Lesson 2 - The long-term causes of WW1: Imperialism, Nationalism and Militarism.
But first a word of warning about 'structure and agency'.
When historians study major events such as the First World War, there is a strong temptation to look for big, impersonal explanations. A catastrophe on this scale seems to demand vast causes. Surely something so destructive could not result simply from human decisions taken over a few weeks in the summer of 1914?
For much of the twentieth century, historians answered this problem by focusing on long-term forces rather than individual choices. They pointed to imperialism, nationalism and militarism as powerful pressures shaping Europe before 1914. These forces appeared to push societies and governments towards conflict almost regardless of what individuals wanted - we call these structural factors. As the poet T.S. Eliot described them, they were “vast impersonal forces” that seemed to drive humanity forward without clear direction or control.
When historians study major events such as the First World War, there is a strong temptation to look for big, impersonal explanations. A catastrophe on this scale seems to demand vast causes. Surely something so destructive could not result simply from human decisions taken over a few weeks in the summer of 1914?
For much of the twentieth century, historians answered this problem by focusing on long-term forces rather than individual choices. They pointed to imperialism, nationalism and militarism as powerful pressures shaping Europe before 1914. These forces appeared to push societies and governments towards conflict almost regardless of what individuals wanted - we call these structural factors. As the poet T.S. Eliot described them, they were “vast impersonal forces” that seemed to drive humanity forward without clear direction or control.
This approach has an important strength. It reminds us that leaders in 1914 were operating within a dangerous international system they had not created alone. Industrialisation, empire-building, nationalist movements and arms races had raised tension across Europe for decades. War was not inevitable, but it had become more likely.
However, this way of explaining the war also has a weakness. If we focus only on structures and forces, we risk losing sight of human agency, the choices, fears and calculations made by governments and individuals. In this course, we will return to this problem repeatedly. The aim is not to choose between 'big forces' and human decisions, but to understand how they interacted.
However, this way of explaining the war also has a weakness. If we focus only on structures and forces, we risk losing sight of human agency, the choices, fears and calculations made by governments and individuals. In this course, we will return to this problem repeatedly. The aim is not to choose between 'big forces' and human decisions, but to understand how they interacted.
In this lesson, you will examine imperialism, nationalism and militarism as long-term sources of tension. In later lessons, you will see how these pressures shaped - but did not fully determine - the decisions taken during the crises of 1905–1914 and, ultimately, in July 1914. We'll return to this question of human agency (and blame) later, when we look briefly at the history of what historians have written about the causes of the war.
|
|
|
Imperialism
As you will remember, until about 1850 European exploration and exploitation of Africa had largely been limited to coastal areas. By the 1870s, however, explorers such as Henry Stanley helped draw attention to the economic potential of the African interior. This contributed to a rapid expansion of European imperialism, as states competed to claim colonies.
The potential for imperial rivalry to bring distant powers into conflict was clear, and it worried statesmen such as Bismarck. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for overseas empire, Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 to establish rules for claiming territory in Africa. His aim was not to encourage imperialism, but to limit its dangers and prevent colonial disputes from dragging Europe into war.
However, imperialism created long-term pressures that were difficult to control. Industrial and military expansion increased the demand for raw materials and markets. By 1900, most of Africa had already been claimed, meaning that further expansion could only take place at another power’s expense. This did not make war inevitable, but it increased rivalry, suspicion and the risk of diplomatic crises, especially after Bismarck’s retirement in 1890 and Germany’s adoption of a more assertive Weltpolitik which resulted in Germany seeking a global empire and building a navy that could make it possible.
Nationalism
As you saw earlier this year, nationalism was a powerful by-product of industrialisation. Railways, mass education and newspapers helped create shared identities within states, strengthening loyalty and pride. At the same time, nationalism was particularly powerful among peoples living inside empires, where political borders did not match ethnic or cultural identities.
The impact of nationalism on international tension is most clearly seen in the Balkans. This region was home to many Slavic peoples and centred on the independent state of Serbia. For centuries, the Balkans had been dominated by the Ottoman Empire and, increasingly, by Austria-Hungary. By the late nineteenth century, Ottoman decline and Austrian expansion made the region unstable.
Nationalism did not automatically cause war, but it reduced the room for compromise. Pan-Slavic movements encouraged the idea that Slavic peoples should unite in larger states. With Serbia’s ambition to become the Piedmont of a pan-Slavic state added to this frightening situation, the region was becoming dangerously volatile. Serbia’s growing confidence alarmed Austria-Hungary, while Russia felt pressure to support Slavic nationalism for both ideological and strategic reasons. This made the Balkans a region where local disputes were especially likely to draw in the Great Powers.
Militarism
Militarism refers to the increasing importance of the military within society and politics. By the late nineteenth century, European states were building the largest armies and navies the world had ever seen. Military strength became a source of national pride, and war was often portrayed as natural, heroic or even necessary.
At the same time, military planning was shaped by fear and uncertainty. Governments believed that strong armed forces would deter aggression, and in theory this might have worked if military strength had remained balanced. In practice, however, armies and navies were constantly expanding. If a rival appeared to be rearming more quickly, the temptation was to act before falling behind.
This created a dangerous logic: military power was built to prevent war, but rapid rearmament increased the fear that delay itself was risky. By the early twentieth century, detailed war plans, arms races and public enthusiasm for military strength combined to make crises harder to control. Militarism did not force governments to choose war, but it made peaceful solutions more difficult once a crisis began, especially in 1914.
As you will remember, until about 1850 European exploration and exploitation of Africa had largely been limited to coastal areas. By the 1870s, however, explorers such as Henry Stanley helped draw attention to the economic potential of the African interior. This contributed to a rapid expansion of European imperialism, as states competed to claim colonies.
The potential for imperial rivalry to bring distant powers into conflict was clear, and it worried statesmen such as Bismarck. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for overseas empire, Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 to establish rules for claiming territory in Africa. His aim was not to encourage imperialism, but to limit its dangers and prevent colonial disputes from dragging Europe into war.
However, imperialism created long-term pressures that were difficult to control. Industrial and military expansion increased the demand for raw materials and markets. By 1900, most of Africa had already been claimed, meaning that further expansion could only take place at another power’s expense. This did not make war inevitable, but it increased rivalry, suspicion and the risk of diplomatic crises, especially after Bismarck’s retirement in 1890 and Germany’s adoption of a more assertive Weltpolitik which resulted in Germany seeking a global empire and building a navy that could make it possible.
Nationalism
As you saw earlier this year, nationalism was a powerful by-product of industrialisation. Railways, mass education and newspapers helped create shared identities within states, strengthening loyalty and pride. At the same time, nationalism was particularly powerful among peoples living inside empires, where political borders did not match ethnic or cultural identities.
The impact of nationalism on international tension is most clearly seen in the Balkans. This region was home to many Slavic peoples and centred on the independent state of Serbia. For centuries, the Balkans had been dominated by the Ottoman Empire and, increasingly, by Austria-Hungary. By the late nineteenth century, Ottoman decline and Austrian expansion made the region unstable.
Nationalism did not automatically cause war, but it reduced the room for compromise. Pan-Slavic movements encouraged the idea that Slavic peoples should unite in larger states. With Serbia’s ambition to become the Piedmont of a pan-Slavic state added to this frightening situation, the region was becoming dangerously volatile. Serbia’s growing confidence alarmed Austria-Hungary, while Russia felt pressure to support Slavic nationalism for both ideological and strategic reasons. This made the Balkans a region where local disputes were especially likely to draw in the Great Powers.
Militarism
Militarism refers to the increasing importance of the military within society and politics. By the late nineteenth century, European states were building the largest armies and navies the world had ever seen. Military strength became a source of national pride, and war was often portrayed as natural, heroic or even necessary.
At the same time, military planning was shaped by fear and uncertainty. Governments believed that strong armed forces would deter aggression, and in theory this might have worked if military strength had remained balanced. In practice, however, armies and navies were constantly expanding. If a rival appeared to be rearming more quickly, the temptation was to act before falling behind.
This created a dangerous logic: military power was built to prevent war, but rapid rearmament increased the fear that delay itself was risky. By the early twentieth century, detailed war plans, arms races and public enthusiasm for military strength combined to make crises harder to control. Militarism did not force governments to choose war, but it made peaceful solutions more difficult once a crisis began, especially in 1914.
Activity part 1.
This lesson is in two parts. Firstly, download a copy of the sheet - 'Imperialism, Nationalism and Militarism'. You are going to use this in both parts of the lesson. In each of the boxes complete the first part by explaining what is meant by the key terms - Imperialism, Nationalism and Militarism - and then breifly explaining how it might contribute to tensions between the great powers. You are going to add the detailed examples in the second part of the lesson.
This lesson is in two parts. Firstly, download a copy of the sheet - 'Imperialism, Nationalism and Militarism'. You are going to use this in both parts of the lesson. In each of the boxes complete the first part by explaining what is meant by the key terms - Imperialism, Nationalism and Militarism - and then breifly explaining how it might contribute to tensions between the great powers. You are going to add the detailed examples in the second part of the lesson.
1900-1914 - Examples of imperialism, nationalism and militarism.
As we move closer to 1914 we study a series of events each of which helped contribute to the hostile climate that made war more likely in 1914. But the danger is that when we look closely at singular events we lose sight of the bigger picture.
In this activity I am going to describe - chronologically - the unfolding of events that led to 1914. Your job will be to extract them from their chronological moment in time and fit them in as further examples of imperialism, nationalism and militarism.
See textbook pages 8-11
In this activity I am going to describe - chronologically - the unfolding of events that led to 1914. Your job will be to extract them from their chronological moment in time and fit them in as further examples of imperialism, nationalism and militarism.
See textbook pages 8-11
The roots of the tensions that emerged after 1900 can be traced back to the 1870s. In 1870–71, France was decisively defeated by Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. France lost Alsace-Lorraine, a heavily industrialised region, and a new German Empire was proclaimed in 1871. This defeat left France militarily weakened, politically unsettled, and determined to avoid further humiliation. It also confirmed Germany as the strongest land power in Europe, fundamentally altering the continental balance.
After 1871, German leaders were acutely aware of their country’s exposed position in central Europe. To reduce the risk of isolation and a war on two fronts, Germany sought security through alliances. In 1879, Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary, promising mutual support in the event of conflict with Russia. In 1882, Italy joined Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. These agreements were intended to be defensive, but they formalised divisions between the Great Powers and linked regional disputes to wider commitments.
After 1871, German leaders were acutely aware of their country’s exposed position in central Europe. To reduce the risk of isolation and a war on two fronts, Germany sought security through alliances. In 1879, Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary, promising mutual support in the event of conflict with Russia. In 1882, Italy joined Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. These agreements were intended to be defensive, but they formalised divisions between the Great Powers and linked regional disputes to wider commitments.
|
At the same time, the power of the Ottoman Empire was in visible decline. Its defeat in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 weakened its control over south-east Europe. As a result, new or expanded states emerged in the Balkans, most importantly Serbia, which gained independence under the Treaty of Berlin (1878) and began to grow in confidence and ambition. These changes unsettled the region and created uncertainty over borders and influence.
The weakening of Ottoman authority also intensified rivalry between neighbouring Great Powers. Russia had long sought access to warm-water ports and influence over the Turkish Straits, which controlled access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Austria-Hungary, meanwhile, feared the spread of Slavic nationalism and the growth of Serbian influence in the Balkans. By the end of the nineteenth century, south-east Europe had become a region where local disputes risked drawing in much larger powers. |
|
By 1900, Europe was therefore marked by unfinished conflicts, new and ambitious states, and overlapping strategic interests, reinforced by an emerging system of alliances. These conditions formed the background to the rivalries that intensified after 1900, including the naval race between Britain and Germany.
|
As we saw last year, since the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Britain had ruled the seas without any challenge. Its navy was the most powerful in the world. This situation began to change in 1898 when the new Kaiser, Wilhelm, announced his intention to build a powerful German navy. Britain felt very threatened by this. Germany’s navy was much smaller than Britain’s but the British navy was spread all over the world, protecting the British Empire. The Kaiser and his admirals felt that Germany needed a navy to protect its growing trade.
In 1906 Britain raised the stakes in the naval race by launching HMS Dreadnought (right), the first of a new class of warships. Germany responded by building its own ‘Dreadnoughts’. Both Britain and Germany spent millions on their new ships and the public, fortified by popular nationalism, encouraged them to do so. |
|
|
|
Partly in response to German naval expansion, Britain settled disputes with former rivals. It signed the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904 and the Anglo-Russian Entente with Russia in 1907. These agreements did not create formal military alliances but marked a major shift in European diplomacy.
Many countries felt so sure that war was ‘bound to come’ sooner or later that they began to make very detailed plans for what to do if and when it did. Within the general staff of each country, complex plans for future war were developed that tried to learn the lessons from the Franco-Prussian war. Countries adapted to the Prussian model (See von Moltke reforms Matu 5 and Japanese military reforms Matu 6) and the importance mobilising troops as quickly as possible. |
In 1905, the German General Staff developed the Schlieffen Plan, designed to avoid a long war on two fronts. Under this plan they would quickly attack and defeat France, then turn their forces on Russia which were expected to be slow to get its troops ready for war. The Russian army was badly equipped, but it was huge. Importantly, as Russia rapidly industrialised in the early 20th century, the army was becoming modernised and more effective. Over time the Schieffen Plan was likely to become less realistic.
|
The First Moroccan Crisis began when Kaiser Wilhelm II visited Tangier in 1905 and declared support for Moroccan independence, challenging French ambitions in North Africa. An international conference was held at Algeciras in 1906. Germany found itself diplomatically isolated, while relations between Britain and France were strengthened.
The next crisis came in the Balkans in 1908. As we have seen previously the area had been ruled by Turkey, but Turkish power had been in decline throughout the 19th century. (See Crimean War 1853-56 - Matu 5 and Serbian independance 1878) She was known as the 'sick man of Europe'.
In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. (See map right) Serbia and Russia protested but backed down when Germany made it clear it would support Austria-Hungary. War was avoided, but the consequences were serious. Austria-Hungary felt reassured of German backing, while Russia resented its humiliation and accelerated military reforms. |
|
The Second Moroccan Crisis (Agadir Crisis 1911) further strained relations. Germany sent a gunboat (Panther) to the port of Agadir to challenge French influence in Morocco. Britain feared this threatened Atlantic trade routes. Although war was avoided, the crisis increased British naval spending and led to closer military cooperation with France, including a secret naval agreement dividing responsibilities in the event of war.
The Morrocan Crises explained in three 'Punch' cartoons.
'The Match Maker' - April 1905
|
'Sitting Tight' - March 1906
|
'Solid' - August 1911
|
Can you explain the meaning of the cartoons with reference to the historical context that produced them?
Also in 1911, Italy launched a successful imperial war against the Ottoman Empire and seized Libya. Although this appeared to be a limited colonial conflict, it exposed Ottoman weakness and had important consequences for south-east Europe because it encouraged the Balkan states in Ottoman Europe to believe that they could become independent of Ottoman rule.
|
As tensions worsened, all countries looked to their military capability and began to plan for future conflict. The size of armies, the length of military service and level of investment all increased. Between 1908 and 1913, European military budgets rose by over 50%, reflecting the intense preparation for war. Public support for militarism was encouraged by government infuenced newspapers. Popular nationalism reached new levels of enthusiasm.
|
|
The arms race in which all the major powers were involved contributed to the sense that war was bound to come, and soon. Financing it caused serious financial difficulties for all the governments involved in the race; and yet they were convinced there was no way of stopping it.
Although publicly the arms race was justified to prevent war, no government had in fact been deterred from arming by the programmes of their rivals, but rather increased the pace of their own armament production.
James Joll, Origins of the First World War, 1992.
From 1912 to 1913 there was a series of Balkan Wars. Serbia emerged from these as the most powerful country in the Balkans. Serbia emerged from these as the most powerful country in the Balkans. Slavic nationalists in the Habsburg (Austrian) empire wanted independence and looked to Serbia for inspiration and help. This was very serious for Austria. Serbia had a strong army and it was a close ally of Russia. Austria decided that Serbia would have to be dealt with. By this time, Russia had mostly recovered from its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and the calculations of Germany and Austria were driven by a fear that Russia would eventually become too strong to be challenged.
The final years before war saw further military planning and expansion. France introduced three-year military service in 1913 to increase the size of its army and finalised Plan XVII, which was based on rapid offensive action against Germany. French military leaders believed that speed, morale and attacking spirit would be decisive in any future war, and they assumed that an early offensive could regain lost territory.In the same year, Germany passed the Army Expansion Law, while Russia launched the Great Programme, a major plan to modernise and expand its armed forces by 1917. Russian planners expected this programme to take several years to complete. German and Austrian leaders concluded that if war with Russia was to occur, it would have to happen within the next few years in order to have a realistic chance of success.
In 1914 Austria was looking for a good excuse to crush Serbia. Austria’s opportunity came with the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo.
The final years before war saw further military planning and expansion. France introduced three-year military service in 1913 to increase the size of its army and finalised Plan XVII, which was based on rapid offensive action against Germany. French military leaders believed that speed, morale and attacking spirit would be decisive in any future war, and they assumed that an early offensive could regain lost territory.In the same year, Germany passed the Army Expansion Law, while Russia launched the Great Programme, a major plan to modernise and expand its armed forces by 1917. Russian planners expected this programme to take several years to complete. German and Austrian leaders concluded that if war with Russia was to occur, it would have to happen within the next few years in order to have a realistic chance of success.
In 1914 Austria was looking for a good excuse to crush Serbia. Austria’s opportunity came with the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo.
Activity part 2.
Make a copy of the narrative above '1900-1914' by downloading the text here. As you read through the text, highlight (in three different colours) examples of causes as imperialist, militarist and nationalist. Add a selection of these examples to the table you completed in Activity 1.
Make a copy of the narrative above '1900-1914' by downloading the text here. As you read through the text, highlight (in three different colours) examples of causes as imperialist, militarist and nationalist. Add a selection of these examples to the table you completed in Activity 1.
Extension and Extras
|
The film (right) takes the causation narrative back into the 19th century with the Italian and German wars of unification. The first three minutes or so provide you with a good overview of the geo-political issues at stake.
|
|