• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain?

Extracts from this document...


How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain? Surprisingly, despite nearly a century of exhaustive research, carried out by historians, the question of the first World War causes remains a perplexing mixture of consensus, ignorance and contestation. Even the notion that could have specific short term causes, or long term actions which brought it about, is a matter of dispute. David Lloyd George, whose memoirs asserted that 'the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war' - influenced historians to think that protagonists in the run-up to war concealed or failed to understand their own motives. The historian A.J.P Taylor made an extremely important contribution to the understanding of events in 1914 when he argued that the conflict arose from feelings of weakness rather than feelings of strength. He asserted that 'the sole cause for the outbreak of war in 1914 was the Schlieffen plan'. This is supported by Luigi Albertini, his view was that the German support for Austria in early July 1914 constituted a very risky gamble, and that German mobilisation was equivalent to war, because of the Schlieffen Plan. Though he acknowledged the fact that Russian policy escalated the crisis, that the Serbsa had no intention of compromising withAustria, and that Grey could have warned the Germans earlier of likely British intervention, he ...read more.


Both were less of a threat to 'democracy' than to British trading interests. The French equivalent was to demand the return of Alsace and Lorraine. It was only indirectly, and over the next course of the year, that the dismantling of the Habsburg Empire and the establishment in its place of independent nation states, also became an article of faith for allies. Russia had little to gain by defeating Germany, expect for more troublesome Polish subjects, and its official war aims soon came to concentrate upon the old attractions of the Dardanelles and Constantinople. In Mar-Apr 1915, Britain and France finally agreed that Russia should had these in the event of victory, as long as they were compensated by gains in Egypt and the Near East. In the event of an Entente Victory, therefore the Ottoman Empire, too, was doomed to disintegration The claim that in 1914 States went to war due to motives of gain. Although the victors in 1918 were quick to formulate questions of 'war guilt', the outbreak of the conflict makes more sense if it is seen as a combination of miscalculations. The government of Austria - Hungary erred in believing that a clash with Serbia could be settled without wider complications. Russia's partial mobilisation on 30 July was undertaken without sufficient awareness of its effect upon German policy. ...read more.


The greatest uncertainties surrounded Italy, formally linked by the Triple Alliance to Germany and to Austria-Hungary, yet set against the latter by all the precedents of 19ths century history. Only the Entente could offer Italythe Habsburg territories in the Tyrol and down the Adriatic cost that its nationalists demanded to complete the process of unification. Thus Italy finally sided withFrance, Britain and Russia. "Fifty years were spent in the process of making Europe explosive. Five days were enough to denote it'. June 28th 1914, the final crisis was triggered by the assignation in the Bosnian town of Sarajevo of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of the Austrian Emperor. His murderer was a member of a Serbian terrorist organisation known as the 'Black Hand'. Is another example of gain, as their motives behind the assassination were annexing Bosnia. In conclusion, through assessing why states went to war in 1914, we analysed both sides of the arguments. States went to war due to the fear; like the Triple Entente who simply went to war for their own survival as major powers.The proclivity of much of the general historiography on the war in Europe has been to emphasise the constraining effects of circumstance on individual actors and to alleviate individuals' responsibility for causing a world war. Many leaders are held to have acted 'defensively' due to fear, feeling that their nation, in the words of study written by H.H Herwig (The Origins of War) was 'in decline' or, at least 'seriously threatened'. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text


Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. Notes on Italian unification - background and main events

    victorious - Napoleon was anxious to bring the war to a speedy end, because; o He was appalled at the bloodshed o The Austrian army retired to the quadrilateral fortresses; they were still in a position to carry on with the war o The Piedmontese were supposed to pay the

  2. Notes on German unification - main events

    February 28, 1866 --> a meeting of the Prussian Crown Council - Grenville: "there was a virtual decision for war with Austria" - April 8, 1866 --> a secret alliance with Prussia and Italy took place - The meeting agreed on the following; if Prussia went to war with Austria


    Communism spreading was an imminent threat for many countries. Australia noticed the domino theory taking affect but did everything within their power to ensure that the communist authorization wouldn't reach Australia. Australia participated in a number of wars in Asia which led to countless casualties.

  2. Analyse the political factors involved in the unification of Italy up to 1861

    From Sicily he wanted to move onto Naples, orders were also given to the Piedmontese navy to stop Garibaldi from crossing the Straits of Messina. Though this not yield Garibaldi at night he dogded the ships and with his 3,360 soldiers he managed to enter Naples on the 7th of


    The treaties are disparate for their point of view of the defeated countries. For instance, Germany did not participate in decision-making in the Treaty of Versailles, whereas France joined the alliance after completing her payments of war indemnities. The French existence was valuable for the victorious powers since they appreciated her existence in decision-making for Europe's future.

  2. Prohibition: an inevitable failure?

    This also enhances the idea that alcohol shall have a negative effect on family life. To summarize, both the authors were FOR Prohibition. They both chose to show what heinous effects alcohol has; that it ruins family life and will rid a man of all his money.


    "It is not a very nice solution but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war" - John F. Kennedy 6) During the crisis, General Clay (the former American military governor) was called back from his business career to appear in Berlin as a symbol of Western support for West Berlin 7)


    Slavophile argument against Western capitalism 1. Ideological rejection of industrial development along Western lines and increased central state control. Wanted to maintain the traditional Russian tradition of the Mir. Populist. Political opposition 1. Demands for a written constitution and national government to limit autocracy and give the people a greater political role.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work