The origins of the First World War can be seen broadly in terms of

  • Imperialism of the late 19th century
  • The alliance system in Europe by the 20th century
  • Militarism
  • Rise of Balkan Nationalism

I.) Imperialism of the late 19th century (also called New Imperialism)

European imperialism of the late 19th century was not a new phenomenon and some argue that it can be traced back to the 15th century. The term ‘imperialism’ however only came into use in the 1850s and 1860s, since the new imperialism of the 19th century was a qualitative departure from the earlier forms of imperialism in terms of intensity, scope as well as consequence. New imperialism, especially gathered force in the 1870s following the unifications of Italy and Germany and the defeat of Napoleon III.

Various theories have been invoked to explain imperialism in this period and give varying importance to economic, social, cultural and strategic factors. Among the earliest theories explaining imperialism were those that linked new imperialism with economic factors and saw imperialism as arising out of modern capitalism. These theories however lay varying emphasis on industrial and finance capitalism.

Economic factors

JA Hobson, a British liberal economist, in a pamphlet titled ‘Imperialism’ (1902) argued that the main motive for imperialism was finance capitalism. According to him, advanced capitalist societies in the West were marked by an unequal distribution of wealth, which in turn led to unequal consumption patterns. This concentrated surplus capital would exert pressure on their respective home governments to seek outlets abroad for investment avenues. This could become a political force for colonization. The need of bankers and financers was behind the political policies to expand control and establish empires. Hobson however did not see this imperialism arising out of the needs of surplus as inevitable. According to him, a government could avoid taking the imperialist route by choosing to distribute income in a more equitable fashion so as to raise domestic consumption.

It should be noted however that there is no unified Marxist perspective on the origins of imperialism and Marxist scholars differ on various issues, such as industrial and finance capitalism, the inevitability of imperialism etc.

Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish revolutionary, in ‘The Accumulation of Capital’ (1913) argued that the nature of modern industrial capitalism inevitably led to rivalries, which would lead to imperialism, which in turn would lead to war. In her argument therefore, socialists needed to frame a suitable strategy to face the inevitable imperialism.

Karl Kautsky disagreed with Rosa Luxemburg’s conception and argued against the claim of inevitability. He agreed that the sheer over-productivity of modern industrial capitalism was creating surplus capital. However he believed that imperialism could be avoided if governments chose to democratize their institutions.

Rudolph Hilfirding, an Austrian Marxist in Finance Capital (1910) put forth arguments similar to those of Hobson. He spoke of the role of finance capitalism and saw no inevitable link with war. According to him the government could allow the surplus capital to be absorbed by the economy.

Hilfirding’s views were challenged by Lenin in his pamphlet titled Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). Lenin’s objective was to combat the pacifist rhetoric of socialists all over Europe that supported their governments’ declaration of war by seeing the war as one of national defence. Lenin argued that the war arose due to imperialist rivalries, which in turn arose from finance capitalism. Like Hobson and Hilfirding he saw this as inevitable. Lenin spoke of a new king of finance driven imperialism, which generated such enormous profits (super profits) that the government could use a part of these profits to improve the conditions of workers in imperialist countries and thus wean them away from revolutionary radicalism. He cautioned the workers of such dangers of new imperialism and cautioned them against the lure of these superficial benefits.

The argument that capitalism alone can lead to imperialism has been criticized. The causative link between the two can be questioned when we note that imperialism as a phenomenon was much older than capitalism, and therefore the latter cannot be seen as the initiator of the former.

  • Some economists like JA Schumpeter argue that imperialism was a pre-capitalist, atomistic phenomenon. He denies any link that capitalism may have with imperialism. He argues that capitalism was a rational economic system and therefore, expansion had nothing to do with capitalism, but rather represented pre-capitalist forces. He pointed out that expansion was supported by a militarist, landowning aristocracy and therefore showed that capitalism was still undeveloped. Schumpeter was of course arguing with the example of Germany in mind.
  • Another point which can be noted is that much of the surplus capital in this period was not being invested in the colonies outside Europe, but in areas such as Russia and Latin America.
  • The idea of super profits being used for the benefit of workers has also been critiqued. In actively imperialist countries such as France and Belgium for instance, workers were not prosperous. On the other hand the more prosperous workers could be found in non-imperialist countries such as Denmark and Sweden.
  • The relationship between surplus capital and imperialism has also been questioned. If we look at two of the most aggressively imperialist countries of the late 19th century – Russia and Italy, we find that they were severely capital deficit. Even between France and Germany, it was France that was more imperialist even when it was lagging behind Germany in terms of industrialization.

Therefore, we can see that capitalism played a crucial role in imperialism but its effects cannot be generalized and definitely no inevitable causative relation between the two can be made.

Rejecting economic factors:

A number of collective arguments have been put forth to explain imperialism, often rejecting economic reasons. These include the Great Power balance on the continent, the Alliance system etc.

W Mansergh emphasized the importance of the Alliance system in Europe and how it affected the balance of power in Europe. For him, the colonies were subsidiary and only important in terns of their influence on the balance of power.

CJH Hayes emphasized the political climate of Europe, which was one of mass-based nationalism, marked by chauvinism. He also refers to the importance of public opinion and nationalist sentiment.

Others emphasize military and strategic factors, such as the need to secure defensible frontiers. Military factors however cannot be seen as divorced from economic considerations of even questions of national prestige.

James Joll emphasized the idea of sub-imperialism. He argued that once colonies were launched, they took on their own momentum and developed vested interests which pushed for imperialism. Cecil Rhodes in Central Africa provides a good example. There is also the case of the French colonization of Algiers in North Africa in the 19th century. Here the considerations of the French military administrators in Algeria pushed for the colonization of Morocco.

Cultural factors:

Others look at cultural factors in the rise of imperialism, in terms of the role of religion. Christianity had been central to the identity of early conquistadores such as Columbus or the Spanish, who sought to spread the faith among ‘pagans’. In the 19th century too, many colonial ventures began as missionary activity. This was related also to the European sense of superiority and these ideas in conjunction with the civilizing mission of the Christian faith served as a justification for imperialism. In the late 19th century, the 18th century Enlightenment idea of ‘of the also became the ideological underpinning of the new imperialism. These ideas were used to create a common ‘scale of civilization’ and served the interests of European imperialist ambitions. This can be related to the concepts of the White Man’s Burden and the moral imperative for empire.

Therefore should be studied in specific context:

 Imperialism however needs to be considered in its specific context, which varied from country to country and time to time. Imperialism was a dynamic process, and there was interaction between the imperialists and the colonies. Internal rivalries within colonies were a significant factor, whereby they were ‘pulled’ into the colonial affairs. Once the Europeans made inroads, they could not be ‘pushed’ back and technology became an important force thereon. Such ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors were seen as operating in Africa, India as well as the Far East. There is therefore no single overarching explanation for new imperialism and motives differed from case to case.

Beginning of the new imperialism:

When imperialism took off in the 1870s, it was focused in two main regions. These were Africa and East Asia or the Far East. This process seems to have begun in the mid-1880s when Bismarck was at the height of his power. Bismarck was reluctantly pushed into imperialism due to various economic and political compulsions, within and outside Germany. In 1885 he organized a Conference at Berlin, which culminated in the Treaty of Berlin. Here it was decided that the Great Powers would now have ‘spheres of influence’, in Africa and China and territories would be divided peacefully.

Its impact was immediately felt in Africa leading to the ‘Scramble for Africa’. In roughly 15 years, the continent was divided between the European powers. Only Liberia, Ethiopia and the two Boer Republics were able to escape this. In East Asia, Russia, USA and Japan also emerged as big players reflecting how the power system was expanding beyond the Atlantic towards the Pacific.

Links with World War I: Only indirect

By the early 20th century imperialist rivalries among the European powers were amply evident. Britain and France clashed over Egypt. Britain and Germany were rivals in South Africa. Britain and Russia too were in conflict over Persia. In the Pacific Russia was in conflict with Japan. There was also the Franco-German rivalry over Morocco and finally Russia and Germany were in conflict over the Balkans, the area which was to provide the immediate background to World War I.

The point to be noted however is that virtually all these rivalries had been dealt with before 1914, and therefore one cannot make a direct link between imperialist rivalries and the First World War, even though the immediate cause of the war was he Balkan crisis. It should also be noted that there was no linear one-to-one relationship between colonial rivalries and cooperative alliances. Britain and French relations within and outside the European continent illustrate this dichotomy well.

Therefore if we look for a link between imperialist rivalries and World War I, we see that it was only indirect. With the rapid growth of colonial empires in the late 19th century, nationalism itself came to be defined in terms of colonial assets and imperialism. Alliances only came into play when the final conflict erupted in 1914.

  1. II) The Alliance System

By 1914, two major power blocs had emerged in Europe, and their origins, nature and connections with the war are highly debated. Traditionally the outbreak of the war is viewed as a chain reaction, whereby Europe was fated to war due to these alliances.

Origin:

The origins of the alliance system can be traced to the policies of Bismarck. From the time of the German unification in 1871 up to 1890 Bismarck served as Imperial Chancellor. The system of alliances emerged out of Bismarck’s conception of the needs of Germany’s security.

In the two decades preceding unification, Bismarck’s foreign policy had been radical in that it was based exclusively on state power and not ideological considerations. Bismarck was fundamentally conservative and his policy was a part of the neo-conservative trend in post-1848 Europe, whereby the old elites sought to bolster their conservatism by adapting to the new style of politics. After 1871 however Bismarck reverted to his conservative stance in the mould of Metternich, since he felt that such a policy would serve the interests of Germany’s security better. Therefore after 1871 we see Bismarck following a cautious, conservative, status-quoist policy. AJP Taylor even says that it was because of Bismarck that Europe did not see a war before 1914.

The reasons for Bismarck’s policy were both pragmatic and ideological. Bismarck wanted to maintain a balance of power in Europe between the five Great Powers – Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria and France in order to safeguard German interests against a hostile coalition. The French search for allies in the East added to German concerns. Bismarck however followed a moderate policy whereby he made it clear that in the cause of maintaining the balance of power Germany too would not adopt any aggressive policies. At an ideological level one cannot ignore Bismarck’s conservatism. He was opposed to democracy, socialism and nationalism but was aware that these forces had become exceedingly strong and had to be reckoned with. Therefore he was interested in a conservative status quo also for fear of galvanizing these forces in any way.

Through the 1850s and 1860s Bismarck had held that Prussia shouldn’t be bound by any alliances and that it should be free to pursue its independent policy. In the initial years after Germany’s unification he continued this policy. On the one hand he followed a strategy of reassurance, whereby he tried to assure the European nations that Germany was now a satisfied power and no longer interested in aggrandizement. With France Bismarck encouraged their colonial ventures outside Europe diverting French attention from the issue of the disputed frontier at Alsace-Lorraine. Through the 1860s Germany also sought to cement an alliance with Russia, which dominated German foreign policy right up to World War II. Bismarck also made attempts to assure Austria-Hungary of her support and persuaded his countrymen not to annex Austria-Hungary. All this was done with the objective of maintaining the power balance in Europe.

Bismarck in search of allies:

In terms of ideology Bismarck returned to Metternich’s policy and took up once again the Holy Alliance against ‘atheistic’ French revolution. Metternich had used this concept to forge an alliance of the three conservative states of Austria, Russia and Prussia in order to prevent a conflict between these three states, especially since they were not natural allies. Bismarck revived this alliance between Austria, Germany and Russia. In 1873 he proclaimed the Dreikaiserbundor the League of Three Nations with objectives similar to Metternich. He was also wary of nationalist forces. Also, Bismarck saw this alliance as a way to prevent an alliance between Russia and France.

By the late 1870s Bismarck began to realize that this policy of reassurance was not working especially since the industrial revolution in Germany and her subsequent economic growth did not allow other European powers to trust Germany. The eastern alliance had also weakened by this time and in 1879 Bismarck formally committed himself to a policy of alliance. What was different about this was that earlier alliances were only made before wars and lasted through the duration of the war. The alliances that Bismarck envisioned were to be forged in peacetime with no immediate prospect of war for reasons of security. Bismarck’s formula was that in a Europe of 5 Great Powers Germany should be allied with two other powers so as to make her position stronger vis-à-vis the other two.

An alliance with Britain and French could not materialize and even Russia was not willing to commit herself to a Germany which was increasingly being perceived as a threat. It was only the alliance with Austria-Hungary which was able to work. In 1879 the Dual Alliance was formed between Germany and Austria-Hungary by a secret treaty. In the search for a third power, Germany had to settle for Italy, with which a secret Triple Alliance was forged in 1882. Germany felt the need to further strengthen her position and in 1883 Romania entered the alliance. In 1881 he even attempted to revive the Dreikaiserbund. In 1887 a Reinsurance Treaty was signed with Russia, which guaranteed secret neutrality of Russia in the event of a conflict. These treaties were signed in complete secret such that at this point of time only Bismarck knew that the Reinsurance treaty violated the Dual Alliance.

Change of German foreign policy after Bismarck:

After 1890 when Bismarck was dismissed, German foreign policy changed to one of Weltpolitik. The policy of assurance towards other European countries was ended and the spirit of the Dual Alliance changed from being an alliance for defence to being a springboard for Germany’s own ambitions. Germany’s new stance and assurance of support against Russia in the event of a Balkan crisis also made Austria more aggressive.

With this change in policy a new system of counter alliances also began to emerge. In 1893 a Dual Alliance was made between France and Russia. An alarmed Great Britain began its quest for allies in the Pacific with the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902, clearly directed against Russia. In 1904 a Dual Entente was signed between Britain and France, based on a colonial settlement whereby Britain and France got a free hand in Egypt and Morocco respectively. In 1907 the Anglo-Russian Entente was signed and colonial claims in Persia, Tibet and Afghanistan were settled. It should be noted that these alliances were by and large agreements and not definite military alliances. Therefore their importance should not be exaggerated.

Link with World War I

The formation of such alliances undoubtedly led to increased tensions in Europe. The secret nature of these treaties added to the suspicion. Alliances however could not automatically lead to war and conversely alliances could contribute to peace by acting as a deterrent against possible aggressors. It was the change in the nature of these alliances from defensive to aggressive that made a difference. The theory of two balancing power blocs actually implies preservation of balance of power and thereby preservation of peace. It should also be noted that these alliances often cut across each other and colonial issues were often in opposition to the alliances. Also, while the outbreak of the war is seen in terms of a chain reaction following form the alliance system one needs to remember that these alliances were quite vague and their terms included many escape clauses. The biggest point is that the actual declaration of war did not follow the logic of the alliance system. According to the alliances Germany would declare war on Russia only when she attacked Austria, but in reality the declaration came before that. France too joined the war due to the German ultimatum and would therefore have joined the war irrespective of the alliance.

While the specific terms of the alliances were kept secret, the knowledge of the very existence of these alliances determined direction of mobilization plans. The alliance system determined extensive timetables which were chalked out in planning for war. Such mobilization plans played a crucial role in diplomacy. It is to this extent that a link can be drawn between the alliance system and the outbreak of the First World War.

Militarism

Militarism, which refers to the arms build up and escalation of tension before the war has also been seen as a cause for the war. The notion of mobilization however needs to be reconsidered. Germany it seems was probably less ‘militaristic’ than Britain. Bismarck’s federal state probably made it more difficult for Germany to mobilize finances for arms. Countries like Britain and France however were able to devote more to the military.

When considering militarism as a cause for the war, we should consider it in the context of a cultural phenomenon as well. Militarism as a cultural phenomenon came to affect the language of international relations in this period. When the war broke out it was greeted with hysterical enthusiasm over all European capitals. Militarism can therefore be seen as a wider cultural phenomenon in which war was glorified as good, leading to rebirth and peace seen as degenerate.

The roots to this attitude can be seen in what has been seen by many as the crisis in the liberal, Enlightenment, rational values, which in turn was being translated into politics. This challenge can be seen as a kind of neo-Romanticism. This kind of a mindset found expression in both ends of the ideological spectrum. On the Left Marxism seeped in a violent rhetoric of class war also saw an extreme like the Syndicalism of George Sorel. This was also reflected in the rise of a new brand of irrational politics, to be shaped by the elites who would use irrational means like myths to move the masses. In science, the new cultural environment was reflected in the studies like Bergson’s theory of intuitive action, Sigmund Freud’s concept of the unconscious, psychoanalysis, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Modern art forms also began to emerge as a challenge to classical ideas, as in the cases of Stravinsky in music and Pablo Picasso in painting. These ideas were however the avant guard of their time and more than their own time influenced later periods.

When we see those thinkers whose ideas percolated down to the masses and also contributed in a most powerful way to the creation of a militaristic environment in this period, the names of Charles Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche stand out. Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) Origin of Species challenged the Christian conception of origins and placed the origins of species in a competitive process of natural selection. Darwin’s ideas were later adapted as what came to be called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism applied Darwin’s ideas to society and argued that society also evolved through struggle and therefore class struggle was perceived as natural. This could also be applied in the context of the Industrial Revolution as well, where ruthlessness and imperialism were justified as a struggle between the naturally strong and weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) put forth the idea that if one takes the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion, life is a constant struggle, and existence fundamentally chaotic. Nietzsche attacked religion as an illusion and believed that there was no absolute morality; all morality was formulated for survival. Struggle as a moral obligation was central to his thought. As a part of evolution, he believed that the pinnacle of development was the ‘superman’ or ubermensch. This superior man accepted the uncertainties of existence, didn’t accept social conventions and as the ultimate creative being, created his own values. Nietzsche saw in such individuals the natural urge to dominate, and in them he saw potential tyrants as well. Nietzsche’s ideas were distorted and used to justify later philosophies such as Nazism and Fascism. Darwin too was a victim of such a vulgarization and popularization of his ideas. This was the kind of language that permeated down to the masses.

Link to World War I

These new ideas provided a rhetoric in which international relations came to be debated, but it should be clarified that this language didn’t create the war itself. The effect of these ideas can however be seen in the manner people were responding to the European situation. It is interesting to note that the assassin of Archduke Francis Ferdinand was an idolizer of Nietzsche. Militaristic ideas also explain the unnatural hysteria on the eve of the war.

Refer the Balkan nationalism as the immediate cause to the Devikar Bahadur’s printed out tut.