Facts on the World War I

Institution:

Title:

Submitted to:

Department:

Name:

Month:

Introduction

Facts on the World War I causes can be as confusing as ever. With some scholars explaining it as a “one thing led to another” event, others pose to reflect on particular events before 1914 that could have instigated groups to attack other groups. Events critical in the discussion of the causes of world war I include the Austria-Hungary case, Russian treaty with Serbia, Germany’s alliance to the treaty, France’s treaty to the Russians, Britain’s moral obligation to France, the United States policy of absolute neutrality among others.

Many authors provide conflicting sequences of events that led to World War I. This is due to the fact that political reasons leading to this “Great War” are undoubtedly complex, especially on a recount of an event, so many years after. However, there seems to be a consensus on the revelation that this was not a one-time incident, but a build up of war even before 1914 due to varied conflicting political perspectives. The causes go beyond a hunger for power as demonstrated by Mussolini and Adolf Hitler during the Second World War.

Four major factors are conspicuously portrayed by many authors as the accelerators of World War I. The author’s mindset with regard to which of the four prerequisites he views strongest and therefore responsible for igniting the Great War sets each scholarly work apart from the rest. Firstly, alliance systems had developed after the end of the Franco-Prussian War. These alliances were very secretive in nature. Consequently, Europe was split into two which eventually meant that countries followed others’ policies on the basis of their political affiliation. This was bound to result into suspicion with a belief in more secretive agreements between allies.

Secondly, competition for colonies in Africa and the subsequent establishment of spheres of influence in countries such as China came with political friction with some countries outdoing the others. Additionally, it was at this period in time that all countries were in favor of militarism. Powerful military officers dominated most civil authorities as a toy exercise with regard to building up of effective mobilization plans. These plans proved to be wars in the making as they only awaited a signal to move.

Lastly, strong nationalistic beliefs were responsible in spreading hatred among European. Of equal responsibility in this task was the speeches by political leaders and writing by many scholars that led to nations building up hostility against nations. The spark that finally ignited this hatred into war was the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in June, 19141.

This paper seeks to examine the causes of the Second World War as outlined in scholarly works. In particular, it shall compare these causes as postulated by Laurence Lafore in his book titled, The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I with Europe’s last summer by David Fromkin. In essence, each shall analyze each book with regard to the thesis/theses as presented in the book, its argument and prejudices of the author and finally, its relevance to its publication period.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2. Vols. (New York: 1963). p. 80- 91. the particular chapter is entitled “some Characteristics of Historians in Democratic Times” Herein, the argument is evidently based on the bias that there are varied general causes which are arguably responsible for World War I. The emphasis herein is the social sciences.

Author perception on the First World War

In reviewing an author’s presentation of the facts behind the origin of the First World War, several elements must be considered with regard to whether or not they have been adequately discussed. This ultimately is the key determinant in grading an author’s work with regard to the adequacy with which the subject has been tackled. Firstly, from the varied writings on 1914, one must be able to identify the decision makers of the time. Were they the monarchs, the presidents, the staff chiefs, the principals or a combination of several of these? Additionally, one must evaluate their mindsets at the time. S/he must be in a position to outline how past experiences prior to this period, for instance Balkan wars had shaped their mindsets.

Secondly, an author must analyze the channels through which each of these governments declared war on each other. That is, what constitutional positions (parliament or cabinet) approved a war course, or even whether it was a royal decision? Thirdly, s/he must embark on identifying other extra-political factors that were in play during the period. Finally, what were justifications for war by the different countries in Europe that ultimately led to the eruption of the Great War? An author who delves on these major points, ultimately, sets his work apart from the vast literature on 19142.

The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I

Laurence Lafore writes this scholarly work in the form of an organized definitive essay that thoroughly uncovers the origins of World War I.

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Lafore notably takes his discussion from the commonly held belief platform, that the trinity of death and destruction that ultimately leads to the road to war is nationalism, militarism and colonialism with the conflict and struggles herein. In the introduction part of the essay, the objectives are clearly outlined, which is part of the clear and thorough organization that follows, throughout the essay.

His opening remarks embark on describing history as a concept relative due to the fact that every future events play a crucial part in the way in which a generation perceives the past. He continues to argue that in as much as the above is true, further studies by historians “with each new monograph or essay” shall have a better understanding of the past3. He believes that it is for this reason that he embarks on writing his essay, to give more insight of the past to historians. In fact, he perceives this task as a “duty” for the purposes of redefining history4. He believes that his position, as a scholar evidently displaced from the events of World War I with a distance of over fifty years, shall inevitably offer him an unbiased platform to delve on the origins of this Great War5.

Two objectives are clearly outlined in the introduction. The first thesis of this essay is that the First World War was caused by one “single international event”6.

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.)pg .67

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.) pg 46

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.) pg. 35

Cornwall, Mark. Morale and patriotism in the Austro-Hungarian Army, 1914-1920 and 1941, “in Panikos Panayi, Minorities in Wartime. National and racial groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World wars. pg. 56.

This event is the Austria/Hungary conflict with Serbia which had been born out of Serb nationalism and the formation of Austria/Hungary as a state.

He attributes the many other crises that are so often pointed out as igniters of the Great War as having their root in this major conflict. This is because alliances were formed based on a nation’s either opposition or support of the Austria/Hungary state. Such events consequently caused the build up to war, but did not in essence cause the war. Whereas some nations prior to the Great War viewed it as a good event, they were not prepared to the true nature of how and when the war occurred.

He states that, “they did not envisage four years of horror; they did not envisage social revolutions and the collapse of Europe”7. In other words, Lafore concludes that they were not prepared for the impact that this war would bring due to their contributions to igniting a full blown war. This, he explains was because they had not been previously involved in a war of such magnitude.

In most parts of this essay, Lafore successfully proves his theses. Firstly, he embarks on describing the composition of Austria/Hungary, the reasons for Serb nationalism and also the resultant conflict between these two groups. This is important due to the fact that it gives the reader an insight on the conditions prevailing before the war thereby s/he is able to identify the hot spots that could have majorly contributed to the eruption of such a grand scale war.

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.) pp. 54

Further, Lafore elaborates on other issues that were detrimental in the resulting distrust and thereby alliances between and among European nations. Of much significance, is the fact that Lafore goes on to explain why these events were not the major causes of the First World War. For instance, in his chapter, “The Europe of the armed camps”, he embarks on a detailed discussion on the conflict between European great powers on the acquisition of colonies. He acknowledges the fact that the colonial struggles inevitably caused tension in Europe. However, at the end of this chapter, Lafore makes it clear that this could not have possibly been the cause of World War I. These sentiments are supported by a statement in this chapter, “Imperialism left barely more than traces on the European situation.

It might even been argued that imperialism had served, rather than threatened, the cause of peace. As long as public attention was concentrated on “little wars,” which usually were avoided by concessions, the danger of a head-on meeting, where the really essential interests of Great Powers were involved, was lessened” 8.

Remarkably, he proves that the struggle for colonial powers only left traces in the European conflict. Whereas militarism might have ignited the crisis, nationalism, and specifically Serb nationalism the significant cause of World War I. This conclusion is brought after a keen historical look of every person, event or even idea that might have been a cause of the Great War.

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (eds. ). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. The Imperialist ideal emphasized on the building of alliances and treaties that culminated in the avoidance of “small” or unavoidable wars.

However, in some instances, Lafore’s remarks do not support this thesis. With regard to Russia’s interests in the Balkans starting from about 1905, he explains, “It may be argued that the Russians were especially in need of some political successes in Europe following their defeat in Asia; but it seems likely that, if they had defeated the Japanese, they might have adopted from strength the policy that they now adopted from weakness”. To the reader, the impression “seems likely” has not been proved in any way by Lafore9. The conclusion is that these are his own speculations of what Russia would have reacted, had they defeated the Japanese. However, this essay ultimately stands out as convincing since the thesis is adequately proven. In terms of literary stylistic works, it is appealing to the reader. This is because as one reads it, it is not an ordinary history work. Facts are not compiled in a generalized way; rather, statements are categorically proven which gives the reader a “story-reading” feeling. This stylistic err does not lack inefficiency. At some point, Lafore is so obvious with what the reader ought to expect. The use of such statements as “the reader will be relieved to learn” that Lafore shall not discuss the 1908 Turkish domestic situation10 makes the reader believe that they already know the details as outlined ahead by the author.

Of particular interest to Lafore is Germany. The emergence of Germany as a new power was a point critical for other nations to evaluate their positions in the Europe region. The power of this nation was seen by others as a threat to their existence.

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.) The reader must be able to identify reasons for the assertions as opposed to making statements that are not fact-based. It is a clear indication of author prejudice and bias.

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.)

Nationalism was the concept adapted by Germany to their militarism ideal, an action that they endorsed after the assassination of Archdukes in Serbs. This clearly is a provable standpoint by Lafore to alleviate such a move as the cause of the war.

Notably, Lafore uses many similes and metaphors as a literary device. He portrays an image of Italy as a whore, and Russia as a dog in the manger11 severally, might be to some readers boring. However, this does not imply that the essay is not skillfully organized or detailed. His most positive attribute is the repeated presentation to the reader of the background information that inevitably gives one an insight on the happening issues. This he does so skillfully that there is no room for irrelevant information. The theses of the essay evidently give no room for bias. This implies that the debate does not in any perspective blame a particular state or person.

In the introduction, he states, “the responsibility was the monopoly of no man and no nation; rather it inhered in the offices and institutions, in the system of European states and its shortcomings”12. In fact, no aspects of the economic, social or military causes of the Great War are discussed in detail. However, one observes that Lafore has his perspectives on the origins of the First World War based on the conservative standpoints. This is because of the fact that he explains that the Balkans, Ireland and other fringe areas of Europe aggressively tried to diminish the great European powers ambitions13.

Borges, Luis, Jorge. An interpretation of The Garden of Forking Paths-by Xue, Can. (People’s Publishing House, 2000).

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Fromkin, David. Europe’s Last Summer. (New York: Random House Inc., 2004).

Europe’s Last summer: Why the World went to War in 1914.

David Fromkin in this title has his thesis based on the fact that Austria/Hungary and Germany are to blame for the eruption of the First World War. He supports this argument by stating that while Austria/Hungary wanted the full erasure of the Serbian nation, the German generals on the other hand had ulterior motives of gaining superiority status in Europe through the formation of alliances with France and Russia. He quotes such principals as the German Wilhelm II, “it is not a nation in the European sense, but a band of robbers!” at that time referring to Serbia14.

According to Fromkin, the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife was executed by Serbians. It was through this summer period that the whole of Europe anticipated the outbreak of war. When Austria moved against Serbia, Russia on the other hand defended Serbia which eventually gave way to other nations such as Germany moving against Russia and thereafter France. The urge to maintain the self-proclaimed status quo as the most superior of powers in Europe led to Germany fighting the war, even though it was aware of the fact that it would not last in the war.

Austria on the other hand did not attack Serbia immediately which meant that the delay gave Russia ample time to mobilize for the war ahead. At this point, Germany was aligning allies to fight the Austrians. According to Fromkin, while German/ Austrian tactics for war were planned in secret, Russian’s threat by the Germans was a big surprise. He therefore concludes on the existence of two wars15.

Fromkin, David. Europe’s Last Summer. (New York: Random House Inc., 2004).

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

In this essay, Fromkin is keen to sketch these principals but ultimately goes on to narrate their actions for the reader to be able to define them. His originality in the narration of the World War I is evidently shown in the manner in which he outlines periodic resets of the situation, he takes the reader back on how we got there and the mindset of the countries and their principals at that time.

He without a doubt biased to the Germans as he takes his time to explain how they (Germans) destroyed their paperwork which could have been excellent archival material for explaining the actions that led to the Great War. However, he supports his thesis even to the point of touching on the letter from von Moltke, which undeniably supports the fact that indeed, Germany started the war16.

According to the letter, Moltke had a significant role to play, to review Germany’s diplomatic strength in the wake of a Russian attack. In view of the same, he discovered that

diplomacy was not a tool so necessary at such a point in time17. Since, Austria was bound to attack Serbia after the assassination, and the knowledge that Russia was bound to support Austria in this endeavor, diplomacy headed by Germany would inevitably fail.

Fromkin’s standpoint is best explained by looking back, as he has done, to the political atmosphere before 1914. According to one J. P. Taylor, it was a time marked by secure and open atmosphere in that one could stroll through European land without noticing the boundaries of its territorial states18.

Fromkin, David. Europe’s Last Summer. (New York: Random House Inc., 2004).

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Stevenson David, 1914- 1918. The History of the First World War. (New York: Basic Books, 2001). Stevenson quotes from A.J.P. Taylor’s book titled “The Illustrated History of the First World War” of 1963.

The start of the war was the period when governments distracted their internal problems through the ignition of the Great War. Taylor states that the provocation of a war was an unintentional action, a miscalculation by statesmen. They embarked on traditionally methods; propaganda and threat which on previous occasions had proved successful. His was an argument based on the iron logic of train timetables.

David Fromkin’s style of writing with regard to his 2004 work on the First World War is to many an essay written with much suspense and events turn about as a murder mystery. To him, it a mystery that evidently has a success story behind it. In an organized sequence, the events of the 1914 are outlined. The title of this essay is consistent with his expressions of the events of June the same year, “jagged lightning, flashing suddenly across a summer sky”. His argument is that long before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the ingredients of the war had already been prepared. He blames this on Germany and Austria/Hungary in their quest for superiority in Europe.

The originality of Fromkin’s work is evident in his conclusion whereby he states that such a war could easily happen again; history repeats itself. It is a book that goes further than giving the reader a historical account of the events leading to war, but also points out on the circumstances that could easily lead to another war, a century after it happened.

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). The two writers in the introduction of their work embark on a description of what many books on the origins of World War I lack. This means that a book that captivates a modern reader with literature on 1914 has been written by an author who has taken interest in covering most if not all of the elements mentioned.

The structure and the organization of events by Fromkin prove to be very effective and modern in the period that it is written. In a period where mystery defines government, religious and social settings it proves adequate in the fact that it is presented with such a style that one is provoked to think that an act by one country leads to war, but that does not happen. This ultimately brings the reader to concur with the thesis of this work even if one was of a different opinion. In other words, it is very decisive and nuanced to a level of convincing the doubting type of readers on the prescribed cause of the Great War.

Conclusion

The causes of the First World War have been regularly studied, reviewed and also revised but still defy a reader’s comprehension. Statistics have revealed that before 1966, more that three thousand books had been published with regard to the same. The question therefore lies on what new revelations are presented by an author to this old argument. Additionally, does the author adequately support his argument and thesis with adequate evidence?

The two works analyzed above have been written at different points of history. Most notably, they have been written fifty years after the occurrence of First World War which implies that they basically use archival material to present their arguments. Laurence Lafore thesis is a conservative approach whereby keen interest is on the events rather than key persons. It is an effective work of literature with regard to its first edition period, the 70s. This period was marked by a great absence of liberalism. The implication here in is that it definitely was approved by many. Although there is some author bias, it is overridden by the massive evidence provided to explain each event.

David Fromkin’s work on the other hand is more recent, with a great emphasis on liberalism. At this juncture, the author points out the names of principals who he believes were responsible for the ignition of the war. His account of the sequence of events is remarkably outlined to give the modern reader a feeling of suspense. Author prejudice and bias is based on the fact that he openly blames Germany and Austria/Hungary.

Bibliography

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2. Vols. (New York: 1963).

Borges, Luis, Jorge. An interpretation of The Garden of Forking Paths-by Xue, Can. (People’s Publishing House, 2000).

Cornwall, Mark. Morale and patriotism in the Austro-Hungarian Army, 1914-1920 and 1941, “in Panikos Panayi, Minorities in Wartime: National and racial groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World wars pg. 56.

Fromkin, David. Europe’s Last Summer. (New York: Random House Inc., 2004).

Hamilton, Richard F. & Herwig H. Holger, (Eds.). The Origins of World War I. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Lafore Laurence. The long fuse: An interpretation of the origins of World War I. (New York: Waveland Press Inc., 1997 2nd ed.)

Menning, Ralph. R. ed., The Art of the Possible: Documents on Great Power Diplomacy, 1814-1914 (New York: 1996). Pg. 201.

Stevenson David, 1914- 1918. The History of the First World War. (New York: Basic Books, 2001).