To What Extent Did the Great Power Rivalries Cause the First World War

How important were the great power rivalries as a cause of the First World War?
There has been much debate amongst historians about what the decisive factors leading to the First World War were. In early 1914 relations across Europe appeared stable: Anglo-German naval tensions looked to be improving and countries seemed to want to avoid war as it was expensive and would damage trade routes. For example, Austria-Hungary and Russia avoided war in 1912 and 1913. Within this essay I am going to weigh up the importance of the rivalry between the great powers against other factors and discuss which the most important factors were.
According to Ferguson and Kennedy, there are effectively four eras of historians and therefore four schools of thought surrounding the Great War. There is “the Great War Generation”, the people with direct knowledge of the war through military service or through alternative services to their country during the war. They wrote history from the ‘top down’ through first-hand experience of the events that they describe. As hindsight lengthens we are able to detach ourselves from the devastation caused and look at the series of events in an analytical manner, which contrasts to these early writers who wrote as if to justify their own actions. Secondly, the generation “fifty years on” wrote in the 1950s and 1960s and therefore had new materials that their predecessors did not. They focussed on the history of society as well as the history of politics. They looked at the world and saw something different to the scene of 1914: the British Empire no longer existed and most German territories had been given to Poland after 1945. Therefore much of the ugliness of the First World War was concealed from the younger members of society, causing this generation of historians to feel as though they had a duty to uncover the horror of the war. The third generation, the so called “Vietnam Generation” began writing in the 1970s and 1980s and displayed a different view to the previous two generations. They looked at the First World War as a waste of lives and saw war in general as a “catastrophe to both winners and losers alike”. The present and fourth generation of writers, the “Transnational Generation” benefitted hugely from the works of all three previous generations. They look at the war from more than one perspective and are ‘committed to escaping from the national confines of the history of the war’.
One can argue that the rivalries between the great powers resulted in the First World War. European leaders saw global developments as a threat. Advancement in one country would shift the balance of power and make other nations feel uneasy and sceptical about the aims of that country. The beginning of the nineteenth century saw many crises which only narrowly avoided war; people began to think the only resolution which would finally put an end to the continual disputes was war itself because it would establish one power as being supreme. The outcome of the Franco-Prussian war and the creation of a new German empire altered the dynamics not just in the European community but worldwide. Other European powers became alarmed at German ambitions across the globe. This made them feel uneasy and as though they should assess their own relationship with Germany. Countries were finding it more difficult to negotiate as there was a rising sense of nationalism across the globe and therefore they had to be loyal to their people and not to peace. This inability to cooperate created tensions as all nations refused to make concessions, this can arguably have made war more likely because all countries were concerned only with their self-interests and began to see war as a means to and end.
In the period after 1871 one can see the international situation in Europe begin to worsen. Bismarck was so concerned with the prospect of another war, a war which he neither wanted nor could afford, that he constructed a complex alliance system. His main aim in this alliance system was to ‘stabilize Europe around the new German empire.’ The alliance system itself can be blamed for many of the conflicts during the late nineteenth century. Bismarck created the complex web of alliances to maintain peace across Europe and ensure that he was in the majority therefore avoiding a war on two fronts. Ironically, in the long term he managed to successfully isolate and antagonise the powers which he sought to keep on his side, for example Russia and Britain. He had short term success in his aims yet caused chaos in the long term for his successors. Nevertheless, due to European stability up until the departure of Bismarck in 1890, many historians believe that the tensions began only after his departure. The original agreement between Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia: the Dreikaiserbund of 1873 meant that all countries were to defend each other if they were to come into conflict with another power. Bismarck kept introducing more alliance systems in order to make both Austria-Hungary and Russia believe that they held German favour. Even Bismarck found it challenging to keep up relations with both powers. The treaty of San Stefano, following the Russo-Turkish war in 1878 created a greater Bulgaria, a satellite state for the Russians; this infuriated the Austrians because they had guaranteed their neutrality as long as Russia would not create a greater Bulgaria. At the Congress of Berlin 1878 which aimed to reorganise the countries within the Balkans, there was a redistribution of territory giving much of what was taken by Russia in the Treaty of San Stefano and returning it to the Ottoman Empire. This was a humiliating defeat for the Russians and stirred up a hateful resentment towards Bismarck and Germany within Russia. Bismarck’s main fear after the 1871 Franco-Prussian war was that the French would want revenge; he therefore wanted to ensure that France had no allies. After the Congress of Berlin, Bismarck realised that he needed to get back in favour with the Russians to make sure that they did not look to France for support or even worse, aid the French in a war of revenge. The result was the Reinsurance treaty of 1887. Although Bismarck may have felt that the treaty was effective in maintaining relations with Russia, the damage had been done. Russia was sceptical of Bismarck’s intentions and didn’t trust his relationship with Austria-Hungary. Furthermore, Bismarck’s successors allowed the Reinsurance Treaty to lapse in 1890 despite Russia’s request to renew it. This marks the final straw in Russo-German relations.
After German unification, the German economy and thus German power increased greatly. Her population increased from 41 million in 1870 to over 66 million in 1914, coal production increased by 800 per cent over the same period, rivalling the British output in the wake of war. German industrial output turned out two-thirds of the European total, more than Britain, France and Russia combined. This economic boost to the German economy was bound to cause her European neighbours to worry. Tensions between France and Germany continued to grow as France believed that Germany owed this economic growth to her own province of Alsace-Lorraine which Germany claimed in the 1871 Franco-Prussian war. As Germany continued to grow, France’s growth remained slow with her population remaining at 39 million. By 1910, Germany produced three times as much iron; four times as much steel and seven times as much coal as France. This imbalance in growth was also present in Russia. By 1914 Russia had a population of 140 million and became the world’s fourth greatest industrial power. However despite this growth, the coal production of Russia was still just 13% of that of Germany.
A booming economy allowed Germany to excel militarily; she now had the resources to afford quality as well as quantity. Germany was jealous of Britain and her huge empire and believed that Britain should have to make concessions to make room for Germany who had recently joined Britain in the ‘great power’ status. Foreign ambitions in Germany began to grow, resulting in the policy of ‘Flottenpolitik’, the construction of a navy. Britain saw the navy laws of 1898 and 1900 as a direct threat to her naval supremacy, although Germany was well aware that her army would not hold the same considerable strength or size of the British navy, she knew that the last thing Britain wanted was weaken her naval base, so by constructing her own navy she would be more able to achieve her ambitions without interference. However all the army laws served to do was strengthen ‘the forces of opposition to German ambitions in Europe.’
In contrast, there are other factors, other than the great power rivalries, which may have been the cause of the First World War such as domestic problems. War is a good distraction if there is ever social unrest this is because war unites all classes to fight against the enemy. There was growing unrest between classes in Germany as the Junkers still dominated the government. The Junkers feared the rise of the Social Democratic Party and thought that a war would bring patriotic support for the government and unite everyone together against a common enemy. Moltke the German field marshal has been quoted saying in 1912, ‘I believe war is unavoidable and the sooner the better.’ Economic imperialism was also a factor which contributed to the war. Both Britain and France used trade to foreign colonies as a means of sustaining their economies. Germany and Austria- Hungary had very few foreign colonies to trade with and their own natural resources were declining. The introduction of German tariffs on grain greatly affected Russia’s export market. Although promoting growth in the German economy, this resulted in the antagonism of Russia who saw France as a potential economic partner demonstrated by the French giving loans to the Russians from 1888. A Franco-Russian alliance was signed in 1894; this was the first alliance to be directed at another country and was a crucial step leading to the First World War. They needed to expand in order to maintain their domestic economies however it was not easy due to the fact that the British and French were dominant in this regard. The struggle for foreign markets led to increasingly hostile relationships. The arms race in 1914 added to this growing hostility, the more each country began to build up their army the less secure other nations felt and therefore felt the need to build up their own armies in response. However it appears that arms race had another dimension; it was an attitude of mind which saw war as a valid means of foreign policy. Another factor which can be seen as a cause to the First World War is nationalism. The Serbs wanted to break free from Austria-Hungary and unite all Serbs and Croats in a greater Serbia. On June 28, Archduke Franz Ferdinand made a visit to Bosnia and was shot dead by a teenager who was part of a terrorist organisation known as the Black Hand. One could argue that this was the pivotal moment of 1914; the Austrians believed that the Serbs had provided the teenager with weaponry. This gave the Austrians the excuse they needed to take action against the increasingly rebellious Serbs. Without the death of the Austrian prince, the violence may not have started. The great power rivalries created and maintained a great deal of tension between nations. The intrinsic alliance system developed by Bismarck was so complex that his successors struggled to carry it on; the lapse of the Reinsurance Treaty in 1890 meant that Russia felt insecure; this combined with German tariffs on Russian grain provoked Russia to look elsewhere for stability. In the years prior to the outbreak of war meant that any war would have escalated to a global conflict. German ambitions served to antagonise while Serbian nationalism seemed to frustrate. However, one can see that although there was rivalry between the great powers this alone was not enough to result in war: the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a catalyst to the world’s first global war: Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and consequently Russia and her allies. The assassinations lead to a chain reaction in which the whole alliance system was brought into the conflict.

Bibliography
Henig, R, The origins of the First World War, 2nd ed. (1993) – eBook
Winter, J (ed.), The Legacy of the Great War: 90 Years On (2009) –eBook’
The Reinsurance Treaty: http://www.wikipedia.org

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. N. Ferguson & P. Kennedy, ‘War Origins’, in J. Winter (ed), The legacy of the Great War:90 Years On (2009) - eBook
[ 2 ]. R.Henig, The origin of the First World War, 2nd ed. (1993) - eBook
[ 3 ]. Henig, Origins of the First World War, p 11

Bibliography: Henig, R, The origins of the First World War, 2nd ed. (1993) – eBook Winter, J (ed.), The Legacy of the Great War: 90 Years On (2009) –eBook’ The Reinsurance Treaty: http://www.wikipedia.org -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. N. Ferguson & P. Kennedy, ‘War Origins’, in J. Winter (ed), The legacy of the Great War:90 Years On (2009) - eBook [ 2 ]. R.Henig, The origin of the First World War, 2nd ed. (1993) - eBook [ 3 ]. Henig, Origins of the First World War, p 11