its support of Austria-Hungary was a way to secure its place as a leading power, which was supported by public nationalism and further united it behind the monarchy. The success Germans saw in the opening battles of WWI provided a platform for the German government to position itself as able to accomplish more when unified and nationalistic. However, this millenarianism was short-lived, as Germany was unprepared to fight the long war, which took a dramatic and demoralizing toll on its people and later set the stage for the rise of the Third Reich, less than two decades later.

Following the events above, World War I moved into full force from 1914 through 1918, ending when peace was brokered between the German and Central Forces and the Allied Powers with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. However, this treaty forced punitive measures on Germany that further destabilized Europe and laid the groundwork for the start of World War II. By understanding the causes of World War I, historians can develop a keen comprehension of how and why this devastating conflict began.

Norwich University is an important part of American history. Established in 1819, Norwich is a nationally recognized institution of higher education, the birthplace of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), and the first private military college in the United States.

With Norwich University's online Master of Arts in History program, you can enhance your awareness of differing historical viewpoints while developing the skills needed to refine your research, writing, analysis, and presentation skills. The program offers concentration in Public History, American History, World History and Legal and Constitutional History, allowing you to tailor your studies to your interests and goals.

Our Master of Arts in History program is led by expert doctorate faculty and dedicated staff members. Through their leadership, the program introduces you to the major historical themes and debates in the field of study. Our staff members provide additional support, guiding you from day one to graduation.

We have an in-house instructional design team that work hand-in-hand with program faculty and staff to ensure an efficient and interactive online learning experience in each course.

Recommended Readings:
History of American Propaganda Posters
5 Key Cold War Events
Career Outlook: History Professor
Sources:
Outbreak of World War I, History

Imperialism as a Cause of World War I, Alpha History

World War I: A History, Google Books

The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany, Google Books

Germany's Blank Cheque to Austria-Hungary, International Encyclopedia

The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Google Books

Archduke Ferdinand Assassinated, History

Nationalism, International Encyclopedia

Imperialism, International Encyclopedia

German trenches on the Aisne, Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First World War began in the summer of 1914, shortly after the assassination of Austria's Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, and lasted more than four years, ending in 1918. The Great War left more than 20 million soldiers dead and 21 million more wounded, which can be attributed to trench warfare and the number of countries involved in the war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How long did World War I last? Who fought whom? Journey through the story of the Great War with our Interactive WWI Timeline, covering the world events of 1914‑1920.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World War I World War 1 (also called The Great War) started on July 28th 1914, you can read the article on the Causes of the War below which will give you a better understanding. War is never nice and a lot of people lost their lives in the battels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Featured

For four years, from 1914 to 1918, World War I raged across Europe's western and eastern fronts after growing tensions and then the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria ignited the war. Trench warfare and the early use of tanks, submarines and airplanes meant the war's battles were devastatingly bloody, claiming an estimated 40 [...]
Read more Read more about World War I Battles: Timeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World War I: Causes and Timeline | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World War I was fought from 1914 to 1918. Learn more about World War I combatants, battles and generals, and what caused World War I.