Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - History Other Was rivalry between Germany and Britain the major cause of war in 1914 Was rivalry between Germany and Britain the major cause of war in 1914 Was rivalry between Germany and Britain the major cause of war in 1914? The direct cause of the First World War, the spark that set it off in other words, was the assassination of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand, who was heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife by a Serbian student in Sarajevo in June 1914. A month later Austria declared war against Serbia. This local warfare brought Russia, Germany and France straight into fight, and in the end got other European Powers such as Britain, and even Japan and America involved thus became a world wide armed conflict. There are many arguments that have been made among historians about grounds of such war. So many theories have been found, and discussed for decades. Yet the controversy has not seen its end and is still growing. Imperialism, militarism, rise of nationalism, and the alliance systems are often named as the major causes. However, when historians come to discuss militarism on this subject, their theme tends to be based around whether or not a sense of rivalry between Germany and Britain was one of the primary causes. The purpose of this paper is answering the essay question above by examining the Anglo-German relations before 1914, and its significance on outbreak of the war. Before start, it should be made clear what it is meant by the words "major cause" in the title above. Examiner's use of the word "major" can be vague. Does she mean the major cause as the factor that has direct and decisive impact upon the incident? If so, the answer to this question is no. The war did not arise originally from between Germany and Britain, and reason for them to join the war, on the surface, appeared to be alliances with the other countries involved. Yet, there is other interpretation of the word can be made. If what she means applies to background movement that tensed international relation towards 1914, it is debatable that political or economical situations between the two Powers might have caused such tension. In the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, both industrial and democratic revolution dominated the power map of the world. Britain was the largest empire in the world at the time. Her advanced technology enabled her to have remained the premier of European Powers for a long time. Although, in the late nineteenth century Europe saw Germany's sustained economic growth backed by her own version of successful industrial revolution. "Germany", in Bismarck's words, was "saturated" with advantage in population, Geographical position, and army and industrial strength. Under Wilhelmine dynasty she took off into the slot of the leading continental nation. At this point Britain had seen Germany's sustained expansion as a threat, and there began international competition between Germany and Britain. By 1914 Germany had become Europe's industrial superpower. She had caught up with, and in some areas already exceeded, Britain's level in terms of production. The most competitive aspect of this rivalry could be seen in their naval expansion. Britain always had been proud of her world-largest navy. The navy was made bigger and stronger than any other powers by far. This was because the British thought having effective sea power crucial to protect their empire and to maintain the sea routes between the different colonies. According to Robert Wolfson and John Laver, Britain had thirty-three battleships and one hundred- thirty cruisers in 1896, while Germany had only six battleships and four cruisers in the same year. Then so-called the Navy Laws were passed in Germany in attempt to provide more warships and men-power, and to maintain ports. Admiral Tirpitz, the secretary to the navy and chief of the German Admiralty, operated this plan and was responsible for naval construction. "The first Navy Law (1897) proposed the building of seven battleships and nine cruisers before 1904.... A second Navy Law, approved in 1900, proposed building three battleships each year over a 20-year period. The third Navy Law (1906) increased the tonnage of the ships and added six cruisers to the annual programme" (Robert Wolfson and John Lever, 1996). On maintaining German sea power, Tirpitz was convinced that German Navy should be so strong that other powers would not consider risking a war against her. He believed that this would paradoxically result in keeping her out of war. While following the plan, Tirpitz and his minister always had Britain in mind. Such extreme naval expansion policy made Britain and other Powers suspicious hence built up a degree of anxiety throughout Europe in the long run. Why did Germany want to have such strong navy in the first place? What was the Germans' intention? Historians' opinions vary on this matter. In his book James Joll suggests that the German naval expansion was an aspect of both her ambition to pursue the premier status and superpower of European countries and of her domestic situation within the empire, which was wide spreading mentality among the people believing "the creation of an overseas fleet and a German colonial empire a new mission for Germany which would give a new purpose to the German state and German society" (James Joll, 1990). His argument is based around that the acquisition of colonies in the late nineteenth century gave German people sense of superiority and of being a world power, and it was these senses that kept the idea of constructing strong navy in their minds almost obsessively. He also points out the existence of powerful economic pressure groups that had benefited from building ships and therefore pressed the government to keep the expansion carried on. J. M. Roberts, however, supports different theory. He regards the idea mentioned above, that Germany started building fleets in attempt of challenging Britain's naval supremacy, as over-simplified. He suggests that for the majority of the German ruling class the purpose of having a big navy was so that Germany could "hold Great Britain in check diplomatically with a potential threat to British power at sea". Although, he admits, German public opinion increasingly showed "enthusiasm for a big navy - consciously fanned by the Navy League - soon took on a strain of Anglophobia. This fitted well with the claptrap rhetoric of Weltpolitic in which England ...was increasingly seen as the obstacle to Germany's assumption of her proper status" (J. M. Roberts, 1989). This indicates that the rivalry towards Britain was spread and even individuals were under the influence. The third and the last theory was suggested by Robert Wolfson and John Lever. They argue that since succession to the throne, Kaiser Wilhelm was determined to win British people's respect, and the naval building was to show Britain Germany's strength in a hope that they might think friendship with Germany was crucial for them to survive. The authors express the German’s tactics so as to “frighten them into an alliance”(Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.94). They emphasise the attitude of the Kaiser to Britain as critical factor to relations between the two countries. They describe how the Kaiser adored England even just before the outbreak of the war. Yet the two countries could not manage to establish a bond between them. This was mainly because of unpopularity of Britain after the Boer War and German predominance in Turkey. “Germany’s naval building”, they discuss, “was both the final attempt to frighten Britain into friendship and the collapse of that policy, since it had the reverse effect of making the British determined to counter it” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.95). In any case, Britain did not like her naval supremacy being in jeopardy by the new hand. The expansion of the navy in each country only encouraged more ships to be built in the other. The race of construction of more and heavier and faster fleets with bigger cannons became almost uptight, staining the tension. Germany’s expansionism caused affect on another dimension of international political scene. It can be argued that it was her militarism that pushed France into forming entente with Britain. It was not only Britain that feared the rise of German Empire but also other European countries, too. Especially France had been anxious about this because they were having degree of awkwardness with Germany which became apparent notably when she faced to the conflicts, that came up in 1905 and 1911 over the territory in Morocco. It was not so much about German power at sea that she was concerned, but about that on land. German army was claimed to be the best in the world. This alone was frightening enough for France since she was sharing border with Germany. She was in uncomfortable position when she saw Germany strengthening own power even further. Then she realised she should keep her eyes on Germany. This met the interest of Britain, and thus resulted in linking her and Britain closer in order to keep Germany in check. The problem of Berlin-Baghdad Railway was another aspect of Anglo-German rivalry. The German sought after control over its section around the Persian Gulf area. The British also claimed their right over the same area. Both countries then took the matter to international stage asking the other countries to back what they had to say. However, in 1910 Russia supported German side, and helped the two countries to come to a compromise that the Germans should end their line at Baghdad. This incident did not include armed conflict at all, but its impact was bad enough to keep them away from each other. The production of coal and the output of steel often indicate one country’s well being of economy and industrial advance. It is useful to compare these factual data of both countries as an evidence of development of sense of rivalry among them. The table below was drawn from V. R. Berghahn’s Modern Germany. Coal Production Steel Production Year Britain Germany Britain Germany Production of coal and steel in Britain and Germany (000s ton) It can be seen by looking at the table that the figures show significant increases in both countries’ production. This growth was the outcome of imperial empire in both countries’ cases. However, it is shown that Germany had expanded at more rapid rate than Britain. Germany’s coal production between 1880 and 1913 increased by 307 while Britain’s grew by 96,5%. The difference between the two countries became even greater in steel production. Germany’s output during the period increased twelve fold while Britain’s rose six fold. Advanced technology and increase in steel production achieved “the increased availability of modern machinery” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.91). By the end of nineteenth century Germany undeniably became the leading nation in the electrical and chemical industries. These progresses in technology had also dominated to the increase in agricultural production. The use of fertilizers contributed to this. “The yield of sugar per ton of beet increased from one ton of sugar from twelve of beet to one of sugar from six of beet over a 40-year period… Yield of crops and number of livestock, … also increased” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.91). The rivalry between Germany and Britain certainly tensed international relations, but its role on The Great War was not direct. The war arose from rise of Serbian nationalism, and incapability of Austria-Hungary to solve the problem of Serbian living within the country should be blamed. Germany joined the war because she was allied with Austria, and the reason for dragging Britain into fight was German invasion of Belgium’s neutrality. It would be doubtful for the British to declare war on the Triple alliance if Germany had not broken international law by passing through Belgium. It should be concluded that the rivalry could be a long-term factor of outbreak of the First World War, but it alone could not cause such world wide conflict. Anderson, M.S.1985. `The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914`. Second Edition. Longman Group Limited. Berghahn, V.R.1987. `Modern Germany`, Society, economy and politics in the twentieth Century. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Joll, James. 1990.`Europe Since 1870`, An International History. Forth Larr, Jon. `An Overview of World War 1`. http://members.aol.com/sniper43/worldwar1.html Layton, G.1995. `access to history`, From BISMARCK to HITLER: GERMANY 1890-1933. Hodder & Stoughton. Roberts, J.M.1989. `Europe 1880-1945`, A General History of Europe. Second Edition. Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Wolfson, R. and Laver, J. 1996.`Years of Change, Europe 1890-1945`. Second Edition. Hodder & Stoughton. Bibliography: Was rivalry between Germany and Britain the major cause of war in 1914? The direct cause of the First World War, the spark that set it off in other words, was the assassination of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand, who was heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife by a Serbian student in Sarajevo in June 1914. A month later Austria declared war against Serbia. This local warfare brought Russia, Germany and France straight into fight, and in the end got other European Powers such as Britain, and even Japan and America involved thus became a world wide armed conflict. There are many arguments that have been made among historians about grounds of such war. So many theories have been found, and discussed for decades. Yet the controversy has not seen its end and is still growing. Imperialism, militarism, rise of nationalism, and the alliance systems are often named as the major causes. However, when historians come to discuss militarism on this subject, their theme tends to be based around whether or not a sense of rivalry between Germany and Britain was one of the primary causes. The purpose of this paper is answering the essay question above by examining the Anglo-German relations before 1914, and its significance on outbreak of the war. Before start, it should be made clear what it is meant by the words "major cause" in the title above. Examiner's use of the word "major" can be vague. Does she mean the major cause as the factor that has direct and decisive impact upon the incident? If so, the answer to this question is no. The war did not arise originally from between Germany and Britain, and reason for them to join the war, on the surface, appeared to be alliances with the other countries involved. Yet, there is other interpretation of the word can be made. If what she means applies to background movement that tensed international relation towards 1914, it is debatable that political or economical situations between the two Powers might have caused such tension. In the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, both industrial and democratic revolution dominated the power map of the world. Britain was the largest empire in the world at the time. Her advanced technology enabled her to have remained the premier of European Powers for a long time. Although, in the late nineteenth century Europe saw Germany's sustained economic growth backed by her own version of successful industrial revolution. "Germany", in Bismarck's words, was "saturated" with advantage in population, Geographical position, and army and industrial strength. Under Wilhelmine dynasty she took off into the slot of the leading continental nation. At this point Britain had seen Germany's sustained expansion as a threat, and there began international competition between Germany and Britain. By 1914 Germany had become Europe's industrial superpower. She had caught up with, and in some areas already exceeded, Britain's level in terms of production. The most competitive aspect of this rivalry could be seen in their naval expansion. Britain always had been proud of her world-largest navy. The navy was made bigger and stronger than any other powers by far. This was because the British thought having effective sea power crucial to protect their empire and to maintain the sea routes between the different colonies. According to Robert Wolfson and John Laver, Britain had thirty-three battleships and one hundred- thirty cruisers in 1896, while Germany had only six battleships and four cruisers in the same year. Then so-called the Navy Laws were passed in Germany in attempt to provide more warships and men-power, and to maintain ports. Admiral Tirpitz, the secretary to the navy and chief of the German Admiralty, operated this plan and was responsible for naval construction. "The first Navy Law (1897) proposed the building of seven battleships and nine cruisers before 1904.... A second Navy Law, approved in 1900, proposed building three battleships each year over a 20-year period. The third Navy Law (1906) increased the tonnage of the ships and added six cruisers to the annual programme" (Robert Wolfson and John Lever, 1996). On maintaining German sea power, Tirpitz was convinced that German Navy should be so strong that other powers would not consider risking a war against her. He believed that this would paradoxically result in keeping her out of war. While following the plan, Tirpitz and his minister always had Britain in mind. Such extreme naval expansion policy made Britain and other Powers suspicious hence built up a degree of anxiety throughout Europe in the long run. Why did Germany want to have such strong navy in the first place? What was the Germans' intention? Historians' opinions vary on this matter. In his book James Joll suggests that the German naval expansion was an aspect of both her ambition to pursue the premier status and superpower of European countries and of her domestic situation within the empire, which was wide spreading mentality among the people believing "the creation of an overseas fleet and a German colonial empire a new mission for Germany which would give a new purpose to the German state and German society" (James Joll, 1990). His argument is based around that the acquisition of colonies in the late nineteenth century gave German people sense of superiority and of being a world power, and it was these senses that kept the idea of constructing strong navy in their minds almost obsessively. He also points out the existence of powerful economic pressure groups that had benefited from building ships and therefore pressed the government to keep the expansion carried on. J. M. Roberts, however, supports different theory. He regards the idea mentioned above, that Germany started building fleets in attempt of challenging Britain's naval supremacy, as over-simplified. He suggests that for the majority of the German ruling class the purpose of having a big navy was so that Germany could "hold Great Britain in check diplomatically with a potential threat to British power at sea". Although, he admits, German public opinion increasingly showed "enthusiasm for a big navy - consciously fanned by the Navy League - soon took on a strain of Anglophobia. This fitted well with the claptrap rhetoric of Weltpolitic in which England ...was increasingly seen as the obstacle to Germany's assumption of her proper status" (J. M. Roberts, 1989). This indicates that the rivalry towards Britain was spread and even individuals were under the influence. The third and the last theory was suggested by Robert Wolfson and John Lever. They argue that since succession to the throne, Kaiser Wilhelm was determined to win British people's respect, and the naval building was to show Britain Germany's strength in a hope that they might think friendship with Germany was crucial for them to survive. The authors express the German’s tactics so as to “frighten them into an alliance”(Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.94). They emphasise the attitude of the Kaiser to Britain as critical factor to relations between the two countries. They describe how the Kaiser adored England even just before the outbreak of the war. Yet the two countries could not manage to establish a bond between them. This was mainly because of unpopularity of Britain after the Boer War and German predominance in Turkey. “Germany’s naval building”, they discuss, “was both the final attempt to frighten Britain into friendship and the collapse of that policy, since it had the reverse effect of making the British determined to counter it” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.95). In any case, Britain did not like her naval supremacy being in jeopardy by the new hand. The expansion of the navy in each country only encouraged more ships to be built in the other. The race of construction of more and heavier and faster fleets with bigger cannons became almost uptight, staining the tension. Germany’s expansionism caused affect on another dimension of international political scene. It can be argued that it was her militarism that pushed France into forming entente with Britain. It was not only Britain that feared the rise of German Empire but also other European countries, too. Especially France had been anxious about this because they were having degree of awkwardness with Germany which became apparent notably when she faced to the conflicts, that came up in 1905 and 1911 over the territory in Morocco. It was not so much about German power at sea that she was concerned, but about that on land. German army was claimed to be the best in the world. This alone was frightening enough for France since she was sharing border with Germany. She was in uncomfortable position when she saw Germany strengthening own power even further. Then she realised she should keep her eyes on Germany. This met the interest of Britain, and thus resulted in linking her and Britain closer in order to keep Germany in check. The problem of Berlin-Baghdad Railway was another aspect of Anglo-German rivalry. The German sought after control over its section around the Persian Gulf area. The British also claimed their right over the same area. Both countries then took the matter to international stage asking the other countries to back what they had to say. However, in 1910 Russia supported German side, and helped the two countries to come to a compromise that the Germans should end their line at Baghdad. This incident did not include armed conflict at all, but its impact was bad enough to keep them away from each other. The production of coal and the output of steel often indicate one country’s well being of economy and industrial advance. It is useful to compare these factual data of both countries as an evidence of development of sense of rivalry among them. The table below was drawn from V. R. Berghahn’s Modern Germany. Coal Production Steel Production Year Britain Germany Britain Germany 1880 149,000 47,000 982 1,548 1890 184,000 70,200 3,579 2,195 1900 228,000 109,300 4,901 6,260 1910 268,700 152,800 5,300 10,900 1913 292,000 191,500 6,903 18,654 Production of coal and steel in Britain and Germany (000s ton) It can be seen by looking at the table that the figures show significant increases in both countries’ production. This growth was the outcome of imperial empire in both countries’ cases. However, it is shown that Germany had expanded at more rapid rate than Britain. Germany’s coal production between 1880 and 1913 increased by 307 while Britain’s grew by 96,5%. The difference between the two countries became even greater in steel production. Germany’s output during the period increased twelve fold while Britain’s rose six fold. Advanced technology and increase in steel production achieved “the increased availability of modern machinery” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.91). By the end of nineteenth century Germany undeniably became the leading nation in the electrical and chemical industries. These progresses in technology had also dominated to the increase in agricultural production. The use of fertilizers contributed to this. “The yield of sugar per ton of beet increased from one ton of sugar from twelve of beet to one of sugar from six of beet over a 40-year period… Yield of crops and number of livestock, … also increased” (Robert Wolfson and John Laver, 1996, p.91). The rivalry between Germany and Britain certainly tensed international relations, but its role on The Great War was not direct. The war arose from rise of Serbian nationalism, and incapability of Austria-Hungary to solve the problem of Serbian living within the country should be blamed. Germany joined the war because she was allied with Austria, and the reason for dragging Britain into fight was German invasion of Belgium’s neutrality. It would be doubtful for the British to declare war on the Triple alliance if Germany had not broken international law by passing through Belgium. It should be concluded that the rivalry could be a long-term factor of outbreak of the First World War, but it alone could not cause such world wide conflict. Bibliography Anderson, M.S.1985. `The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914`. Second Edition. Longman Group Limited. Berghahn, V.R.1987. `Modern Germany`, Society, economy and politics in the twentieth Century. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Joll, James. 1990.`Europe Since 1870`, An International History. Forth Edition. Penguin. Larr, Jon. `An Overview of World War 1`. http://members.aol.com/sniper43/worldwar1.html Layton, G.1995. `access to history`, From BISMARCK to HITLER: GERMANY 1890-1933. Hodder & Stoughton. Roberts, J.M.1989. `Europe 1880-1945`, A General History of Europe. Second Edition. Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Wolfson, R. and Laver, J. 1996.`Years of Change, Europe 1890-1945`. Second Edition. Hodder & Stoughton. Word Count: 2091
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests