Recently, we have been learning about the short-term and long-term causes of World War I. This has encouraged some reflection on which were the most important, and who was had the most impact on the start of the war. Personally, I believe that the German Kaiser, William II, and the idea of Panslavism were two factors that greatly contributed to the start of the war.
William II changed the state of European diplomacy when he got rid of Chancellor Otto Van Bismark in 1980. The work that Bismarck had done to ally Germany with Austria-Hungary and Russia was destroyed by the Kaiser. Russia, who was already suspicious of German foreign policy, decided to ally themselves with France only a year later. This meant that Germany had lost a very powerful ally to an enemy. The Kaiser was also very important because his views affected those around him. The ideal of Weltpolitik came from him, and pushed towards nationalism and militarism, which, together, led to conflicts between European Powers such as both Moroccan Crises. Overall, Kaiser William II changed European diplomacy with his harsh beliefs and lost Russia as an ally, which could have changed the outcome of the war if they were on the same side.
Panslavism also contributed to the start of the war because it caused the assassination of Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, and gave Serbia the confidence to stand up to Austria-Hungary. Supported by the Black Hand, Bosnian nationalists decided to assassinate the Archduke of Austria-Hungary because they did not accept to be controlled by them. The ideal of Panslavism gave more support to these Bosnians as well as to Serbia. When Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the death of Franz Ferdinand, the support Russia gave the Serbians allowed them to stand up to Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum, as they had a power behind them ready to help. This eventually led to Russian mobilization of troops on July 26 and then the German declaration of war on Russia on August 1st, 1914.
I found it great how you outlined how strongly the Kaiser changed German policy after Bismarck was forced to resign. You showed clearly how the Kaiser’s change in policy negatively impacted Germany. However, I believe you could have added more examples of how the Kaiser impacted German policy (specifically naval arms race and the Kaiser’s desire for military prestige and recognition), and maybe some more dates (Moroccan crises, losing Russia as an ally).
It was good that you give reasoning to the points you’ve brought up and that you have given the outline for things that caused Germany problem. You also gave a good explanation on how the idea of Panslavism and Kaiser William II were major contributor to Germany’s disaster but I think you should’ve explained more on some points like when you brought up the Weltpolitik which pushed for the militarism and nationalism but you didn’t elaborate on how or why it pushes those ideas. You could’ve also given more example on how Kaiser’s actions moved Germany closer to war because surely there isn’t only one action which caused the war to happen
Hey Tidaine,
I really enjoyed your blog post. I really liked the link you created between Kaiser Wilhem’s removal of Bismarck from Office and the growth of wariness from other countries in Europe.
I wanted to challenge one of the points you put forth, though. You said, ” The work that Bismarck had done to ally Germany with Austria-Hungary and Russia was destroyed by the Kaiser […] Kaiser William II changed European diplomacy with his harsh beliefs and lost Russia as an ally, which could have changed the outcome of the war if they were on the same side.”
But was this really the case, or was Russia already wary of Germany’s intentions even before Bismarck was removed from power? We know, for example, that Bismarck was removed from office in 1890 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck). But Germany has been unfriendly with Russia even before then! For example, following the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, we see Russia making huge gains in the Treaty of San Stefano (http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/1878mr17.SanStef.trt.htm), being ever-so-closer to the warm water ports they wanted. However, we also see Germany seriously inhibiting Russian interests in the following Berlin Conference , which, amongst other things, critically (i) allowed full Austria-Hungarian control over Bosnia-Herzegovina, and (ii) seriously reducing the gains of Bulgaria, which, by extension, meant that Russia was further away from warm water ports as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano#/media/File:Karti_od_Sanstefan_i_Berlinski_kongres_1878.jpg).
This hugely undermined Russian interest, and, in my opinion, meant that Russia was already not so happy with Germany’s foreign policies.
I agree, completely, however, that what Kaiser Wilhelm did made the situation much worse. Most critically, I want to highlight the fact that the Kaiser refused to sign the reinsurance treaty which held the Three-Emperors League (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia) together, and so directly caused Russia to seek an alliance with France in the Franco-Russian Military Convention. I also agree with 19kasik’s comment that he also seriously made the British unhappy when he intervened with the Entente Cordial between the French and the British (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/ententecordiale1904.htm), which subsequently led to the First Moroccan Crisis (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-moroccan-crisis). He had hoped that Britain would take his side following the crisis, but alas that was not the case, and Britain had thence firmly became an ally of France, making Germany’s situation in the war even worse.
Kaiser Wilhelm*
I like how you were very clear in your explanations, and with the two reasons you chose. Do you think that Russia allied with France simply because of the new Kaiser, in an attempt to potentially harm Germany? Or do you think the alliance between France and Russia arose for different reasons, perhaps defense or trade? Overall, I think your explanation was very good and had a lot of great details.
Hi Tidiane,
I like how you chose two different things related to the start of the First World War to analyze (person and development). Indeed, the Kaiser is an apt example of an individual who had a significant impact not only on other individuals, but many of the long term developments leading to the war, and of course the war itself. Panslavism can also be considered a long term cause of the war but this is not evident in this post since the historical detail really just begins during the July Crisis. More context might help reinforce the selection as being historically significant. Increased accuracy and detail will also help demonstrate more historical knowledge in future posts.