# data[].attributes.body
German Aggression Responsible for Ww1 - 1501 Words | Bartleby. (2023). Bartleby.com. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/German-Aggression-Responsible-for-Ww1-P3ZJUELKRZZA

‌Lind, M. (2014, June 30). Germany’s Superpower Quest Caused World War I. The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/germanys-superpower-quest-caused-world-war-i-10778

The. (2023). Historpedia - The Origins of World War I: How Responsible Was Germany? (Fall 2012). Google.com. https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/historpedia/home/politics-and-government/the-origins-of-world-war-i-how-responsible-was-germany-fall-2012?pli=1

Board, E. (2018, July 19). Between Empire and Continent. British Foreign Policy before the First World War. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. https://trafo.hypotheses.org/10669

‌Lind, M. (2014, June 30). Germany’s Superpower Quest Caused World War I. The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/germanys-superpower-quest-caused-world-war-i-10778

‌The. (2023). Historpedia - The Origins of World War I: How Responsible Was Germany? (Fall 2012). Google.com. https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/historpedia/home/politics-and-government/the-origins-of-world-war-i-how-responsible-was-germany-fall-2012

‌

‌

# data[].attributes.body
The basic cause of the war was the Slavic peoples' desire for land. Nationalism was prevalent in Europe at that time, and each country was keen on showcasing its power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How can I use this Causes of WW1 Worksheet with my class?

Teach your children how the First World War started with the Causes of WW1 Worksheet. This resource features fact files that will help develop your class's understanding of history as well as their reading comprehension.

Using the Causes of WW1 Worksheet couldn't be easier! All you have to do is download the resource, print and hey presto, your worksheet is ready to use. Just like all Twinkl resources, there are eco-friendly printing options available, so you don't have to empty your pockets for ink costs. You can also download just the WW1 Differentiated Fact File section of this resource.

Are there similar resources available?

There are a variety of relevant resources available to use once you and your class are finished with the Causes of WW1 Worksheet. If you're looking to further develop children's' understanding of WW1 then try the Why Did the First World War Start PowerPoint. It breaks down the information across a number of easy to digest slides, so you can explain it to your class clearly and confidently.

You can use this in conjunction with the First World War Timeline. Investigate the chronology of the First World War with this timeline which features all the key battles, developments and turning points of WW1. You can teach your students more about the soldiers of the First World War using this First World War British Soldier Labelling Activity.

When you're done informing your class then consider rewarding them with the First World War Map Colouring Activity. Test your students' knowledge with the colouring activity before going over the answers with our clear and colourful answer sheet. This Heugh Battery Museum Word Search Activity is also a great option in this sense, as it's both fun and handy as a revision tool.

What were the causes of WW1?

World War 1 was a global war that lasted between 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918. There are a lot of reasons that are widely believed to be the root causes for WW1, which include:
1. Mutual Defence Alliances
Countries throughout Europe made mutual agreements and alliances with one another that meant if one country was attacked, allied countries would come to their defence. Some of these alliances prior to WW1 included Russia & Serbia; Germany & Austria-Hungary; Japan & Britain. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, this led to a domino effect that lead to widespread warfare.
2. Imperialism
Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means. The increased desire for countries wanting to create and expand on an empire acted as a catalyst for WW1.
3. Militarism
Another way in which the countries involved were pushed into war was increased militarism. By the time WW1 began in 1914, countries like Germany and Great Britain had greatly increased their navies.
4. 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. Nationalism was wide spread across Europe with each country wanting to prove their power.
5. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
In June 1914, the Archduke of Austria-Hungary Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian terrorist group. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and, due to alliances, Russia came to their defence. This incident is widely seen as the most immediate cause for WW1, acting as a catalyst that brought these other causes to the forefront.

The above video may be from a third-party source. We accept no responsibility for any videos from third-party sources. Please let us know if the video is no longer working.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teach your children how the First World War started with the Causes of WW1 Worksheet. This resource features fact files that will help develop your class's understanding of history as well as their reading comprehension. Using the Causes of WW1 Worksheet couldn't be easier!

# data[].attributes.headline
Who Was to Blame for World War I? (Valentina, Hana)

# data[].attributes.subject
Who Was to Blame for World War I? (Valentina, Hana)

# data[].attributes.body
We think it is Austria-Hungary who should be blamed because the reason Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated was that he threatened Serbia and their independence, and because of the assassination they decided to declare war, which dragged their allies (Germany and Italy) and Serbia's allies (France, Britain, Russia) into their small conflict which became World War I.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.body
Wilhelm did not plan a war but supported the strong stance of Germany. But when it started he was not able to stop it. His army generals were too strong to be stopped.

When the war was lost, he did not resign. He was forced to escape to Netherlands. He did escape to not get in prison or to be killed in Germany after the war. Because of this he was not able to keep the power. Hi lived without power until he died in 1941.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

2. Emperor and King: 1888

3. Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

4. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

Wilhelm II (1859-1941), the German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, was one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews. While Wilhelm did not actively seek war, and tried to hold back his generals from mobilizing the German army in the summer of 1914, his verbal outbursts and his open enjoyment of the title of Supreme War Lord helped bolster the case of those who blamed him for the conflict. His role in the conduct of the war as well as his responsibility for its outbreak is still controversial.

Some historians maintain that Wilhelm was controlled by his generals, while others argue that he retained considerable political power. In late 1918, he was forced to abdicate. He spent the rest of his life in exile in the Netherlands, where he died at age 82.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

Kaiser Wilhelm II was born in Potsdam, Germany, on January 27, 1859, the son of Prince Frederick Wilhelm of Prussia (1831-88) and Princess Victoria (1840-1901), the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). The future monarch was the queen's firstborn grandchild and was genuinely fond of her; in fact, he was holding her in his arms when she died. His ties to Britain through its royal family would play an important part in his later political maneuvering.

Did you know? Kaiser Wilhelm II was reportedly amused when he heard his cousin King George V (1865-1936) had changed the name of the British royal family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917 as a result of anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I.

Wilhelm's childhood was shaped by two events, one medical and one political. His birth had been traumatic; in the course of a complicated delivery, the doctor permanently damaged Wilhelm's left arm. In addition to its smaller size, the arm was useless for such ordinary tasks as cutting certain foods with a knife at mealtime.

The political event that shaped Wilhelm was the formation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia in 1871. Wilhelm was now second in line after his father to become an emperor as well as king of Prussia. Twelve years old at the time, Wilhelm was filled with nationalistic enthusiasm. His later determination to win a "place in the sun" for Germany had its roots in his childhood.

An intelligent young man who possessed a lifelong interest in science and technology, Wilhelm was educated at the University of Bonn. His quick mind, however, was combined with an even quicker temper and an impulsive, high-strung personality. He had dysfunctional relationships with both parents, particularly his English mother. Historians still debate the effects of the kaiser's complicated psychological makeup on his political decisions.

In 1881, Wilhelm married Princess Augusta Victoria (1858-1921) of Schleswig-Holstein. The couple would go on to have seven children.

Emperor and King: 1888

Wilhelm's father became Kaiser Frederick III of Germany in March 1888. Already ill with terminal throat cancer, he died after a reign of only several months. Wilhelm succeeded his father on June 15, 1888, at the age of 29. Within two years of his coronation, Wilhelm broke with Otto von Bismarck (1815-98), the "Iron Chancellor" who had dominated German politics since the 1860s. The kaiser embarked on his so-called New Course, a period of personal rule in which he appointed chancellors who were upper-level civil servants rather than statesmen. Bismarck bitterly predicted that Wilhelm would lead Germany to ruin.

Wilhelm damaged his political position in a number of ways. He meddled in German foreign policy on the basis of his emotions, resulting in incoherence and inconsistency in German relations with other nations. He also made a number of public blunders, the worst of which was The Daily Telegraph affair of 1908. Wilhelm gave an interview to the London-based newspaper in which he offended the British by saying such things as: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." The kaiser had already been hurt politically in 1907 by the Eulenburg-Harden affair, in which members of his circle of friends were accused of being homosexuals. Although there is no evidence that Wilhelm was gay-in addition to his seven children with his first wife, he was rumored to have several illegitimate offspring-the scandal was used by his political opponents to weaken his influence.

Wilhelm's most important contribution to Germany's prewar military expansion was his commitment to creating a navy to rival Britain's. His childhood visits to his British cousins had given him a love for the sea-sailing was one of his favorite recreations-and his envy of the power of the British navy convinced him that Germany must build a large fleet of its own in order to fulfill its destiny. The kaiser supported the plans of Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930), his chief admiral, who maintained that Germany could gain diplomatic power over Britain by stationing a fleet of warships in the North Sea. By 1914, however, the naval buildup had caused severe financial problems for Wilhelm's government.

Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

Wilhelm's behavior during the crisis that led to war in August 1914 is still controversial. There is little doubt that he had been broken psychologically by the criticism that followed the Eulenburg-Harden and Daily Telegraph scandals; he suffered an episode of depression in 1908. In addition, the kaiser was out of touch with the realities of international politics in 1914; he thought that his blood relationships to other European monarchs were sufficient to manage the crisis that followed the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Although Wilhelm signed the order for German mobilization following pressure from his generals-Germany declared war against Russia and France during the first week of August 1914- he is reported to have said, "You will regret this, gentlemen."

With World War I under way, the kaiser, as commander in chief of the German armed forces, retained the power to make upper-level changes in military command. Nonetheless, he was largely a shadow monarch during the war, useful to his generals as a public-relations figure who toured the front lines and handed out medals. After 1916, Germany was, in effect, a military dictatorship dominated by two generals, Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) and Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937).

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

In late 1918, popular unrest in Germany (which had suffered greatly during the war) combined with a naval mutiny convinced civilian political leaders that the kaiser had to abdicate to preserve order. In fact, Wilhelm's abdication was announced on November 9, 1918, before he had actually consented to it. He agreed to leave when the leaders of the army told him he had lost their support as well. On November 10, the former emperor took a train across the border into the Netherlands, which had remained neutral throughout the war. He eventually bought a manor house in the town of Doorn, and remained there for the remainder of his life.

Although the Allies wanted to punish Wilhelm as a war criminal, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1880-1962) refused to extradite him. His last years were darkened by the death of his first wife and the suicide of his youngest son in 1920. He did, however, make a happy second marriage in 1922. His new wife, Hermine Reuss (1887-1947), actively petitioned German leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in the early 1930s to restore the monarchy, but nothing ever came of her negotiations. Hitler despised the man he held responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I, and Wilhelm was shocked by the Nazis' thuggish tactics. In 1938, Wilhelm remarked that for the first time he was ashamed to be a German. After two decades in exile, he died in the Netherlands on June 4, 1941, at the age of 82.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaiser Wilhelm II - WWI, Abdication & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilhelm II (1859-1941) was the last German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, and one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
People thought that his presence was an obstacle to peace alliances, forcing him to abdicate and causing him to move to Holland/Netherlands until his death in 1941.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II as King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany from 1888 to 1918 saw the meteoric rise of Germany as an economic and military power. It also saw the fragmentation of Europe into opposing camps of mutually-mistrusting alliances, a world war ending in Germany's humiliating defeat and the abolition of German monarchical rule. Wilhelm's life, actions and complex character played a significant part in this destructive process.

Utterly convinced of his right to rule, Wilhelm always overestimated his capacity for wise political judgment. His dismissal of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890 and ambitious aim to make Germany a world power served to disrupt the established balance of the European order.

He was Queen Victoria's first grandson, but his ambivalent, love-hate attitude to Britain strained relations between the two countries. His obsession with the enlargement of the German Navy, pro-Boer stance during the Second Boer War and blustering claims for German colonial expansion just brought Britain and France closer together. Wilhelm's paranoid fear of a deliberate encirclement of Germany served only to increase her isolation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Kaiser Wilhelm II Changed Europe Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II as King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany from 1888 to 1918 saw the meteoric rise of Germany as an economic and military power. It also saw the fragmentation of Europe into opposing camps of mutually-mistrusting alliances, a world war ending in Germany's humiliating defeat and the abolition of German monarchical rule.

# data[].attributes.body
He was the oldest son of the Emperor Frederick III and Victoria, daughter of queen of Great Britain. When he was born his left hand was not developed well. His father was not a strong emperor. His mother was the one who was strong. Mother was trying to make him English gentleman but it did not work and he became not liking england.

He got married in 1881 and had 7 children.

IN 1888 his grandfather and his father became emperor. His father already had cancer and was dying at the time and Wilhelm became emperor soon at the age of 29.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

2. Emperor and King: 1888

3. Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

4. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

Wilhelm II (1859-1941), the German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, was one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews. While Wilhelm did not actively seek war, and tried to hold back his generals from mobilizing the German army in the summer of 1914, his verbal outbursts and his open enjoyment of the title of Supreme War Lord helped bolster the case of those who blamed him for the conflict. His role in the conduct of the war as well as his responsibility for its outbreak is still controversial.

Some historians maintain that Wilhelm was controlled by his generals, while others argue that he retained considerable political power. In late 1918, he was forced to abdicate. He spent the rest of his life in exile in the Netherlands, where he died at age 82.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

Kaiser Wilhelm II was born in Potsdam, Germany, on January 27, 1859, the son of Prince Frederick Wilhelm of Prussia (1831-88) and Princess Victoria (1840-1901), the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). The future monarch was the queen's firstborn grandchild and was genuinely fond of her; in fact, he was holding her in his arms when she died. His ties to Britain through its royal family would play an important part in his later political maneuvering.

Did you know? Kaiser Wilhelm II was reportedly amused when he heard his cousin King George V (1865-1936) had changed the name of the British royal family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917 as a result of anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I.

Wilhelm's childhood was shaped by two events, one medical and one political. His birth had been traumatic; in the course of a complicated delivery, the doctor permanently damaged Wilhelm's left arm. In addition to its smaller size, the arm was useless for such ordinary tasks as cutting certain foods with a knife at mealtime.

The political event that shaped Wilhelm was the formation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia in 1871. Wilhelm was now second in line after his father to become an emperor as well as king of Prussia. Twelve years old at the time, Wilhelm was filled with nationalistic enthusiasm. His later determination to win a "place in the sun" for Germany had its roots in his childhood.

An intelligent young man who possessed a lifelong interest in science and technology, Wilhelm was educated at the University of Bonn. His quick mind, however, was combined with an even quicker temper and an impulsive, high-strung personality. He had dysfunctional relationships with both parents, particularly his English mother. Historians still debate the effects of the kaiser's complicated psychological makeup on his political decisions.

In 1881, Wilhelm married Princess Augusta Victoria (1858-1921) of Schleswig-Holstein. The couple would go on to have seven children.

Emperor and King: 1888

Wilhelm's father became Kaiser Frederick III of Germany in March 1888. Already ill with terminal throat cancer, he died after a reign of only several months. Wilhelm succeeded his father on June 15, 1888, at the age of 29. Within two years of his coronation, Wilhelm broke with Otto von Bismarck (1815-98), the "Iron Chancellor" who had dominated German politics since the 1860s. The kaiser embarked on his so-called New Course, a period of personal rule in which he appointed chancellors who were upper-level civil servants rather than statesmen. Bismarck bitterly predicted that Wilhelm would lead Germany to ruin.

Wilhelm damaged his political position in a number of ways. He meddled in German foreign policy on the basis of his emotions, resulting in incoherence and inconsistency in German relations with other nations. He also made a number of public blunders, the worst of which was The Daily Telegraph affair of 1908. Wilhelm gave an interview to the London-based newspaper in which he offended the British by saying such things as: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." The kaiser had already been hurt politically in 1907 by the Eulenburg-Harden affair, in which members of his circle of friends were accused of being homosexuals. Although there is no evidence that Wilhelm was gay-in addition to his seven children with his first wife, he was rumored to have several illegitimate offspring-the scandal was used by his political opponents to weaken his influence.

Wilhelm's most important contribution to Germany's prewar military expansion was his commitment to creating a navy to rival Britain's. His childhood visits to his British cousins had given him a love for the sea-sailing was one of his favorite recreations-and his envy of the power of the British navy convinced him that Germany must build a large fleet of its own in order to fulfill its destiny. The kaiser supported the plans of Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930), his chief admiral, who maintained that Germany could gain diplomatic power over Britain by stationing a fleet of warships in the North Sea. By 1914, however, the naval buildup had caused severe financial problems for Wilhelm's government.

Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

Wilhelm's behavior during the crisis that led to war in August 1914 is still controversial. There is little doubt that he had been broken psychologically by the criticism that followed the Eulenburg-Harden and Daily Telegraph scandals; he suffered an episode of depression in 1908. In addition, the kaiser was out of touch with the realities of international politics in 1914; he thought that his blood relationships to other European monarchs were sufficient to manage the crisis that followed the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Although Wilhelm signed the order for German mobilization following pressure from his generals-Germany declared war against Russia and France during the first week of August 1914- he is reported to have said, "You will regret this, gentlemen."

With World War I under way, the kaiser, as commander in chief of the German armed forces, retained the power to make upper-level changes in military command. Nonetheless, he was largely a shadow monarch during the war, useful to his generals as a public-relations figure who toured the front lines and handed out medals. After 1916, Germany was, in effect, a military dictatorship dominated by two generals, Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) and Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937).

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

In late 1918, popular unrest in Germany (which had suffered greatly during the war) combined with a naval mutiny convinced civilian political leaders that the kaiser had to abdicate to preserve order. In fact, Wilhelm's abdication was announced on November 9, 1918, before he had actually consented to it. He agreed to leave when the leaders of the army told him he had lost their support as well. On November 10, the former emperor took a train across the border into the Netherlands, which had remained neutral throughout the war. He eventually bought a manor house in the town of Doorn, and remained there for the remainder of his life.

Although the Allies wanted to punish Wilhelm as a war criminal, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1880-1962) refused to extradite him. His last years were darkened by the death of his first wife and the suicide of his youngest son in 1920. He did, however, make a happy second marriage in 1922. His new wife, Hermine Reuss (1887-1947), actively petitioned German leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in the early 1930s to restore the monarchy, but nothing ever came of her negotiations. Hitler despised the man he held responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I, and Wilhelm was shocked by the Nazis' thuggish tactics. In 1938, Wilhelm remarked that for the first time he was ashamed to be a German. After two decades in exile, he died in the Netherlands on June 4, 1941, at the age of 82.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaiser Wilhelm II - WWI, Abdication & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilhelm II (1859-1941) was the last German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, and one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
Kaiser Wilhelm was the emperor of Germany from 1888 until the end of WWI in 1918. He was a self-centered person and was determined to build Germany’s empire. He seemed jealous of the British Empire’s size, as he created a navy to defeat Britain’s navy. Although he denied that Germany was challenging Britain’s domination of the seas, Wilhelm attempted multiple attacks on the British navy with clear evidence.

Kaiser Wilhelm didn’t want to admit the fact that Germany lost in 1918, and soon realizing that the fact caused his loss of the throne, he refused to abdicate.

Kaiser Wilhelm's support of Austria-Hungary was one of the main causes of WWI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
William II - WWI Kaiser, German Emperor, War Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
William II - WWI Kaiser, German Emperor, War Leader: What began as an attempt to save Austria-Hungary from collapse, World War I was transformed into a world conflict by Germany. William, having encouraged the Austrians to adopt an uncompromising line, took fright when he found war impending but was not able to halt the implementation of the mobilization measures that he had allowed his generals to prepare. During the war, although nominally supreme commander, William did not attempt to resist his generals when they kept its conduct in their own hands. He encouraged, instead of challenging, the grandiose war aims of the generals and of many politicians that ruled

# data[].attributes.body
Many historians believe that German aggression was one of the responsible conditions that let to war. Germany thought that they would likely benefit from war. As the strongest military in Europe, Germany could have took action to prevent war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The topic regarding the origins of World War I is one of the most studied, debated, and disagreed-upon among historians. The question most frequently asked is, "Was Germany primarily responsible for the start of World War I?" Most historians recognize that the immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist in July, 1914. Most also believe that this incident would not have led to a world war by itself, but that the war was caused by series of interconnected events dating back at least four decades, creating an atmosphere that made war likely, or even inevitable. These causes included nationalism, militarism (an "arms race"), the complex system of strategic and military alliances, the economic and strategic effect of imperialism and social unrest as well as the lack of effective leadership among the nations of Europe. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether German policies and actions were more responsible than other factors for the origin of World War I.

Historians who believe Germany was primarily responsible for the war base their conclusion on the aggressive attitude of Germany's leaders, their desire to extend Germany's influence throughout Europe, and on the militaristic nature of the German people. The German Empire, founded in 1870 by Otto von Bismarck, was based on a strong sense of nationalism. Animosity between France and Germany existed during Bismarck's time, but Germany established peace treaties with almost all of the other nations of Europe. Bismarck strengthened Germany's position in Europe by establishing an alliance with Austria-Hungary and diplomatic relations with Russia. He wanted to avoid war and maintain a balance of power in Europe with Germany as one of the major powers.

Kaiser Wilhelm II came to power in 1888. He took a much more aggressive stance than Bismarck had and wanted to do more than maintain the status quo. He wanted to expand Germany's power and influence in Europe. He ended diplomatic relations with Russia, strengthened Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary, and began to build up Germany's navy in an attempt to match the naval power of Great Britain.

The strongest arguments to support the claim that Germany was primarily responsible for World War I are based on documents that had been suppressed by the German government immediately after the war. The first document gave details of a War Council held on December 8, 1912 between Kaiser Wilhelm II and the military leadership of Germany. According to that document Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to start a war of aggression immediately. He was convinced by Admiral Tiplitz and others at the council to delay the war for eighteen months to give the military the opportunity to build up arms and better prepare for the war. World War I started eighteen months later. The second document discovered at this time was an Imperial German government document that identified expansion into a Russian-occupied area of Poland as a major aim of the war. The purpose of this imperialistic expansion was to gain Liebensraum, or "living space", for the German people. This document provided historians with a link between the foreign policy of Germany in 1914 with that of Hitler in 1939. This document along with the War Council document, led many historians to place most of the blame for the start of World War I on Germany.

Historians who believe Germany was not primarily responsible for the war base their conclusion on the fact that other nations behaved just as badly as Germany did in the decades preceding the war, and that factors outside the control of any one country or individual were more responsible for the war. Militarism, nationalism, the complex system of alliances, imperialism and economic factors, and social and political forces affected all of the countries involved in the conflict, not just Germany.

Militarism was successfully used as a method to carry out imperialistic expansion by England and France. Force or the threat of force was used whenever necessary to establish or maintain control of their colonies. It was used because it worked. Most citizens of England and France didn't see this aspect of their government because it took place on different continents, not at home. Politicians and military leaders, however, relied on militarism to achieve their goals. Historians believe that the tendency to resort to military action rather than compromise and diplomacy played an important role in how these countries responded when they were threatened at home.

Nationalism didn't just affect Germany. France's nationalistic feelings date back to the French Revolution of 1789 and to Napoleon's conquest of Europe in the early 1800's. The concepts of nationalism and pride in the culture and identity of groups spread to other cultures and nations. Nationalist movements in the Balkans involving Serbs had been going on for the decade leading up to World War I, and war had almost broken out several times. Russia had been embarrassed by a military defeat at the hands of Japan earlier in the century and was eager to regain national pride. In addition to modernizing their culture and economy, winning a war was a way to regain nationalistic pride. France and Great Britain had vast overseas empires that were threatened when Germany became and imperialistic nation. Great Britain's national pride and security were threatened when Germany threatened to build a navy to challenge Great Britain's dominance of the seas. As an island nation she felt particularly vulnerable if she didn't have control of the seas. Because France and Great Britain felt that their strategic and commercial interests were threatened, they became allies to protect themselves from Germany.

All of the countries joined in alliances for mutual protection, and the alliance system kept peace on the continent from the time of the establishment of the German Empire under Bismarck in 1871 to the beginning of the war. None of the major countries, Germany, France, Russia , Austria-Hungary or Great Britain, trusted each other, so the alliances were imperfect. Once aggressive acts were initiated against any country, though, the alliance system acted to promote rather than prevent war as countries were bound to come to the defense of each other. This can be seen as the main reason why a skirmish between Serbia, a small country, and Austria-Hungary, an empire in decline, escalated into World War I.

There was social and political unrest in many European countries during the years preceding World War I. The ruling class was fighting for survival, and all of the major countries were looking for ways to gain the support of the people and strengthen their own countries. Because of this, some historians believe all of the countries were willing to go to war to increase their power and prestige, relative to each other. At first, the countries felt that showing a willingness to go to war would act as a deterrent to war, and other countries would not risk a war with a willing and armed opponent. However when it became apparent that attacking first would be important for success, the risk of war actually increased.

Several other facts are important. In the 1890's, two decades before the war started, Bismarck stated that Europe was a "powder keg" waiting to be set off that would lead to a war that would destroy the whole continent. He also predicted that the spark would come from the Balkans. Winston Churchill believed war came in 1914 because of a "general restlessness" in Europe. He noted that everyone was turning to violence as a way of expressing dissatisfaction, including trade unions, suffragettes, and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. The feeling that all great achievements can be attributed to violence was popularized by French philosopher George Sorel and may have led to this behavior. Finally, the war was seen by some as the failure of leadership in all of the major countries of Europe, and that if one person had stepped up during the five weeks between the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the start of the war, and taken a reasonable stand, the war would have been averted.

Many historians agree that German aggression and militaristic policies were responsible for some of the conditions that led to war, that Germany saw itself as likely to benefit from a war, and that as the strongest military power in Europe she could have taken actions to prevent a the war. Much evidence suggests that Germany was more responsible than any other country for the start of World War I and that forces of history outside of the control of Germany contributed to all of the events that led to World War I. Nationalism and pride in culture and identity spread throughout Europe following Napoleon's conquests and put pressure on empires that had existed for centuries. Imperialism resulted in a rise in militarism as nations established and maintained colonies around the world. Military and strategic alliances created situations where regional skirmishes between small countries could escalate to major battles involving the entire continent. Social unrest put political and economic pressure on existing governments. Finally, there were no strong leaders when they were most needed.

The War Guilt Clause of the Treaty of Versailles was unfair in placing all of the responsibility for losses suffered in World War I on Germany. If Germany had won the war it is likely that another country would have signed a "War Guilt Clause" and historians would be debating the degree to which that country was actually responsible for the war. The Historiography references show how the consensus of historians have changed over time. Between 1919 and 1939, most historians felt that Germany was not to blame. After Hitler came to power, historians saw connections between the aggressive action of Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of World War I and Hitler's aggression that led to World War II. As a result, blame for the start of WWI shifted back to Germany. This point of view was strengthened further when the War Council and Liebensraum documents came to light. Based on the evidence, while Germany was more responsible for the start of World War I than any other nation, the war began primarily because of forces of history outside the control of any one country.

Sources

1. "Causes of WW1 - Main Causes of WW1." ww1 and history of ww1. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec.2012. <http://www.worldwar1-history.com/Causes-of-WW1.aspx>.

2. "Causes of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I>.

3. Duffy, Michael . "First World War.com - Feature Articles - The Causes of World War One."First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm>.

4. Hamm, Brian. "Origins of WW1." Upload & Share PowerPoint presentations and documents.N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. <http://www.slideshare.net/brianphamm/origins-of-ww1>.

5. "Historiography of the Causes of WWI." GCSE Modern World History. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec.2012. <http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm>.

6. "Historiography of the Causes of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Causes_of_World_War_I>.

7. Sheffield, Dr Gary. "BBC - History - World Wars: The Origins of World War One." BBCHomepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historpedia - The Origins of World War I: How Responsible Was Germany? (Fall 2012)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The topic regarding the origins of World War I is one of the most studied, debated, and disagreed-upon among historians. The question most frequently asked is, "Was Germany primarily responsible for the start of World War I?" Most historians recognize that the immediate cause of the

# data[].attributes.body
July 5 1914 Austria-Hungary's ambassador Count Ladislaus Szogyeny-Marich met with Kaiser Wilhelm II. The meeting was for Germany to give complete support for victory against Serbia for Austria-Hungary.

The "Blank Cheque" is not a physical or formal document. It was just a verbal commitment/agreement from Germany's leaders. "This commitment was an agreement of unconditional support, enabling Austria-Hungary to take decisive, and potentially aggressive, action against Serbia without fear of repercussion or abandonment by its key ally."

Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia was designed to be impossible for Serbia by Germany's pledge. The ultimatum was delivered on July 23, 1914

The "Blank Cheque" encouraged Austria-Hungary to declare war against Serbia on July 28 1914 since Serbia was not able to meet the list on the ultimatum as expected.

The Blank Cheque created a larger impact on the outbreak of World War 1 which created a domino effect of conflict throughout the world.

The "domino effect" led to Germany declaring war on Russia (August 1, 1914) and declaring war against France (August 3, 1914)

Lastly, after Germany invaded Belgium, Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914.

APA Reference

What was Germany’s “blank cheque” before WWI? (2014). History Skills. https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-9/germany-blank-cheque/#:~:text=In%20this%20meeting%2C%20the%20German,from%20Germany's%20highest%20political%20echelons

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term 'Blank Cheque', in its political context, typically refers to a situation where one party promises unwavering support, financial, military, or otherwise, to another party, without placing any explicit conditions or restrictions.

This terminology entered the historical lexicon in the context of World War I, symbolizing Germany's unconditional commitment to its ally, Austria-Hungary, during the July Crisis of 1914.

The 'Blank Cheque' is an essential concept in understanding international relations, particularly as it illuminates the dynamics of alliances, diplomacy, and power politics in the run-up to World War I.

As a metaphor, the 'Blank Cheque' signifies an implicit acceptance of the risks associated with providing such unfettered support, the willingness to escalate a situation to maintain international standing, and the perilous consequences of unchecked diplomatic guarantees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was Germany's 'blank cheque' before WWI?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the shadowy corridors of international diplomacy, few actions have had more profound and far-reaching consequences than Germany's infamous 'Blank Cheque' to Austria-Hungary in the summer of 1914. This ill-fated promise of unconditional support not only triggered a series of events that would plunge the world into a catastrophic war, but it also laid the groundwork for significant shifts in global power dynamics and international relations.

# data[].attributes.body
Kaiser Wilhelm was fully educated at the University of the Bonn, forming his intelligent mind. However, this gave him the confidence to be short-tempered and an impulsive personality.

He always overestimated his power for political judgment, and was too self-confident, causing him to make huge mistakes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

2. Emperor and King: 1888

3. Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

4. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

Wilhelm II (1859-1941), the German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, was one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews. While Wilhelm did not actively seek war, and tried to hold back his generals from mobilizing the German army in the summer of 1914, his verbal outbursts and his open enjoyment of the title of Supreme War Lord helped bolster the case of those who blamed him for the conflict. His role in the conduct of the war as well as his responsibility for its outbreak is still controversial.

Some historians maintain that Wilhelm was controlled by his generals, while others argue that he retained considerable political power. In late 1918, he was forced to abdicate. He spent the rest of his life in exile in the Netherlands, where he died at age 82.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

Kaiser Wilhelm II was born in Potsdam, Germany, on January 27, 1859, the son of Prince Frederick Wilhelm of Prussia (1831-88) and Princess Victoria (1840-1901), the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). The future monarch was the queen's firstborn grandchild and was genuinely fond of her; in fact, he was holding her in his arms when she died. His ties to Britain through its royal family would play an important part in his later political maneuvering.

Did you know? Kaiser Wilhelm II was reportedly amused when he heard his cousin King George V (1865-1936) had changed the name of the British royal family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917 as a result of anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I.

Wilhelm's childhood was shaped by two events, one medical and one political. His birth had been traumatic; in the course of a complicated delivery, the doctor permanently damaged Wilhelm's left arm. In addition to its smaller size, the arm was useless for such ordinary tasks as cutting certain foods with a knife at mealtime.

The political event that shaped Wilhelm was the formation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia in 1871. Wilhelm was now second in line after his father to become an emperor as well as king of Prussia. Twelve years old at the time, Wilhelm was filled with nationalistic enthusiasm. His later determination to win a "place in the sun" for Germany had its roots in his childhood.

An intelligent young man who possessed a lifelong interest in science and technology, Wilhelm was educated at the University of Bonn. His quick mind, however, was combined with an even quicker temper and an impulsive, high-strung personality. He had dysfunctional relationships with both parents, particularly his English mother. Historians still debate the effects of the kaiser's complicated psychological makeup on his political decisions.

In 1881, Wilhelm married Princess Augusta Victoria (1858-1921) of Schleswig-Holstein. The couple would go on to have seven children.

Emperor and King: 1888

Wilhelm's father became Kaiser Frederick III of Germany in March 1888. Already ill with terminal throat cancer, he died after a reign of only several months. Wilhelm succeeded his father on June 15, 1888, at the age of 29. Within two years of his coronation, Wilhelm broke with Otto von Bismarck (1815-98), the "Iron Chancellor" who had dominated German politics since the 1860s. The kaiser embarked on his so-called New Course, a period of personal rule in which he appointed chancellors who were upper-level civil servants rather than statesmen. Bismarck bitterly predicted that Wilhelm would lead Germany to ruin.

Wilhelm damaged his political position in a number of ways. He meddled in German foreign policy on the basis of his emotions, resulting in incoherence and inconsistency in German relations with other nations. He also made a number of public blunders, the worst of which was The Daily Telegraph affair of 1908. Wilhelm gave an interview to the London-based newspaper in which he offended the British by saying such things as: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." The kaiser had already been hurt politically in 1907 by the Eulenburg-Harden affair, in which members of his circle of friends were accused of being homosexuals. Although there is no evidence that Wilhelm was gay-in addition to his seven children with his first wife, he was rumored to have several illegitimate offspring-the scandal was used by his political opponents to weaken his influence.

Wilhelm's most important contribution to Germany's prewar military expansion was his commitment to creating a navy to rival Britain's. His childhood visits to his British cousins had given him a love for the sea-sailing was one of his favorite recreations-and his envy of the power of the British navy convinced him that Germany must build a large fleet of its own in order to fulfill its destiny. The kaiser supported the plans of Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930), his chief admiral, who maintained that Germany could gain diplomatic power over Britain by stationing a fleet of warships in the North Sea. By 1914, however, the naval buildup had caused severe financial problems for Wilhelm's government.

Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

Wilhelm's behavior during the crisis that led to war in August 1914 is still controversial. There is little doubt that he had been broken psychologically by the criticism that followed the Eulenburg-Harden and Daily Telegraph scandals; he suffered an episode of depression in 1908. In addition, the kaiser was out of touch with the realities of international politics in 1914; he thought that his blood relationships to other European monarchs were sufficient to manage the crisis that followed the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Although Wilhelm signed the order for German mobilization following pressure from his generals-Germany declared war against Russia and France during the first week of August 1914- he is reported to have said, "You will regret this, gentlemen."

With World War I under way, the kaiser, as commander in chief of the German armed forces, retained the power to make upper-level changes in military command. Nonetheless, he was largely a shadow monarch during the war, useful to his generals as a public-relations figure who toured the front lines and handed out medals. After 1916, Germany was, in effect, a military dictatorship dominated by two generals, Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) and Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937).

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

In late 1918, popular unrest in Germany (which had suffered greatly during the war) combined with a naval mutiny convinced civilian political leaders that the kaiser had to abdicate to preserve order. In fact, Wilhelm's abdication was announced on November 9, 1918, before he had actually consented to it. He agreed to leave when the leaders of the army told him he had lost their support as well. On November 10, the former emperor took a train across the border into the Netherlands, which had remained neutral throughout the war. He eventually bought a manor house in the town of Doorn, and remained there for the remainder of his life.

Although the Allies wanted to punish Wilhelm as a war criminal, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1880-1962) refused to extradite him. His last years were darkened by the death of his first wife and the suicide of his youngest son in 1920. He did, however, make a happy second marriage in 1922. His new wife, Hermine Reuss (1887-1947), actively petitioned German leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in the early 1930s to restore the monarchy, but nothing ever came of her negotiations. Hitler despised the man he held responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I, and Wilhelm was shocked by the Nazis' thuggish tactics. In 1938, Wilhelm remarked that for the first time he was ashamed to be a German. After two decades in exile, he died in the Netherlands on June 4, 1941, at the age of 82.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaiser Wilhelm II - WWI, Abdication & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilhelm II (1859-1941) was the last German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, and one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
" WW1 is like Climate Change, everyone is involved, and everyone is equally to be blamed."

Germany had aggressive intentions for expanding to be come a major power. Proof of this is constructing the Schlieffen plan, before WW1. More proof is expanding their army creating a bigger and more technology advanced army.

In the late 1890's German aggression developed and so did their foreign policy, this was because of the imperialism, and tension in Europe starting to form.

Germany caused the arms race which is a big part of the cause of WW1, by being " insecure". So everyone had these advanced weapons and were exited to try them out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between Empire and Continent. British Foreign Policy before the First World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Andreas Rose The origins of the First World War in general and Britain’s foreign policy in the decades prior to 1914 in particular belong to the most researched topics…

# data[].attributes.body
The system of alliances caused a possible small conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia to turn into a huge war. This is because when one country supports another, the other side does the same, and it turns into a repetitive cycle, which drags more countries into a war

Because Austria-Hungary’s allies, Germany and Italy, offered to help, Serbia’s allies, France Britain and Russia, did the same (domino effect)

There was the triple alliance, which was Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and the triple entente, which was France, Britain, and Russia

There was an agreement made between Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1897 called the Dual Alliance, where they agreed to protect each other if Russia ever attacked either on of them

# data[].attributes.body
The Triple Alliance was a secret agreement formed by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in May 1882. In 1879 Austria-Hungary and Germany made an agreement that if attacked by Russia, they would help each other. Italy was added to this alliance with an agreement that if attacked by France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary would support Italy. Italy would assist Germany if they were attacked by France, and if a conflict occurred between Russia and Austria-Hungary, Italy would stay neutral.

One month after Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated by a Serbian nationalist, because of his violent threat to Serbia, with Germany’s encouragement, Austria-Hungary declared war. Russia being on Serbia’s side, France also gets involved. Then Germany declared war on Russia, as well as France soon after. In fear of Germany’s control in Europe, England came into the war. These fights led to WWI.

Germany encouraged France and Russia to form an alliance in 1894. This is because Germany had a fear of being isolated and wanted to maintain power. This made Germany have a closer alliance with the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Germany’s ruler caused a possible war by making Austria-Hungary invade Serbia, knowing that a conflict might occur.

In 1892, Franco-Russian military convention agreed to protect eachother when attacked. The triple entente has the United Kingdom linked with France, and the triple alliance has Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (until Italy sided with the Triple Entente).

# data[].attributes.body
Reference : “What You Need to Know about Pre-First World War Alliances.” Imperial War Museums, 2023,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Europe in 1914 was an armed camp; its politics dominated by two rival alliances. The creation of a unified Germany in 1871 had disturbed the old 'balance of power' in Europe.

Fear of Germany encouraged France and Russia to form an alliance in 1894. This pushed Germany into closer alliance with its neighbour, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The members of these rival power blocs maintained mass armies through compulsory military service. Rapid developments in military technology forced them to spend huge sums on these armies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need To Know About Pre-First World War Alliances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out all you need to know about Pre-First World War allliances. The creation of a unified Germany in 1871 had disturbed the old 'balance of power'

# data[].attributes.body
Reference : “Austria-Hungary Declares War on Serbia.” HISTORY, 28 Oct. 2009,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia | July 28, 1914 | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On July 28, 1914, one month to the day after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife were killed by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, effectively beginning the First World War. Threatened by Serbian ambition in the tumultuous Balkans region of Europe, Austria-Hungary determined that the proper response to […]

# data[].attributes.body
Reference : ‌News, BBC. “World War One: 10 Interpretations of Who Started WW1.” BBC News, BBC News, 12 Feb. 2014,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As nations gear up to mark 100 years since the start of World War One, academic argument still rages over which country was to blame for the conflict.

Education Secretary for England Michael Gove's recent criticism of how the causes and consequences of the war are taught in schools has only stoked the debate further.

Here 10 leading historians give their opinion.

No one nation deserves all responsibility for the outbreak of war, but Germany seems to me to deserve most.

It alone had power to halt the descent to disaster at any time in July 1914 by withdrawing its "blank cheque" which offered support to Austria for its invasion of Serbia.

I'm afraid I am unconvinced by the argument that Serbia was a rogue state which deserved its nemesis at Austria's hands. And I do not believe Russia wanted a European war in 1914 - its leaders knew that it would have been in a far stronger position to fight two years later, having completed its rearmament programme.

The question of whether Britain was obliged to join the European conflict which became inevitable by 1 August is almost a separate issue. In my own view neutrality was not a credible option because a Germany victorious on the continent would never afterwards have accommodated a Britain which still dominated the oceans and global financial system.

Serbia bore the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of WW1. Serbian nationalism and expansionism were profoundly disruptive forces and Serbian backing for the Black Hand terrorists was extraordinarily irresponsible. Austria-Hungary bore only slightly less responsibility for its panic over-reaction to the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne.

France encouraged Russia's aggressiveness towards Austria-Hungary and Germany encouraged Austrian intransigence. Britain failed to mediate as it had done in the previous Balkan crisis out of fear of Germany's European and global ambitions - a fear that was not entirely rational since Britain had clearly won the naval arms race by 1910.

The generally positive attitude of European statesmen towards war, based on notions of honour, expectations of a swift victory, and ideas of social Darwinism, was perhaps the most important conditioning factor. It is very important to look at the outbreak of the war in the round and to avoid reading back later developments - the German September Programme for example (an early statement of their war aims) - into the events of July-August 1914.

A handful of bellicose political and military decision-makers in Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia caused WW1.

Relatively common before 1914, assassinations of royal figures did not normally result in war. But Austria-Hungary's military hawks - principal culprits for the conflict - saw the Sarajevo assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Bosnian Serb as an excuse to conquer and destroy Serbia, an unstable neighbour which sought to expand beyond its borders into Austro-Hungarian territories. Serbia, exhausted by the two Balkan wars of 1912-13 in which it had played a major role, did not want war in 1914.

Broader European war ensued because German political and military figures egged on Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, to attack Serbia. This alarmed Russia, Serbia's supporter, which put its armies on a war footing before all options for peace had been fully exhausted.

This frightened Germany into pre-emptively declaring war on Russia and on Russia's ally France and launching a brutal invasion, partly via Belgium, thereby bringing in Britain, a defender of Belgian neutrality and supporter of France.

WW1 did not break out by accident or because diplomacy failed. It broke out as the result of a conspiracy between the governments of imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary to bring about war, albeit in the hope that Britain would stay out.

After 25 years of domination by Kaiser Wilhelm II with his angry, autocratic and militaristic personality, his belief in the clairvoyance of all crowned heads, his disdain for diplomats and his conviction that his Germanic God had predestined him to lead his country to greatness, the 20 or so men he had appointed to decide the policy of the Reich opted for war in 1914 in what they deemed to be favourable circumstances.

Germany's military and naval leaders, the predominant influence at court, shared a devil-may-care militarism that held war to be inevitable, time to be running out, and - like their Austrian counterparts - believed it would be better to go down fighting than to go on tolerating what they regarded as the humiliating status quo. In the spring of 1914, this small group of men in Berlin decided to make "the leap into the dark" which they knew their support for an Austrian attack on Serbia would almost certainly entail.

The fine-tuning of the crisis was left to the civilian chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, whose primary aim was to subvert diplomatic intervention in order to begin the war under the most favourable conditions possible. In particular, he wanted to convince his own people that Germany was under attack and to keep Britain out of the conflict.

Long before the outbreak of hostilities Prussian-German conservative elites were convinced that a European war would help to fulfil Germany's ambitions for colonies and for military as well as political prestige in the world.

The actual decision to go to war over a relatively minor international crisis like the Sarajevo murder, however, resulted from a fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states.

In contrast to the historian Fritz Fischer who saw German war aims - in particular the infamous September Programme of 1914 with its far-reaching economic and territorial demands - at the core of the German government's decision to go to war, most historians nowadays dismiss this interpretation as being far too narrow. They tend to place German war aims, or incidentally all other belligerent nations' war aims, in the context of military events and political developments during the war.

Whole libraries have been filled with the riddle of 1914. Was the war an accident or design, inevitable or planned, caused by sleepwalkers or arsonists? To my mind the war was no accident and it could have been avoided in July 1914. In Vienna the government and military leaders wanted a war against Serbia. The immediate reaction to the murder of Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 was to seek redress from Serbia, which was thought to have been behind the assassination plot and which had been threatening Austria-Hungary's standing in the Balkans for some time. Crucially, a diplomatic victory was considered worthless and "odious". At the beginning of July, Austria's decision-makers chose war.

But in order to implement their war against Serbia they needed support from their main ally Germany. Without Germany, their decision to fight against Serbia could not have been implemented. The Berlin government issued a "blank cheque" to its ally, promising unconditional support and putting pressure on Vienna to seize this golden opportunity. Both governments knew it was almost certain that Russia would come to Serbia's aid and this would turn a local war into a European one, but they were willing to take this risk.

Germany's guarantee made it possible for Vienna to proceed with its plans - a "no" from Berlin would have stopped the crisis in its tracks. With some delay Vienna presented an ultimatum to Serbia on 23 July which was deliberately unacceptable. This was because Austria-Hungary was bent on a war and Germany encouraged it because the opportunity seemed perfect. Victory still seemed possible whereas in a few years' time Russia and France would have become invincible. Out of a mixture of desperation and over-confidence the decision-makers of Austria-Hungary and Germany unleashed a war to preserve and expand their empires. The war that ensued would be their downfall.

It is human nature to seek simple, satisfying answers, which is why the German war guilt thesis endures today.

Without Berlin's encouragement of a strong Austro-Hungarian line against Serbia after Sarajevo - the "blank cheque" - WW1 would clearly not have broken out. So Germany does bear responsibility.

But it is equally true that absent a terrorist plot launched in Belgrade the Germans and Austrians would not have faced this terrible choice. Civilian leaders in both Berlin and Vienna tried to "localise" conflict in the Balkans. It was Russia's decision - after Petersburg received its own "blank cheque" from Paris - to Europeanise the Austro-Serbian showdown which produced first a European and then - following Britain's entry - world conflagration. Russia, not Germany, mobilised first.

The resulting war, with France and Britain backing Serbia and Russia against two Central Powers, was Russia's desired outcome, not Germany's. Still, none of the powers can escape blame. All five Great Power belligerents, along with Serbia, unleashed Armageddon.

The war was started by the leaders of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Vienna seized the opportunity presented by the assassination of the archduke to attempt to destroy its Balkan rival Serbia. This was done in the full knowledge that Serbia's protector Russia was unlikely to stand by and this might lead to a general European war.

Germany gave Austria unconditional support in its actions, again fully aware of the likely consequences. Germany sought to break up the French-Russian alliance and was fully prepared to take the risk that this would bring about a major war. Some in the German elite welcomed the prospect of beginning an expansionist war of conquest. The response of Russia, France and later Britain were reactive and defensive.

The best that can be said of German and Austrian leaders in the July crisis is that they took criminal risks with world peace.

In my opinion, it is the political and diplomatic decision-makers in Germany and Austria-Hungary who must carry the burden of responsibility for expanding a localised Balkan conflict into a European and, eventually, global war. Germany, suffering from something of a "younger child" complex in the family of European empires, saw an opportunity to reconfigure the balance of power in their favour via an aggressive war of conquest.

On 5 July 1914 it issued the "blank cheque" of unconditional support to the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire (trying to reassert its dominance over the rebellious Serbia), despite the likelihood of this sparking war with Russia, an ally of France and Great Britain. However, Austria-Hungary's actions should not be ignored.

The ultimatum it issued to Serbia on 23 July was composed in such a way that its possibility of being accepted was near impossible. Serbia's rejection paved the way for Austria-Hungary to declare war on 28 July, thus beginning WW1.

The largest share of responsibility lies with the German government. Germany's rulers made possible a Balkan war by urging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia, well understanding that such a conflict might escalate. Without German backing it is unlikely that Austria-Hungary would have acted so drastically.

They also started wider European hostilities by sending ultimata to Russia and France, and by declaring war when those ultimata were rejected - indeed fabricating a pretext that French aircraft had bombed Nuremberg.

Finally, they violated international treaties by invading Luxemburg and Belgium knowing that the latter violation was virtually certain to bring in Britain. This is neither to deny that there were mitigating circumstances nor to contend that German responsibility was sole.

Serbia subjected Austria-Hungary to extraordinary provocation and two sides were needed for armed conflict. Although the Central Powers took the initiative, the Russian government, with French encouragement, was willing to respond.

In contrast, while Britain might have helped avert hostilities by clarifying its position earlier, this responsibility - even disregarding the domestic political obstacles to an alternative course - was passive rather than active.

Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World War One: 10 interpretations of who started WW1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The arguments over who started World War One have raged since the first shots were fired.

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: “Austro-German Alliance | Dual Alliance, Bismarck, Central Powers | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2023,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Austro-German Alliance | Dual Alliance, Bismarck, Central Powers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Austro-German Alliance, (1879) pact between Austria-Hungary and the German Empire in which the two powers promised each other support in case of attack by Russia, and neutrality in case of aggression by any other power. Germany’s Otto von Bismarck saw the alliance as a way to prevent the isolation

# data[].attributes.body
References :“Triple Alliance | Definition, Countries, Facts, & Significance | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2023,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Triple Alliance | Definition, Countries, Facts, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Triple Alliance, secret agreement between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy formed in May 1882 and renewed periodically until World War I when, despite renewals of the pact in 1907 and 1912, Italy entered into the war in opposition to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Read here to learn more about the Triple Alliance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Imperialism(Joe Someya, Yoshi, Yuto) pt.1

# data[].attributes.subject
Imperialism(Joe Someya, Yoshi, Yuto) pt.1

# data[].attributes.body
The definition of the imperialism is gaining control over another country's politics or economics.

Imperialism is when one country exercises power over another through various methods of control.

# data[].attributes.body
Imperialism was one of the key causes of WW1. Because Britain, Germany, and Russia were trying to increase their own country's power, they decided to take over enemy territory. The benefits of extending own country's territory are economic gain, getting an advantage in politics, and acquiring resources.

When the town was controlled by an enemy country, citizens were forced to work.

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: Khan Academy. (2023). Khanacademy.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alliances leading to World War I (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
During World War 1, France and Germany fought to control Morocco.

# data[].attributes.headline
German Foreign Policy link- 3 (Kotaro, Markus)

# data[].attributes.subject
German Foreign Policy link- 3 (Kotaro, Markus)

# data[].attributes.body
After German start getting stronger, British start competing, because they don't want to loss their land, While doing that they contact the country in their team to prepare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nationalism as a cause of World War I Key Facts & Worksheets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nationalism was very common in early 20th-century Europe and is considered as a significant cause of World War I. Click for more facts & worksheets.

# data[].attributes.body
Refrence: Nationalities (Austria-Hungary) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1). (n.d.). Encyclopedia.1914-1918-Online.net.

Austria-Hungary was trying to keep the empire together during ww1 by making people join the empire.

When WW1 broke out, Austria-Hungary weakened up and was forced to keep the empire together.

Nationalism rarely was in conflict with the Habsburg state

Focused on the imperial framework with nationalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nationalities (Austria-Hungary) | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent research has questioned the view that that the population of Austria-Hungary consisted of nations, and that conflicts between them were the main cause of its demise. Nationalism was an important basis for group building, but not the only one and not always the most relevant. Wartime developments made it more significant and diminished imperial patriotism. Yet Austria-Hungary did not fall apart because of this. Apart from the Entente decision to dismember it, the crucial cause of its demise was the changed attitude of nationalist politicians, who did not see Austria-Hungary as viable anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism fueled World War I for Great powers such as Britain, France, and Germany.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nationalism was a factor in the outbreak of World War I as many nations, particularly the Great powers of -Britain, France and Germany, of the time had convinced themselves of the cultural, economic and military supremacy of their nation.

It fostered delusions about the relative military strength of European nations and it would later manifest in a belief that they would emerge victorious in the event of a war.

For more relevant articles refer to the links given below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How did nationalism lead to WWI? Get the Answer at BYJU'S UPSC Preparation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How did nationalism lead to WWI? Know the answer and know more about IAS preparation at BYJU'S.

# data[].attributes.body
Blank cheque: 白紙小切手

Austria Hungry's heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed by a member of the Black Hands (A national group from Serbia)

Germany sent a Blank cheque to Austria Hungry which had the meaning “We will give you as much military support you guys need if you want to invade Serbia”. Which was on 1914 July, 5

When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June by a Serbian terrorist group(black hand), Austria-Hungary decided to give a list of demands to Serbia that were very unreasonable. Serbia refused to agree with them and so Austria-Hungary decided to invade Serbia. When they invaded they were encouraged by Germany with the "blank cheque" representing unlimited military support. Germany was looking for a reason to begin its wish to start its take over Europe. But if Serbia is invaded, Serbia's main ally, Russia will defend them. This was how WWI started, so one can blame Austria-Hungary for invading Serbia but one can also blame Germany for encouraging them.

APA reference "How The World Went To War In 1914"

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-world-went-to-war-in-1914#:~:text=When%20Archduke%20Franz%20Ferdinand%20was,encouraged%20by%20its%20ally%20Germany.

"Germany's Blank Cheque to Austria-Hungary"(2015)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/germanys_blank_cheque_to_austria-hungary

”ブランクチェック Blank Cheque"

https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/jp/blank-cheque

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the summer of 1914, Europe was in a crisis. Just weeks before Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, had been assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian-backed terrorist. Now just a few weeks later, the continent's largest armies were mobilizing against each other with new nations joining the fight seemingly every week. The world watched with bated breath as Europe marched to war. So what happened? How did a seemingly irrelevant local conflict in southeast Europe become a World War? And why did Britain decide to get involved?

Well before we answer those questions a reminder to subscribe to the Imperial War Museums Youtube channel for more videos just like this every two weeks.

When people ask how the First World War began it's often couched in terms of a domino effect, a series of events that were almost preordained, but what I would say is that if anyone had suggested in June 1914 in Britain that World War might be about to break out and they would be met with disbelief really.

Britain hadn't fought a war on the continent since the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, 99 years previously. Rather than a war in Europe, Britain was primarily occupied with its own internal affairs.

As the 20th century dawned Britain is one of the greatest powers on earth, it rules over this vast global empire. I mean it's so big that every fourth person on earth owes its allegiance to the British crown.

The Briton was the world's merchant sailor, his flag encircled the globe sixty percent of the vessels on any ocean were his.

The lifeblood of the British Empire was the sea. The Royal Navy policed the waves so that its merchant ships could trade across the globe. This brought the British Empire vast wealth, but not all of its citizens were able to share in it. Many overseas subjects were demanding greater freedom from the empire to control their own affairs, while at home domestic issues threatened to boil over.

There's this huge inequality of wealth that underpins British life at the turn of the 20th century. Only two-thirds of men have got the right to vote, absolutely no woman has the right to vote. So I'd say by the time you get to 1914 this is quite a volatile country.

The most divisive issue, however, was that of Home Rule for Ireland. Some people in Ireland wanted to be ruled from Dublin rather than Westminster, while others were bitterly opposed to this, including some vocal British politicians and a sizable contingent in the north of Ireland who considered themselves to be British. As the Home Rule Bill made its way through parliament, rival militias began to arm themselves on either side of the issue.

There is a very real threat that this is going to spill over into violence in the summer of 1914 and so to suggest to people in Britain that the conflict that's about to occur will come from Europe rather than from Ireland most people would have been very very shocked to hear that.

But while domestic tensions were rising in Britain, new tensions were coming to the fore in Europe. Germany was the new kid on the block with big ambitions. After defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the most powerful German state Prussia allied with smaller Germanic states to create a united Germany, but this new nation wanted an empire of its own.

Britain really initially admired this new nation, Britain really actually thought as a friend but imperial Germany soon began to threaten Britain's sense of supremacy. Its determination to up its industrial output, up its military strength, and most crucially for Britain build a rival fleet of warships.

German ships manoeuvre in the cold waters of the north sea.

This new German navy was a threat to Britain's naval dominance, the glue that held the empire together, and something for which Britain could not stand. That rivalry then turned into an arms race as each nation tried to outproduce the other with ever greater feats of technology. This culminated in the production of Dreadnought battleships which were seen as the nuclear weapons of their day.

That factor means Britain's now started to see Germany as a threat, by the time you get to say 1907 Europe's really split into two opposing camps.

Germany had disturbed the delicate balance of power in Europe. France, fearing this new empire on their doorstep, allied with Russia in the east. An unlikely friendship for two of Europe's most ideologically opposed nations. That then left Germany feeling surrounded and pushed them to form an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and to a lesser extent Italy. Finally, Britain and its empire, afraid of German domination on the continent, drifted closer to France and Russia, though without going as far as forming an alliance.

You've got Germany Austria-Hungary and Italy and you've got France Russia and to some extent Britain. There's still no immediate reason for war between the two, it would take a crisis to turn tensions into an armed conflict.

And that crisis came in the summer of 1914. The Balkans in Southeast Europe had been a hotbed of unrest for some time, with two wars in the preceding three years. Those wars had made Austria-Hungary's neighbour Serbia much larger, prompting tensions between the two nations to rise even further. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June by a Serbian-backed terrorist, Austria-Hungary felt it had no choice but to assert its dominance.

Austria-Hungary sets out to punish Serbia it wants to quash support for Serbian nationalism. It's encouraged by its ally Germany. So after Serbia failed to meet the terms of a very draconian ultimatum Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia and this act of war this stirs up these old tensions and anxieties right across the continent because it draws in supporters and allies on both sides.

When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia Russia came in to back the Serbs in defence of a fellow Slavic nation. When Germany, in support of its ally, then declared war on Russia that brought France into the war on Russia's side. Italy however did not join the war, as its alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary was a defensive pact. In a matter of weeks then Europe's largest powers were primed for war, but Britain was still in two minds over whether it should be involved.

It agonized over whether to support Russia and France. I think at the heart of Britain's anxieties it came down really to Britain fearing German domination of Europe because if a victorious but hostile Germany dominated the continent and threatened Britain's position in the world that was just intolerable for Britain.

The tipping point came thanks to Germany's war plans. Hoping to defeat France quickly before Russia had a chance to mobilize her forces, Germany attempted to skirt around the French defences in Alsace-Lorraine by attacking through neutral Belgium, a country Britain had sworn to protect.

On the 4th of August Britain issues an ultimatum to Germany which is ignored, which ends in Britain declaring war on Germany and by Britain declaring war on Germany that also means its global empire is at war and you have a conflict set up that becomes very rapidly a world war.

The causes of the First World War are complex, they're still debated to this day. The nations didn't realize it at the time, but their attempts to defend what they perceived as their own national interests created a war that would shape Europe for decades to come. Most participants expected the war to be over by Christmas, but as we know the reality was very different.

The First World War became what we would call a total war. These nations pitted against each other, millions of men fighting on land, on the sea, in the air, modern weaponry causing mass casualties and ultimately the war broke the empires of Germany, of Russia, Austria-Hungary, it forced the USA onto the world stage and the war also laid the seeds for future conflict in places like the Middle East. So it ultimately defined the shape of Europe and the world in the 20th century and this is how it all began.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How The World Went To War In 1914 - On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife were assassinated leading to the start of the First World War

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaiser Wilhelm's support to Austria-Hungary

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaiser Wilhelm's support to Austria-Hungary

# data[].attributes.body
When the outbreak of Austria-Hungary’s attack on Serbia started due to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Wilhelm immediately supported Austria in invading Serbia, causing other countries like France and Russia to intervene. Germany should not have supported their ally - Austria-Hungary even though they were in an alliance with each other, because this action has become one of the main causes of the outbreak of WWI. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Kaiser provided support that transformed the conflict into a world conflict.

Wilhelm always overestimated his power for political judgment, and was too self-confident, causing him to make huge mistakes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II as King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany from 1888 to 1918 saw the meteoric rise of Germany as an economic and military power. It also saw the fragmentation of Europe into opposing camps of mutually-mistrusting alliances, a world war ending in Germany's humiliating defeat and the abolition of German monarchical rule. Wilhelm's life, actions and complex character played a significant part in this destructive process.

Utterly convinced of his right to rule, Wilhelm always overestimated his capacity for wise political judgment. His dismissal of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890 and ambitious aim to make Germany a world power served to disrupt the established balance of the European order.

He was Queen Victoria's first grandson, but his ambivalent, love-hate attitude to Britain strained relations between the two countries. His obsession with the enlargement of the German Navy, pro-Boer stance during the Second Boer War and blustering claims for German colonial expansion just brought Britain and France closer together. Wilhelm's paranoid fear of a deliberate encirclement of Germany served only to increase her isolation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Kaiser Wilhelm II Changed Europe Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II as King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany from 1888 to 1918 saw the meteoric rise of Germany as an economic and military power. It also saw the fragmentation of Europe into opposing camps of mutually-mistrusting alliances, a world war ending in Germany's humiliating defeat and the abolition of German monarchical rule.

# data[].attributes.body
News of the killings appeared in the New Zealand press on 30 June, with headlines labelling the event the ‘Tragedy in Sarajevo’ and describing the assassinations as ‘Murder’. The Evening news called the killings a politically motivated crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
First World War timeline – First World War - overview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 eventually led to the outbreak of the First World War.

# data[].attributes.headline
To what extent was nationalism the main cause of WWI?

# data[].attributes.subject
To what extent was nationalism the main cause of WWI?

# data[].attributes.body
At that time, all the countries were trying to be independent and powerful, making the countries compete so they wouldn't lose their land to other countries. After a few years, some countries were very strong, But some were still weak. This made some leader's greed stronger and finally, WW1 started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nationalism played a significant role in the outbreak of World War I, but it was not the sole cause. Nationalism refers to the belief that a particular nation or ethnic group has a unique identity and is entitled to self-rule or self-determination.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, nationalism was on the rise across Europe, with many nations seeking to assert their independence and power. This led to competition and tensions between nations, as each sought to expand their territory and influence.

However, other factors also contributed to the outbreak of World War I, including imperialism, alliances, and militarism. Imperialism refers to the policy of expanding a nation's power and influence through colonization or annexation. This led to competition between the major European powers for colonies and resources, which contributed to tensions and rivalries.

Alliances were also a significant factor, as many nations formed military alliances with each other for protection and security. However, these alliances also meant that any conflict between two nations could quickly escalate into a larger conflict involving multiple nations.

Militarism, or the belief in the importance of military strength and preparedness, also played a role. Many nations believed that having a strong military was necessary to protect their interests and maintain their power, leading to an arms race and increased tensions between nations.

Overall, while nationalism was an important factor in the outbreak of World War I, it was just one of several complex and interrelated factors that contributed to the conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To what extent was nationalism the main cause of WWI? - Study Mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the question of whether nationalism was the main cause of World War I. Consider the impact of other factors, such as imperialism and militarism, and analyze the complex relationships between nations in the lead up to the war. Develop a nuanced understanding of the multiple causes of WWI and their relative importance.

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism fueled World War One in Europe, with a strong sense of loyalty and pride in one's nation often leading to feelings of superiority. The great military powers of Europe and the Slav people were heavily impacted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WORLD WAR ONE FACTS

WW1 Recruitment Poster

Introduction - WW1 Nationalism
Nationalism is defined as a feeling of loyalty and pride in one's nation or people and is sometimes accompanied by feelings of superiority over other nations. Nationalism was abundant in Europe in the early 1900s and was one of the major causes of World War One. During this time strong feelings of nationalism existed among the great military powers of Europe and among the Slav people who hoped to unite all the Slav people of Europe into a unified state. Below you will find a list of interesting facts about why nationalism rose in Europe prior to WW1 and how it was a major cause of the Great War. This information is written for both kids and adults.

Click here for a great selection ofAmazon.com books about the causes of World War One.

World War One Nationalism - The Slav People

Before WW1 the Serbians along with their leader Nicholas Pashich hated Austria-Hungary. The Serbians supported the rise of Pan-Slavic nationalism and the goal of a larger Slavic state which would include Serbia and the Slav people of Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary regarded Pan-Slavic nationalism as a threat to their country.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which started WW1, was carried out by a group of Slav assassins. These assassins hoped to unite the Slav population of Austria-Hungary with the Slav state of Serbia to create a larger Serbian state. They hoped the assassination would ignite nationalistic feeling among the Slav people of Austria-Hungary and cause a revolt.

The majority of Russian people in the early 1900s were Slavs. They had sympathy for the Slav people under the control of Austria-Hungary. These nationalistic sentiments mixed with their desire to expand into the Balkans caused tension between Russia and Austria-Hungary.

World War One Nationalism - The Major European Military Powers

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on June 28th of 1914 is the event that sparked WW1. After the assassination many factors among the major European military powers at that time led to the war; including a series of alliances, militarism, and nationalism. Feelings of nationalism led to countries being less willing to work differences out peacefully and their wanting to prove their superiority.

Nationalism led to over-confidence among the major military powers of Europe that were involved in World War One. Many of these countries such as Germany, Austria- Hungary, and Great Britain believed they would win the war quickly and with few casualties. Instead the bloody war lasted over four years and resulted in millions of deaths.

The Franco-Prussian War, which ended in 1871, resulted in a united Germany which quickly became the strongest military power in Europe with sights on expanding its influence throughout the world. With this great power came extreme nationalism with many German people feeling they were superior to the people of other European countries.

French nationalism came into play as cause of World War One. France had suffered an embarrassing defeat against Prussia (Germany) in the Franco-Prussian War and was anxious for revenge along with the hope of regaining the Alsace and Lorraine territory lost to Germany in that war.

MENU
World War One Causes Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand Facts World War 1 Alliances Facts World War 1 Imperialism Facts World War 1 Militarism Facts World War 1 Nationalism Facts

World War One Causes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World War One Nationalism - a list of facts about this major cause of World War One which led to the start of one of the bloodiest wars in history.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the Black Hand?

Black Hand is the Serbian secret group that used terrorist techniques to contribute to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 which is part of the cause of WW1.

How did Serbia do to stop The Black Hand?

Chief of the Serbian army, Prince Alexander brought leaders of black hands to trial on dubious charges in Salonica in 1917. Dimitrijević and the other two got killed and more than 200 people got thrown in jail.

The Plan of the Black Hand

A lot of members were Serbian army officers, the professional goal was to establish the greater Serbia by using violence if necessary. They trained guerillas (members of a small independent group that fights) and saboteurs and arranged murders.

Resources:

Black Hand | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica. (2023). In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Hand-secret-Serbian-society

The Black Hand. (2023). Byu.edu. https://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/blk-hand.html#:~:text=Many%20members%20were%20Serbian%20army,3%20to%205%2Dmember%20cells.

‌

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
byname of:

Ujedinjenje Ili Smrt (Serbo-Croation: Union or Death)

This article was most recently revised and updated by

Black Hand, secret Serbian society of the early 20th century that used terrorist methods to promote the liberation of Serbs outside Serbia from Habsburg or Ottoman rule and was instrumental in planning the assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914), precipitating the outbreak of World War I. The society was formed (1911) and led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijević; its members were primarily army officers with some government officials. Operating from Belgrade, it conducted propaganda campaigns, organized armed bands in Macedonia (before the Balkan Wars, 1912-13), and established a network of revolutionary cells throughout Bosnia. Within Serbia it dominated the army and wielded tremendous influence over the government by terrorizing officials; it became so powerful that its authority challenged that of the government. In order to eliminate that rival, Prince Alexander, commander in chief of the expatriate Serbian army, brought the leaders of the Black Hand to trial on dubious charges at Salonika in 1917. Dimitrijević and two others were executed, and more than 200 were imprisoned.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Adam Augustyn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Hand | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Hand, secret Serbian society of the early 20th century that used terrorist methods to promote the liberation of Serbs outside Serbia from Habsburg or Ottoman rule and was instrumental in planning the assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand, precipitating the outbreak of World War I.

# data[].attributes.headline
Franz Ferdinand's assassination things happened after.

# data[].attributes.subject
Franz Ferdinand's assassination things happened after.

# data[].attributes.body
In june 28 of 1914 Franz Ferdinand and his wife were killed by an assassin's bullet. Gavrilo Prinip was immediately arrested by shooting and Needjelko Cabrinovic caught feeling after the bomb attempt. In the same day Martial law is declared in Sarajevo from the wake of assassination. After few years Princip and Cabrinovic died in the prison.

# data[].attributes.body
german aggression: The Origins of World War I: How Responsible Was Germany? (Fall 2012). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/historpedia/home/politics-and-government/the-origins-of-world-war-i-how-responsible-was-germany-fall-2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The topic regarding the origins of World War I is one of the most studied, debated, and disagreed-upon among historians. The question most frequently asked is, "Was Germany primarily responsible for the start of World War I?" Most historians recognize that the immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist in July, 1914. Most also believe that this incident would not have led to a world war by itself, but that the war was caused by series of interconnected events dating back at least four decades, creating an atmosphere that made war likely, or even inevitable. These causes included nationalism, militarism (an "arms race"), the complex system of strategic and military alliances, the economic and strategic effect of imperialism and social unrest as well as the lack of effective leadership among the nations of Europe. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether German policies and actions were more responsible than other factors for the origin of World War I.

Historians who believe Germany was primarily responsible for the war base their conclusion on the aggressive attitude of Germany's leaders, their desire to extend Germany's influence throughout Europe, and on the militaristic nature of the German people. The German Empire, founded in 1870 by Otto von Bismarck, was based on a strong sense of nationalism. Animosity between France and Germany existed during Bismarck's time, but Germany established peace treaties with almost all of the other nations of Europe. Bismarck strengthened Germany's position in Europe by establishing an alliance with Austria-Hungary and diplomatic relations with Russia. He wanted to avoid war and maintain a balance of power in Europe with Germany as one of the major powers.

Kaiser Wilhelm II came to power in 1888. He took a much more aggressive stance than Bismarck had and wanted to do more than maintain the status quo. He wanted to expand Germany's power and influence in Europe. He ended diplomatic relations with Russia, strengthened Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary, and began to build up Germany's navy in an attempt to match the naval power of Great Britain.

The strongest arguments to support the claim that Germany was primarily responsible for World War I are based on documents that had been suppressed by the German government immediately after the war. The first document gave details of a War Council held on December 8, 1912 between Kaiser Wilhelm II and the military leadership of Germany. According to that document Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to start a war of aggression immediately. He was convinced by Admiral Tiplitz and others at the council to delay the war for eighteen months to give the military the opportunity to build up arms and better prepare for the war. World War I started eighteen months later. The second document discovered at this time was an Imperial German government document that identified expansion into a Russian-occupied area of Poland as a major aim of the war. The purpose of this imperialistic expansion was to gain Liebensraum, or "living space", for the German people. This document provided historians with a link between the foreign policy of Germany in 1914 with that of Hitler in 1939. This document along with the War Council document, led many historians to place most of the blame for the start of World War I on Germany.

Historians who believe Germany was not primarily responsible for the war base their conclusion on the fact that other nations behaved just as badly as Germany did in the decades preceding the war, and that factors outside the control of any one country or individual were more responsible for the war. Militarism, nationalism, the complex system of alliances, imperialism and economic factors, and social and political forces affected all of the countries involved in the conflict, not just Germany.

Militarism was successfully used as a method to carry out imperialistic expansion by England and France. Force or the threat of force was used whenever necessary to establish or maintain control of their colonies. It was used because it worked. Most citizens of England and France didn't see this aspect of their government because it took place on different continents, not at home. Politicians and military leaders, however, relied on militarism to achieve their goals. Historians believe that the tendency to resort to military action rather than compromise and diplomacy played an important role in how these countries responded when they were threatened at home.

Nationalism didn't just affect Germany. France's nationalistic feelings date back to the French Revolution of 1789 and to Napoleon's conquest of Europe in the early 1800's. The concepts of nationalism and pride in the culture and identity of groups spread to other cultures and nations. Nationalist movements in the Balkans involving Serbs had been going on for the decade leading up to World War I, and war had almost broken out several times. Russia had been embarrassed by a military defeat at the hands of Japan earlier in the century and was eager to regain national pride. In addition to modernizing their culture and economy, winning a war was a way to regain nationalistic pride. France and Great Britain had vast overseas empires that were threatened when Germany became and imperialistic nation. Great Britain's national pride and security were threatened when Germany threatened to build a navy to challenge Great Britain's dominance of the seas. As an island nation she felt particularly vulnerable if she didn't have control of the seas. Because France and Great Britain felt that their strategic and commercial interests were threatened, they became allies to protect themselves from Germany.

All of the countries joined in alliances for mutual protection, and the alliance system kept peace on the continent from the time of the establishment of the German Empire under Bismarck in 1871 to the beginning of the war. None of the major countries, Germany, France, Russia , Austria-Hungary or Great Britain, trusted each other, so the alliances were imperfect. Once aggressive acts were initiated against any country, though, the alliance system acted to promote rather than prevent war as countries were bound to come to the defense of each other. This can be seen as the main reason why a skirmish between Serbia, a small country, and Austria-Hungary, an empire in decline, escalated into World War I.

There was social and political unrest in many European countries during the years preceding World War I. The ruling class was fighting for survival, and all of the major countries were looking for ways to gain the support of the people and strengthen their own countries. Because of this, some historians believe all of the countries were willing to go to war to increase their power and prestige, relative to each other. At first, the countries felt that showing a willingness to go to war would act as a deterrent to war, and other countries would not risk a war with a willing and armed opponent. However when it became apparent that attacking first would be important for success, the risk of war actually increased.

Several other facts are important. In the 1890's, two decades before the war started, Bismarck stated that Europe was a "powder keg" waiting to be set off that would lead to a war that would destroy the whole continent. He also predicted that the spark would come from the Balkans. Winston Churchill believed war came in 1914 because of a "general restlessness" in Europe. He noted that everyone was turning to violence as a way of expressing dissatisfaction, including trade unions, suffragettes, and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. The feeling that all great achievements can be attributed to violence was popularized by French philosopher George Sorel and may have led to this behavior. Finally, the war was seen by some as the failure of leadership in all of the major countries of Europe, and that if one person had stepped up during the five weeks between the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the start of the war, and taken a reasonable stand, the war would have been averted.

Many historians agree that German aggression and militaristic policies were responsible for some of the conditions that led to war, that Germany saw itself as likely to benefit from a war, and that as the strongest military power in Europe she could have taken actions to prevent a the war. Much evidence suggests that Germany was more responsible than any other country for the start of World War I and that forces of history outside of the control of Germany contributed to all of the events that led to World War I. Nationalism and pride in culture and identity spread throughout Europe following Napoleon's conquests and put pressure on empires that had existed for centuries. Imperialism resulted in a rise in militarism as nations established and maintained colonies around the world. Military and strategic alliances created situations where regional skirmishes between small countries could escalate to major battles involving the entire continent. Social unrest put political and economic pressure on existing governments. Finally, there were no strong leaders when they were most needed.

The War Guilt Clause of the Treaty of Versailles was unfair in placing all of the responsibility for losses suffered in World War I on Germany. If Germany had won the war it is likely that another country would have signed a "War Guilt Clause" and historians would be debating the degree to which that country was actually responsible for the war. The Historiography references show how the consensus of historians have changed over time. Between 1919 and 1939, most historians felt that Germany was not to blame. After Hitler came to power, historians saw connections between the aggressive action of Kaiser Wilhelm at the beginning of World War I and Hitler's aggression that led to World War II. As a result, blame for the start of WWI shifted back to Germany. This point of view was strengthened further when the War Council and Liebensraum documents came to light. Based on the evidence, while Germany was more responsible for the start of World War I than any other nation, the war began primarily because of forces of history outside the control of any one country.

Sources

1. "Causes of WW1 - Main Causes of WW1." ww1 and history of ww1. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec.2012. <http://www.worldwar1-history.com/Causes-of-WW1.aspx>.

2. "Causes of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I>.

3. Duffy, Michael . "First World War.com - Feature Articles - The Causes of World War One."First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm>.

4. Hamm, Brian. "Origins of WW1." Upload & Share PowerPoint presentations and documents.N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. <http://www.slideshare.net/brianphamm/origins-of-ww1>.

5. "Historiography of the Causes of WWI." GCSE Modern World History. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec.2012. <http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm>.

6. "Historiography of the Causes of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Causes_of_World_War_I>.

7. Sheffield, Dr Gary. "BBC - History - World Wars: The Origins of World War One." BBCHomepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historpedia - The Origins of World War I: How Responsible Was Germany? (Fall 2012)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The topic regarding the origins of World War I is one of the most studied, debated, and disagreed-upon among historians. The question most frequently asked is, "Was Germany primarily responsible for the start of World War I?" Most historians recognize that the immediate cause of the

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: Kaiser Wilhelm II - WWI, Abdication & Death. (2010, April 14). HISTORY.

He was educated at the University of Bonn

He was smart and was tempered, impulsive

His family relationships were not very good, especially with his British mother.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

2. Emperor and King: 1888

3. Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

4. Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

Wilhelm II (1859-1941), the German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, was one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews. While Wilhelm did not actively seek war, and tried to hold back his generals from mobilizing the German army in the summer of 1914, his verbal outbursts and his open enjoyment of the title of Supreme War Lord helped bolster the case of those who blamed him for the conflict. His role in the conduct of the war as well as his responsibility for its outbreak is still controversial.

Some historians maintain that Wilhelm was controlled by his generals, while others argue that he retained considerable political power. In late 1918, he was forced to abdicate. He spent the rest of his life in exile in the Netherlands, where he died at age 82.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Early Years

Kaiser Wilhelm II was born in Potsdam, Germany, on January 27, 1859, the son of Prince Frederick Wilhelm of Prussia (1831-88) and Princess Victoria (1840-1901), the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). The future monarch was the queen's firstborn grandchild and was genuinely fond of her; in fact, he was holding her in his arms when she died. His ties to Britain through its royal family would play an important part in his later political maneuvering.

Did you know? Kaiser Wilhelm II was reportedly amused when he heard his cousin King George V (1865-1936) had changed the name of the British royal family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917 as a result of anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I.

Wilhelm's childhood was shaped by two events, one medical and one political. His birth had been traumatic; in the course of a complicated delivery, the doctor permanently damaged Wilhelm's left arm. In addition to its smaller size, the arm was useless for such ordinary tasks as cutting certain foods with a knife at mealtime.

The political event that shaped Wilhelm was the formation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia in 1871. Wilhelm was now second in line after his father to become an emperor as well as king of Prussia. Twelve years old at the time, Wilhelm was filled with nationalistic enthusiasm. His later determination to win a "place in the sun" for Germany had its roots in his childhood.

An intelligent young man who possessed a lifelong interest in science and technology, Wilhelm was educated at the University of Bonn. His quick mind, however, was combined with an even quicker temper and an impulsive, high-strung personality. He had dysfunctional relationships with both parents, particularly his English mother. Historians still debate the effects of the kaiser's complicated psychological makeup on his political decisions.

In 1881, Wilhelm married Princess Augusta Victoria (1858-1921) of Schleswig-Holstein. The couple would go on to have seven children.

Emperor and King: 1888

Wilhelm's father became Kaiser Frederick III of Germany in March 1888. Already ill with terminal throat cancer, he died after a reign of only several months. Wilhelm succeeded his father on June 15, 1888, at the age of 29. Within two years of his coronation, Wilhelm broke with Otto von Bismarck (1815-98), the "Iron Chancellor" who had dominated German politics since the 1860s. The kaiser embarked on his so-called New Course, a period of personal rule in which he appointed chancellors who were upper-level civil servants rather than statesmen. Bismarck bitterly predicted that Wilhelm would lead Germany to ruin.

Wilhelm damaged his political position in a number of ways. He meddled in German foreign policy on the basis of his emotions, resulting in incoherence and inconsistency in German relations with other nations. He also made a number of public blunders, the worst of which was The Daily Telegraph affair of 1908. Wilhelm gave an interview to the London-based newspaper in which he offended the British by saying such things as: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." The kaiser had already been hurt politically in 1907 by the Eulenburg-Harden affair, in which members of his circle of friends were accused of being homosexuals. Although there is no evidence that Wilhelm was gay-in addition to his seven children with his first wife, he was rumored to have several illegitimate offspring-the scandal was used by his political opponents to weaken his influence.

Wilhelm's most important contribution to Germany's prewar military expansion was his commitment to creating a navy to rival Britain's. His childhood visits to his British cousins had given him a love for the sea-sailing was one of his favorite recreations-and his envy of the power of the British navy convinced him that Germany must build a large fleet of its own in order to fulfill its destiny. The kaiser supported the plans of Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930), his chief admiral, who maintained that Germany could gain diplomatic power over Britain by stationing a fleet of warships in the North Sea. By 1914, however, the naval buildup had caused severe financial problems for Wilhelm's government.

Kaiser Wilhelm II and World War I

Wilhelm's behavior during the crisis that led to war in August 1914 is still controversial. There is little doubt that he had been broken psychologically by the criticism that followed the Eulenburg-Harden and Daily Telegraph scandals; he suffered an episode of depression in 1908. In addition, the kaiser was out of touch with the realities of international politics in 1914; he thought that his blood relationships to other European monarchs were sufficient to manage the crisis that followed the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Although Wilhelm signed the order for German mobilization following pressure from his generals-Germany declared war against Russia and France during the first week of August 1914- he is reported to have said, "You will regret this, gentlemen."

With World War I under way, the kaiser, as commander in chief of the German armed forces, retained the power to make upper-level changes in military command. Nonetheless, he was largely a shadow monarch during the war, useful to his generals as a public-relations figure who toured the front lines and handed out medals. After 1916, Germany was, in effect, a military dictatorship dominated by two generals, Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) and Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937).

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Years of Exile

In late 1918, popular unrest in Germany (which had suffered greatly during the war) combined with a naval mutiny convinced civilian political leaders that the kaiser had to abdicate to preserve order. In fact, Wilhelm's abdication was announced on November 9, 1918, before he had actually consented to it. He agreed to leave when the leaders of the army told him he had lost their support as well. On November 10, the former emperor took a train across the border into the Netherlands, which had remained neutral throughout the war. He eventually bought a manor house in the town of Doorn, and remained there for the remainder of his life.

Although the Allies wanted to punish Wilhelm as a war criminal, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1880-1962) refused to extradite him. His last years were darkened by the death of his first wife and the suicide of his youngest son in 1920. He did, however, make a happy second marriage in 1922. His new wife, Hermine Reuss (1887-1947), actively petitioned German leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in the early 1930s to restore the monarchy, but nothing ever came of her negotiations. Hitler despised the man he held responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I, and Wilhelm was shocked by the Nazis' thuggish tactics. In 1938, Wilhelm remarked that for the first time he was ashamed to be a German. After two decades in exile, he died in the Netherlands on June 4, 1941, at the age of 82.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kaiser Wilhelm II - WWI, Abdication & Death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilhelm II (1859-1941) was the last German kaiser (emperor) and king of Prussia from 1888 to 1918, and one of the most recognizable public figures of World War I (1914-18). He gained a reputation as a swaggering militarist through his speeches and ill-advised newspaper interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
A wrong turn of the car that Franz Ferdinand was on was passing by a bar and Gavarilo Princip- another nationalist Serbian revolutionary- who was having a drink at the bar, had run out and pulled his pistol out to shoot Ferdinand and his wife.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the eve of the assassination’s centennial, find out how a teenage Serbian nationalist provided the spark for World War I.

# data[].attributes.headline
Imperialism Definition (Joe Someya, Yuto, Kappa)

# data[].attributes.subject
Imperialism Definition (Joe Someya, Yuto, Kappa)

# data[].attributes.body
imperialism. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent's foreign policy.

Imperialism in ancient times is clear in the history of China and in the history of western Asia and the Mediterranean-an unending succession of empires. The tyrannical empire of the Assyrians was replaced (6th-4th century bce) by that of the Persians, in strong contrast to the Assyrian in its liberal treatment of subjected peoples, assuring it long duration. It eventually gave way to the imperialism of Greece. When Greek imperialism reached an apex under Alexander the Great (356-323 bce), a union of the eastern Mediterranean with western Asia was achieved. But the cosmopolis, in which all citizens of the world would live harmoniously together in equality, remained a dream of Alexander. It was partially realized when the Romans built their empire from Britain to Egypt.

This idea of empire as a unifying force was never again realized after the fall of Rome. The nations arising from the ashes of the Roman Empire in Europe, and in Asia on the common basis of Islamic civilization ( see Islamic world), pursued their individual imperialist policies. Imperialism became a divisive force among the peoples of the world.

Three periods in the modern era witnessed the creation of vast empires, primarily colonial. Between the 15th century and the middle of the 18th, England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain built empires in the Americas, India, and the East Indies. For almost a century thereafter, relative calm in empire building reigned as the result of a strong reaction against imperialism. Then the decades between the middle of the 19th century and World War I (1914-18) were again characterized by intense imperialistic policies.

Russia, Italy, Germany, the United States, and Japan were added as newcomers among the imperialistic states, and indirect, especially financial, control became a preferred form of imperialism. For a decade after World War I the great expectations for a better world inspired by the League of Nations put the problem of imperialism once more in abeyance. Then Japan renewed its empire building with an attack in 1931 upon China. Under the leadership of Japan and the totalitarian states-Italy under the Fascist Party, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union -a new period of imperialism was inaugurated in the 1930s and '40s.

In their modern form, arguments about the causes and value of imperialism can be classified into four main groups. The first group contains economic arguments and often turn around the question of whether or not imperialism pays. Those who argue that it does point to the human and material resources and the outlets for goods, investment capital, and surplus population provided by an empire. Their opponents-among them Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and J.A. Hobson-often assert that imperialism may benefit a small favoured group but never the nation as a whole. Marxist theoreticians interpret imperialism as a late stage of capitalism wherein the national capitalist economy has become monopolistic and is forced to conquer outlets for its overproduction and surplus capital in competition with other capitalist states. This was the view held, for instance, by Vladimir Lenin and N.I. Bukharin, for whom capitalism and imperialism were identical. The weakness in their view is that historical evidence does not support it and that it fails to explain precapitalist imperialism and communist imperialism.

A second group of arguments relates imperialism to the nature of human beings and human groups, such as the state. Such different personalities as Machiavelli, Sir Francis Bacon, and Ludwig Gumplowicz, reasoning on different grounds, nevertheless arrived at similar conclusions-which Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini also endorsed, though not for intellectual reasons. Imperialism for them is part of the natural struggle for survival. Those endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule all others.

The third group of arguments has to do with strategy and security. Nations are urged, proponents of this viewpoint say, to obtain bases, strategic materials, buffer states, "natural" frontiers, and control of communication lines for reasons of security or to prevent other states from obtaining them. Those who deny the value of imperialism for these purposes point out that security is not thereby achieved. Expansion of a state's control over territories and peoples beyond its borders is likely to lead to friction, hence insecurity, because the safety zones and spheres of influence of competing nations are bound to overlap sooner or later. Related to the security argument is the argument that nations are inevitably imperialistic in their natural search for power and prestige.

The fourth group of arguments is based on moral grounds, sometimes with strong missionary implications. Imperialism is excused as the means of liberating peoples from tyrannical rule or of bringing them the blessings of a superior way of life. Imperialism results from a complex of causes in which in varying degrees economic pressures, human aggressiveness and greed, the search for security, the drive for power and prestige, nationalist emotions, humanitarianism, and many other factors are effective. This mixture of motivations makes it difficult to eliminate imperialism but also easy for states considering themselves potential victims to suspect it in policies not intended to be imperialistic. Some states of the developing world have accused the former colonial powers and other nations of neocolonialism. Their fear is that the granting of aid or the supply of skilled personnel for economic and technical development might be an imperialist guise.

Under international organizations, attempts have been made to satisfy by peaceful means the legitimate aspirations of nations and to contain their illegitimate ones. Measures for these purposes have included collective security arrangements, the mandate and the trusteeship system for dependent areas, the stimulation of cultural relations between nations, aid to developing countries, and the improvement of health and welfare everywhere. See also colonialism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Imperialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. The term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent's foreign policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: The Black Hand & Gavrilo Princip | Overview & History | Study.com. (2023). Study.com. https://study.com/academy/lesson/gavrilo-princip-biography-the-black-hand-ww1-quotes.html

‌

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 2: (Nationalism, Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, Kaiser Wilhelm II)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 2: (Nationalism, Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, Kaiser Wilhelm II)

# data[].attributes.body
Cindy, Kanato, Ryan, Kaena, Joe Sugimoto, Mike

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 3: (The Blank Cheque, The Black Hand, Militarism)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 3: (The Blank Cheque, The Black Hand, Militarism)

# data[].attributes.body
Takumi, Layna, Toma, Cocomi, Lei, Kohei

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 1: (Imperialism, Alliances, German Aggression)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 1: (Imperialism, Alliances, German Aggression)

# data[].attributes.body
Markus, Yoshi, Hana, Valentina, Kotaro, Joe Someya

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Little, B. (2022, March 7). How imperialism Set the Stage of World War 1. HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World War I wasn't just a conflict between nations-it was a war between empires. Western European empires like Great Britain and France had overseas colonies around the world, while eastern empires like Austria-Hungary and Russia ruled European and North Asian territories connected by land. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on July 28, 1914, was itself an anti-imperialist murder, planned by members of Young Bosnia angry over Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

European competition for imperial territories helped set the stage for the rivalries that played out during the First World War, and the war in turn had a major effect on the balance of imperial power. The Russian, German, Austria-Hungarian and Ottoman empires all collapsed during or shortly after the war, which ended with a treaty that ceded Germany's overseas colonies to the victors.

The Scramble for Africa

By the time World War I began, almost all of the African continent was under some form of colonial rule by Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain or Portugal. Most of this colonization happened after 1880, during a period known as the Scramble for Africa or the Partition of Africa, in which European empires competed with each other for control of African territories.

In the centuries before the Scramble for Africa, European empires had invaded African coastal nations to capture and enslave people but mostly hadn't managed to invade farther inland due to navigational difficulties and the threat of diseases like malaria. After the legal abolition of slavery, new technologies like steamboats and quinine allowed Europeans to invade much more of the continent.

The European empires that invaded Africa saw colonization as a way to exploit forced labor, extract resources and become more powerful in relation to other European empires. Although colonialism in Africa wasn't a direct cause of World War I, it helped create an environment in which European empires thought of themselves as rivals who could only succeed at the expense of other empires. For example, France and Germany, two main rivals during World War I, competed with each other for control of Morocco in the decade before the war.

"France and Germany did not go to war over Morocco," says Richard Fogarty, a history professor at the University at Albany and co-editor of Empires in World War I: Shifting Frontiers and Imperial Dynamics in a Global Conflict.

"What happened, though, was that they were conditioned to think of each other as competitors," he says, "and to think of the world as this zero-sum game in which the French pursuit of empire could only come at the expense of the German pursuit of empire."

Great Britain was also concerned about Germany's attempt to build a navy that might challenge its own. Although Germany was nowhere close to achieving this, Fogarty says, "the British couldn't even tolerate the idea of a threat to their naval supremacy, because they had an empire to secure. And so that made them hypersensitive to any competition."

French and British fears about Germany's empire-building are part of what drove European nations to form alliances and informal agreements in the decades leading up to World War I, dividing Europe into roughly two opposing camps.

Imperialism in Europe

In contrast to most of the Western European empires, the Austria-Hungarian, Russian and the Ottoman empires were contiguous, with territories connected to each other by land. On the eve of World War I, the three empires' borders converged at the Balkans-a region in southeastern Europe that the empires viewed as strategically valuable, and played a major role in the start of the Great War.

The Ottoman Empire had previously controlled much of the Balkans but lost most of its territory there in the 19th century. Austria-Hungary took advantage of the Ottoman Empire's retreat by occupying Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region in the Balkans that the empire annexed in 1908.

It was this occupation and annexation that the revolutionary group Young Bosnia was protesting when it assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the presumptive heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne. After the assassination, Austria-Hungary accused neighboring Serbia, another nation in the Balkans, of assisting Young Bosnia and declared war on Serbia.

Russia ostensibly agreed to back Serbia against Austria-Hungary because it was a fellow Slavic state; but Andrew Jarboe, a history professor at Berklee College of Music who co-edited Empires in World War I with Fogarty, suggests Russia was also motivated by imperial interests in the Balkans.

"I really think Russia's calculus is: if they don't respond militarily, they render themselves obsolete in this region," he says.

Empires Dismantled in Wake of World War I

Russia fought World War I on the side of the Allies, which included Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, but left the Great War in 1917 when revolution and civil war broke out in its own empire. This led to the collapse of the Russian Empire and the establishment of the Soviet Union.

The opposing side, the Central Powers, is where most of the other imperial collapses happened. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles dismantled the Austria-Hungarian Empire in Europe and the German Empire both in Europe and abroad. Great Britain, France and Belgium divided most of Germany's African colonies among themselves, while Japan took over Germany's colonies in China and the North Pacific. In addition, the treaty imposed measures on the Ottoman Empire that led to its dissolution in 1922.

When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he deliberately used the existence of a previous German Empire to justify his "Third Reich," or "Third Empire," which he imagined would take control of Europe (in his mind, the Holy Roman Empire was the "First Reich"). When he invaded Poland in 1939, sparking World War II, part of his rationale that he was conquering territory that rightly belonged to Germany-an excuse that many imperialists had used before and would use again.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Imperialism Set the Stage for World War I | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the powers in World War I were competitive in overtaking territories in Europe and Africa.

# data[].attributes.body
Hoop, H. van der, Amadeo, K., & Webber, M. R. (2022). What Is Imperialism?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Takeaways

How Imperialism Works

Imperialism is when one country exercises power over another through various methods of control. It describes an economic, political, and social system in which one country subjugates others, and brings them under its control. Motives for imperialism include economic, cultural, political, moral, and exploratory control.

Imperialists often exploit the conquered country's resources for their own economic gain. The word "imperialism" comes from the Latin term "imperium," which means "to command." Imperialism is often associated with colonialism, which is similar in terms of control, but with the additional strategy of the imperial power sending settlers to live in a colony.

Imperialists view economics as a "zero-sum" game in which there's a finite amount of riches in the world. They believe that in order for someone to gain wealth, someone must lose wealth. Imperialists also believe expansion by force is justified by the theory of social Darwinism, or "survival of the fittest."

The typical goal of imperialism is to acquire as many resources as possible, often through exploitation and expansion by force. This means that as an economic system, imperialism "works" for nations that try to justify the conquest or subjugation of others. For nations that are conquered, the system has generally resulted in an extraction of monetary, mineral, and cultural wealth.

Historians broadly classify the arguments in favor of imperialism into four categories:

Economic: Proponents argue the benefits of acquiring goods such as cotton, silk, tobacco, gold, and land, as well as access to trade routes.

Cultural: This motive designates some groups as superior to others and therefore they are equipped to rule over them.

Political or strategic: To protect themselves against potential challenges and establish their power, nations aim to control as much territory as possible.

Moral or religious: This motive argues it will save people from the dangers of an oppressive government or religion, often by imposing a different one.

Some historians separate exploratory imperialism, which motivated Europeans to find new trade routes and resources to exploit, from other economic motives.

Examples of Imperialism

The "golden age" of imperialism was the 19th century, during which European nations held empires that covered much of the world. During this period, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Russia, and Great Britain all relied on imperialism to build their wealth.

European countries seized about 9 million square miles of territory in Africa and Asia between 1870 and 1900, a fifth of the world's landmass. About 150 million people were subjected to imperialism during that time.

The scale of these empires was vast. The Austro-Hungarian Empire included countries in southeastern Europe bordering Russia. Germany's empire included the former French regions of Alsace and Lorraine, and Germany's and Italy's empires included countries in Africa. The Russian Empire included most of eastern Europe, including Serbia. The British Empire-the largest empire in the world at the time-had countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The French Empire had Vietnam and most of northern Africa.

Imperialism has occurred outside this context, though. Although the U.S. doesn't often think of itself as an imperial power, some historians have drawn this comparison. The Monroe Doctrine asserted in 1823 that the U.S. would defend the Americas against European imperialism, for example, and laid the foundation for ongoing U.S. interference in the Western Hemisphere.

The U.S. fought the Spanish-American War to end Spain's colonial empire in the Western Hemisphere. In 1898, Spain ended its claims on Cuba, and the U.S. took over rights to Guam and Puerto Rico. It defeated Philippine nationalists a few years later, and claimed the Philippines. The American expansion into the Philippines and Puerto Rico did not include colonization.

Imperialism vs. Colonialism

Gains control over another country's politics

Gains control over people

Can occur without sending in settlers

Often involves settlers from another country

Many people use the terms "imperialism" and "colonialism" interchangeably, but they're not the same.

Colonialism means control by one power over a dependent area or people, often involving the implanting of settlers in a foreign country. It comes from the Latin word "colonus," which means farmer. The settlers intend to live in the dominated country permanently, but they keep their allegiance to their country of origin.

Europeans expanded their empires in Africa without intending to fully colonize it in the late 19th century, although imperialism still had a devastating effect on Africa.

Imperialism allows one country to exercise power over another through various methods of control. It can occur without colonialism if the invading country doesn't send in settlers.

Europeans expanded their empires in Africa without intending to fully colonize it in the late 19th century. That doesn't diminish the devastating effect that imperialism had on Africa, however. The American expansion into the Philippines and Puerto Rico also did not include colonization.

Imperialism vs. Mercantilism

Gains control over another country's politics and/or economy

Exerts control over international trade

Exploits the conquered country's resources

The government strengthens the merchants

Mercantilism is an economic theory that advocates government regulation of international trade to generate wealth and to strengthen national power. Merchants and the government work together to reduce the trade deficit and to create a surplus. It is similar to imperialism, but is not quite the same.

With mercantilism, the government aims to strengthen merchants. It establishes monopolies, grants tax-free status to businesses, grants pensions to favored industries, and imposes tariffs on imports. International businesses, in turn, funnel the riches from foreign expansion back to their governments. Domestic business taxes pay for continuous national growth and increased political power.

Note

Mercantilism is a form of economic nationalism that advocates trade policies that protect domestic industries.

Imperialism vs. Capitalism

Gaining control over another country's politics and/or economy

Invests in developing countries to sell goods and exploit resources

Exploits conquered country's resources

Requires a market economy and may lead to imperialism

Some argue that imperialism is an outgrowth of capitalism. J.A. Hobson, an English historian, has written that capitalist societies produce too much for their own economies to purchase, and therefore, they turned to colonies to "absorb" this excess production.

Similarly, Russian Marxist philosopher Vladimir Lenin argued that imperialism was a form of late-stage capitalism. Capitalism, he said, led to powerful monopolies that were forced to expand their empires by seizing colonies and creating dependencies to serve as markets, investment outlets, as well as sources of food and raw materials.

Others argue that capitalism alone doesn't always lead to imperialism. Several non-capitalist countries have exhibited imperialism. Communist China annexed Tibet in 1951 to develop its resources, and it sent Chinese volunteers to colonize it. China has also invested billions to extract resources in African nations, taking natural resources in the "partnership" without developing the local communities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is an example of imperialism?

An example of imperialism includes France's control of Vietnam from the mid- to late-1800s. Other examples of imperialism include Britain's control of several countries in the early 1900s, including India, Australia, and many countries in Africa.

Which countries practiced imperialism?

Countries that have practiced imperialism include Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Competition among European countries to claim parts of Africa and Asia was among the driving forces behind World War I.

The Balance uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Darwinism."

2. Thurow, Lester C. "The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities for Change, New Edition." Basic Books, 2001.

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica. " Imperialism."

4. Fordham University. " Modern History Sourcebook: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism."

5. Indiana Department of Education. " World War I Resources." Page 2.

6. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. " Monroe Doctrine, 1823."

7. Library of Congress. " The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War."

8. South African History Online. " The Scramble for Africa: Late 19th Century."

9. Hobson, J.A. "Imperialism: A Study." Cosimo, Inc., 2005.

By clicking "Accept All Cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imperialism is the policy or act of extending a country's power into other territories, or gaining control over another country's politics or economics.

# data[].attributes.headline
German Aggression- link 2 )Kotaro Markus)

# data[].attributes.subject
German Aggression- link 2 )Kotaro Markus)

# data[].attributes.body
Lind, M. (2014, June 30). Germany’s Superpower Quest Caused World War I. The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/germanys-superpower-quest-caused-world-war-i-10778

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The centenary of the beginning of World War I has revealed a deep divide between perceptions of the war held by the general public and historians, at least in the English-speaking world. Pundits and commentators and politicians routinely opine that World War I was a needless and unavoidable catastrophe, variously attributed to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian terrorist at Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, runaway arms races, imperialism in general, or "sleepwalking" politicians who stumbled blindly into catastrophe. The general impression among the broader public is that nobody in particular was to blame for the greatest conflagration in world history before the Second World War. Literary and cinematic masterpieces like Remargue's All Quiet on the Western Front and Kubrick's Path's of Glory have reinforced the perception that the conflict proved the absurdity of war. The lesson is that war is like catastrophic climate change-a destructive force that must be avoided and for which everyone is partly to blame.

In the Anglophone world, this popular interpretation of World War I has deep roots in strains of isolationism, the international peace campaigns of the early twentieth century, and, not least, Woodrow Wilson's call for a "peace without victory." In the European Union, treating World War I as the product of abstract forces like arms races or nationalism is doubtlessly useful in minimizing national animosities.

But unlike the chattering classes, most historians, ever since Fritz Fischer published Germany's Aims in the First World War (1961), have tended to agree that the major cause of World War I was Imperial Germany's determination to become a "world power" or superpower by crippling Russia and France in what it hoped would be a brief and decisive war, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Following the Archduke's assassination, Berlin deliberately used the crisis in relations between its satellite Austria-Hungary and Russia's satellite Serbia as an excuse for a general war that would establish German hegemony from Belgium to Baghdad. World War I started in 1914 for the same reason that World War II started in 1939-a government in Berlin wanted a war, though not the war it ultimately got.

The secret "September program" of the German government in 1914 envisioned lopping off territory from France and turning Germany's neighbors into "vassal states" (a term used in the document for Belgium). The 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, negotiated between Germany and the Soviet government that it had helped to install in Moscow, removed Russia from the war, gave Germany the Baltic states and part of Belarus and made an independent Ukraine a German satellite. Put the September program and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk together, and you have a striking vision of a German continental empire as expansive as the one imagined by Hitler-although, unlike Hitler's genocidal German settler empire, the Kaiser's empire would have been a more traditional empire of German-dominated vassal states.

Defenders of the "everyone was at fault" interpretation of World War I point out that Germany's enemies had expansive war aims, too, and that Britain and France carved up the Ottoman empire following the war. But this misses the point. The alliance of Russia, France and Britain was defensive, provoked by Germany's bellicose drive to become a global rather than merely regional power. There had been numerous Balkan wars in the preceding decades and the conflict between Austria and Serbia could have been confined to the Balkans, if Berlin had chosen that option. Instead, Germany's rulers used Sarajevo as an excuse to do what it wanted to do anyway: convert itself into a "world power" by dominating Europe through war.

The British historian Niall Ferguson once suggested that if Britain and the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, a Mitteleuropa established by the Kaiserreic h might have evolved into something like today's European Union. Nonsense. Within Imperial Germany, victory would have strengthened the authoritarian militarists and weakened the forces of liberalism and democracy. The political culture would have been not that of today's bourgeois Germany but that of a Latin American banana republic or today's Thailand or Egypt, illiberal regimes in which generals and colonels pull the strings.

A German victory in World War I would have created a European superpower which, if less maniacal and murderous than Hitler's aborted superstate, would have been much more formidable than the Soviet Union. Soviet Russia was a backward nation that controlled the poorest half of Europe during the Cold War. If it had prevailed in World War I, Imperial Germany would have been the most advanced nation of Europe, dominating the richest region in the world.

Would this new superpower, created in a bloody war of aggression by Berlin, have been a status quo power? It seems more likely that the German imperial elite, emboldened by success, would have charged recklessly on to wage cold war against the British empire and against the U.S. in the western hemisphere. In any hypothetical German-American Cold War, Imperial Germany might have mobilized superior scientific and technological resources, including areas like chemistry and rocket science in which it led the world. And unlike the Hitler regime, a triumphant Kaiserreich probably would not have allowed distinctions between "Jewish science" and "Aryan science" to get in the way of developing atomic weapons.

Bismarck's Germany was a status quo power. Post-Bismarckian Germany was a rogue state. Wilhelm II did not dream of exterminating Jews and enslaving the Slavs, but in his recklessness and radicalism he was proto-Hitlerian. To achieve the goal of creating a German superpower, Wilhelm and his officers sought to cripple Britain and France, by stirring up a global Muslim jihad and to tie the U.S. down by embroiling it in border war with Mexico (the Zimmerman telegram). Last but not least, Imperial Germany successfully crippled Russia by sponsoring Lenin's communist coup d'etat in October 1917. The Kaiser and his soldiers and diplomats were not prudent Old World statesmen playing chess. They were revisionist radicals, overturning the chess board and stomping on the pieces.

To what end? What was the alternative that was so terrible, so inconceivable, that the Imperial regime and later the Third Reich were willing to plunge the world into two wars that cost a total of 75 to 100 million deaths and devastated Germany in the process? The alternative, unthinkable to the Imperial German ruling class, was that a peaceful, status quo Germany, within its 1871 borders, would be nothing more than the richest country in a rich and peaceful Europe, enjoying cooperative relations with Britain and America.

In his book Mitteleuropa [Central Europe] (1917), Friedrich Naumann-himself a moderate German National Liberal-considered and rejected the option that Germany could be a regional European power affiliated with the Anglophone world:

As a matter of sentiment, and in spite of all the war "songs of hate," it is easier for us to contemplate a permanent union with the English World-Power [than an alliance with Russia]. In this case we shall become, as one of my friends puts it, the junior partner in the English world-firm, shall supply it with confidential agents and clerks, build ships and send teachers to the colonies, furnish English emporiums with German goods, industriously made and well paid for, speak English outside our own four walls, enjoy English internationalism, and fight the future English battles against Russia...All of this would be regulated, after the English fashion, in quite reasonable and pleasant forms, but our German Imperial history would have become a history of a territory as is to-day that of Saxony or Wurttemberg. A great nation only does a thing like this when nothing else remains to it [emphasis added]. We know that most of the nations on the globe have no choice but to seek such an alliance, on one side or another, but a greater aim tempts us in virtue of our strength and experience: to become a central point ourselves!

Naumann was wrong. Like the leaders of West Germany after World War II and reunited Germany after the Cold War, Germany's leaders a century ago should have chosen the alternative of being an honored and well-remunerated junior partner in the Anglo-American "world-firm." Had they done so, the world would have been spared World War I, World War II, and probably Soviet communism and the Cold War, too.

It's time to retire the myth that World War I was a meaningless, avoidable tragedy while World War II was a just and necessary crusade. World War I and World War II had the same cause-the desire of German elites to use aggressive war to turn Germany from a regional power into a global superpower-and the same result-the defeat of Germany by a defensive coalition of Russia, Britain, France and the United States. If it was right to prevent the German conquest of Europe by the Fuhrer, it was also right to prevent the German conquest of Europe by the Kaiser. What the world needed in 1914 and 1939 was what the world thankfully has today: a European Germany, not a German Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Germany's Superpower Quest Caused World War I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The major cause of World War I was Imperial Germany's determination to become a "world power" or superpower by crippling Russia and France in what it hoped would be a brief and decisive war, like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71."

# data[].attributes.body
‌Reference: Belgium - WWI, Neutrality, Invasion | Britannica. (2023). In Encyclopædia Britannica.

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As international tensions heightened during the summer of 1914, Germany made plans to besiege France by crossing Luxembourg and Belgium, despite their neutrality. The two countries refused free passage to the German troops and were invaded on August 2 and August 4, respectively. The Belgian army retired behind the Yser (IJzer) River in the west of Flanders and held this position until 1918. During the war, the Belgian government sat at Le Havre, France, while King Albert I, as commander in chief of the army, remained with his troops in unoccupied Belgium. In 1916 the Belgian Catholic Party government was enlarged to include some Socialists and Liberals. Germany attempted to profit from Flemish-Walloon antagonism in Belgium by supporting the Flemish Activists, a radical nationalist group that accepted the German offer of assistance. Most Flemings, however, were resolutely hostile to collaboration with the enemy and refused to recognize either the Council of Flanders, founded during the occupation, or the University of Ghent, changed during the occupation from a French-language to a Flemish-language institution. (Shortly after liberation, the Belgian government made the State University of Ghent partially and then, in 1930, completely Flemish.) ( See also World War I.)

The interwar period

The Treaty of Versailles (1919), ending World War I, abolished Belgium's obligatory neutrality and returned the cantons of Eupen and Malmédy to its territory. In 1920 a treaty of military assistance was signed with France. In 1921 an economic union was concluded with Luxembourg that tied the currencies of Belgium and Luxembourg together. Belgium's eastern frontier was guaranteed by the Pact of Locarno (1925). In Africa, Belgium received the mandate for Ruanda-Urundi, a part of German East Africa that Belgian colonial forces had occupied during World War I.

On the domestic front, political democratization and trade unionism, as well as social legislation and the Flemish movement, gathered momentum in postwar Belgium. Upon their return to Brussels in November 1918, the king and his government announced the introduction of absolute universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21, implying the abandonment of plural voting. The first elections held following this reform ended the Catholic domination of Belgian politics. Coalition governments, mostly Catholic-Liberal, were the rule in the interwar period. However, the Socialist Party, which had emerged during the social democracy movement of the late 19th century, became increasingly prominent. The anti-Bolshevist climate of the time, nonetheless, resulted in a persisting aversion to socialism among the middle class. The Belgian Socialists and the Liberals both opposed woman suffrage, regarding it as most advantageous to the Belgian Catholic Party. (Only in 1948 did Belgian women gain the right to vote in national elections.) Within the Belgian Catholic Party, the centre of gravity shifted during the interwar period from the old conservative camp to the Christian Democratic wing as Christian trade unionism experienced a significant upsurge. Both Christian Democrats and Socialists stimulated social legislation, especially during the years of Socialist participation in the government.

The Belgian economy of the interwar period faced serious difficulties. The war had caused a loss of 16 to 20 percent of the national wealth; not only had parts of the country been seriously damaged by combat, but the Germans had largely dismantled the Walloon heavy industry. Moreover, many Belgian investors had lost their capital in Russia, which had been transformed by revolution into the Soviet Union. Reconstruction proved difficult for other reasons as well. Germany was delinquent and inadequate in its payment of war reparations mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. The National Bank of Belgium, in an effort to redress the shortfall, advanced on behalf of the Belgian government the money needed for reconstruction. In so doing, however, the bank increased still further the money supply and the government's already massive short-term debt, which had originated from the conversion into Belgian francs of the German marks circulating in Belgium at war's end. Under such circumstances, inflation was inevitable. Soaring exchange rates generated an acute flight of capital and an imbalance of payments. Inflation also eroded the increase in real wages, which the Socialists and Christian Democrats had been able to obtain in the democratization euphoria of the immediate postwar years.

The government, which had originally hoped to restore the gold standard at its prewar parity level, soon realized that such a policy had become impossible. Increasing monetary and financial instability and fear of hyperinflation with possibly dangerous social consequences led to the formation in 1925 of a national union government, intent on restoring the gold standard but at a more realistic parity level. The reform failed, precipitating the fall of the government in March 1926. The subsequent Catholic-Liberal coalition government succeeded in restoring the gold standard on October 22, 1926, at 20 percent of its prewar level. Belgian capital returned to the country, and, because of the franc's undervaluation, much foreign capital flowed in as well. Belgian companies, infused with fresh capital, began to invest again outside Belgium, under the leadership of the mixed banks. The discovery of rich mineral deposits in the Belgian Congo made colonial development schemes increasingly attractive. Large-scale investments in southeastern and south-central Europe partly replaced the lost Russian accounts. Owing to the franc's undervaluation, the export industries in Flanders and Wallonia also were booming. The overall prosperity generated speculative excesses, particularly on the Brussels Exchange, which was now an important capital market.

The perceived neglect of and discrimination against Flemish soldiers at the Yser front during the war, coupled with the lack of official response to postwar Flemish demands, caused a marked shift to the right among many Flemings. In 1930 the Belgian government acquiesced somewhat to the pressure, making Flanders and Wallonia legally unilingual regions, with only Brussels and its surroundings remaining bilingual. The arrangement left the linguistic borders unfixed, the government's hope being that the Frenchification of central Belgium would continue and allow eventually for enlargement of the French-speaking region.

The Belgian economy was, of course, jolted by the stock market crash of 1929 in the United States, but Britain's decision two years later to abandon the gold standard and allow the pound to float affected the country much more severely. Still traumatized by the experience of the 1920s, the Belgian government decided to maintain the gold parity of 1926, which left the franc seriously overvalued as the pound sterling and dollar fell. Belgian exports declined sharply, as did business profits and investments, while unemployment soared, heightening the atmosphere of social unrest. Only in March 1935 would the government abandon its policy of maintaining the franc at its 1926 level; the gold value of the franc was devalued by 28 percent.

With the onset of the Great Depression, the Socialist Party advocated a program of economic planning in accordance with the ideas of the socialist theorist Hendrik de Man. At the same time, there emerged two Belgian parties: a strictly Flemish party that enjoyed little success and the broader-based Rexists under the leadership of Léon Degrelle. The latter party won 21 seats, more than 10 percent of the chamber, in the elections of 1936. Strikes broke out in the same year and led the tripartite government of Paul van Zeeland to establish paid holidays for workers and a 40-hour workweek for miners. Also in 1936, the first National Labour Convention marked the starting point of an institutionalized dialogue between the so-called social partners (employers, trade unions, and government).

Meanwhile, King Leopold III, who succeeded his father, Albert I, in 1934, faced an increasingly tense international situation. Leopold advocated a policy of neutrality aimed at keeping Belgium from the seemingly inevitable conflict. Although this policy was approved by the parliament, Belgium, in its determination to resist all aggression, constructed a line of defense from Namur to Antwerp.

Nazi occupation

On May 10, 1940, Germany invaded Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The Netherlands capitulated after 6 days, Belgium after 18. France, which along with Britain had sent troops to Belgium, had to lay down arms three weeks later. The British troops, covered by the Belgian army, retreated from Dunkirk, France, in particularly dramatic circumstances. The Belgian government fled the country, first to France, in hopes of being able to return to occupied Belgium, and later to London. King Leopold III, commander in chief of the army, refused to follow the government and was taken prisoner by the Germans and confined to his palace at Laeken. The four years of ensuing Nazi occupation were distinguished by a growing resistance organization. When the Allied forces reached Belgium on September 3, 1944, the Belgian underground army was able to prevent the destruction of the port of Antwerp, which served as the most important continental provisioning point for Allied troops for the remainder of the war. ( See also World War II.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Belgium - WWI, Neutrality, Invasion: As international tensions heightened during the summer of 1914, Germany made plans to besiege France by crossing Luxembourg and Belgium, despite their neutrality. The two countries refused free passage to the German troops and were invaded on August 2 and August 4, respectively.

# data[].attributes.body
reference: German Aggression Responsible for Ww1. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bartleby.com/essay/German-Aggression-Responsible-for-Ww1-P3ZJUELKRZZA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914'. How far do you agree with this judgement? Many historians argue that the reason for Germany going to war was due to the aggressive behaviour of Germany in the build up to the war. Throughout this essay I will be addressing this issue looking at whether Germany was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. There are many factors which contribute to the outbreak of the war from a short-term trigger such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the long-term annexation aims Germany implemented in the years building up to the war, the most important reason was Germany's aggressive foreign policy, they had provided ...show more content...
This leads onto my next point that source 2 implies the military had a large role to play in the outbreak of war. 'In the final phase, military considerations were of decisive importance. Although the government was in favour of expansion and annexation this statement suggests the military took the decision of war into their own hands, there is evidence which backs this up as many important government officials such as the chancellor was not present at the war council meeting of 1912, however people may argue that the military was controlled directly by the Kaiser who shared similar views to those of the military and was the person that made all important decisions for the country. Therefore although this source agrees that Germany were responsible for the outbreak of war due to aggressive behaviour people may argue that it disagrees to some extent as they look at Frances role in provoking war. Similarly to source 2 there are differing opinions within source 3, however unlike sources 1 and 2, source 3 does not see Germany's aggressive behaviour as a factor in the reason for the outbreak of war in Europe, instead it suggests the arms race was a major factor in itself. 'The arms race... has contributed to the sense that war was bound to come', although this does not directly state the superpowers armament as a factor it implies it had a

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free Essay: 'German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914'. How far do you agree with this judgement? Many...

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: MyTutor. (2013). Alliances were the main cause for the First World War. Discuss | MyTutor. Mytutor.co.uk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alliances can be seen as the main cause for the First World War, because the alliance system brought in a substantial number of countries from Europe into a Balkan conflict. Due to the nature of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance, world superpowers were forced into the conflict over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand which could have been resolved between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. This therefore created a world war instead of a small conflict. Not only did alliances enhance the size of the war but the system set the sides that would be fighting each other when war broke out. The alliance system began creating tension between the two sides from an early stage. Creating a defensive atmosphere and the reassurance that one country would be supported by their alliance if they were to engage in conflict. These reasons encouraged the fighting countries to seek conflict rather than peaceful resolution when tensions were at their highest.Although alliances played an important factor in the cause of the First World War, it is not the most important. The alliances had a defensive nature, this acted as a deterrent for war. Ideologies such as nationalism and militarism were far more important as a cause of the First World War. The societal view across Europe focused on being seen as the best country. Sided with Germany's fear of isolation, many people associated strength with winning a war. The desire to prove oneself as the superior country led to people supporting the idea of war, making it easier for governments to pursue conflict over peace. Militarism and nationalism go hand in hand as having the best military links with being the strongest country. The growing military strength and the arms race between Germany and Britain created strong resources that were ready to be used. The growing acceptance of conflict is more important than alliances as public opinion can sway a governments decision. The alliance systems were more for protection and defence whereas ideological standpoints encouraged governments to make the decisions to go to war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alliances were the main cause for the First World War. Discuss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alliances can be seen as the main cause for the First World War, because the alliance system brought in a substantial number of countries from Europe into a Balka...

# data[].attributes.body
Reference: Alliance System in WWI | Definition, Cause & Effect | Study.com. (2023). Study.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
The clothe worn by Franz Ferdinand When he was assasinated

# data[].attributes.subject
The clothe worn by Franz Ferdinand When he was assasinated

# data[].attributes.body
In this picture, we can see that the time when Franz Ferdinand was killed, the killer had hot several bullets right to the chest, and killed him directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A grim relic of the murder that helped to trigger the First World War will make a rare appearance tomorrow when the bloodied shirt of Archduke Franz Ferdinand goes on display in Vienna.

The stained undershirt will be brought out of storage for the 99th anniversary of "the shot that echoed around the world", when the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated along with his wife, Sophie, as they drove through Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

It was worn by the 50-year-old Emperor-in-waiting under his uniform, which is on permanent display at the Military History Museum in the Austrian capital, along with his feathered hat and bullet-holed car.

Curators at the museum will allow the shirt, which was preserved by a Jesuit priest, to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Handle with care: the bloody relic of shot that echoed around the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A grim relic of the murder that helped to trigger the First World War will make a rare appearance tomorrow when the bloodied shirt of Archduke Franz Ferdinand goes on display in Vienna. The stained

# data[].attributes.body
Austria-Hungary was ruling over ¾ of Serbia, and many Serbian nationalist revolutionaries had tried to assassinate the emperor of Austria-Hungary, thinking that it would free Serbia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia

# data[].attributes.body
Austria-Hungary immediately declared war on Serbia because a Serbian revolutionary had assassinated Franz Ferdinand. We can blame Austria-Hungary for the cause of WWI because they were the ones who declared war without thinking twice and allied with Germany. They had many other options to think about, for example, they wanted payment from Serbia or many other ways. But Austria-Hungary's foreign policy was very aggressive, and that made Austria-Hungary declare war immediately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the eve of the assassination’s centennial, find out how a teenage Serbian nationalist provided the spark for World War I.

# data[].attributes.body
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 World War 1.

CAUSES OF WORLD WAR I

# data[].attributes.body
Militarism is the belief that a country should possess a strong military force and be prepared to use it actively to protect and promote its interests. Leading up to World War I, the imperialist countries of Europe were strong supporters of militarism.

Europe was a strong proponent of militarism. They spent more and more money on military technology, employing more troops, and training their soldiers. They found that to gain colonies it helped to be militarily superior to the people they colonized and the other industrialized countries they were competing with.

reference: Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda UFSD