The outbreak of the First World War is one of the most controversial and debated subjects in

history. The immediate origins of the war can be seen in terms of the crisis following the
assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in
Sarajevo, Bosnia on 28th June 1914. Austria, who believed Serbia was behind this, sent a
humiliating ultimatum to Serbia on 23rd July, which was not accepted in its entirety. Yet,
historically the intense debate around its origins continued on and is affected by the
prevailing political climate and by the urge to find out who was primarily responsible. In the
following paragraphs, we will seek to examine various viewpoints in this debate.
The first official report on the origins of the First world War, written by the victorious
powers, presented at Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, declared that the war was pre-
meditated by Germany and her allies, and resulted from ‘acts deliberately committed to make
it unavoidable’. The report held that Germany and Austria Hungary deliberately worked to
defeat ‘all the many conciliatory proposals made by the Entente powers to avoid war’. This
argument, enshrined in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, led to the development of the
‘war guilt’ interpretation for the causes of the First World War.
During the inter-war years, the German government sought to reverse this verdict and
released 15,889 official documents during the 1920s to accomplish this end. This new
evidence led many to alter their original views. In 1927, Erich Brandenburg, a German
historian, argued that Germany did not plan the war, but it was a result of miscalculations on
the part of several European countries. He blamed Russia for wanting control of the Balkans,
France for coveting Alsace-Lorraine.
During the 1930s, the question of German guilt became a very sensitive issue in foreign
relations, and was cordially dropped. The debate had moved away from apportioning guilt
towards an assessment of long-term causes. Every type of long-term cause, including the
alliance system and old-style diplomacy, imperial rivalry, the growth of militarism,
nationalism, the arms race, and the development of inflexible war plans, was advanced.
In 1961, Fritz Fischer, a German historian published Griff nach der Weltmacht in which he
apportioned chief responsibility to Germany for preparing and launching World War I.
According to him, the German desire for territorial expansion and desire to break free of its
diplomatic encirclement culminated in the war. He further alleged that Germany even went to
the extent of provoking her allies into instigating war. He attempted to show that Germany
was pursuing an aggressive policy, inspired by economic interests and designed to achieve
world power. In his view there was a continuity in German objectives from 1900 to the
Second World War, although the link between the two is implied rather than spelt out.
Fischer’s work was criticized by Gerhard Ritter, who saw Fischer’s work as an act of national
disloyalty. Ritter had admitted that German war-guilt literature needed revision but did not
accept Fischer’s thesis. According to him Germany had no desire for world domination and
its main aim was to support its ally Austria-Hungary. Ritter has also accused Fischer of
ignoring the environment of the time and of not comparing the different kinds of foreign
imperialism including that of the USA and Japan. Egmont Zechlin another critic of Fischer
argued that Germany’s policy in 1904 was in order to gain a diplomatic victory and no master
plan for vast expansion. Though he was willing to accept that Germany took advantage of
Austria- Serb crisis for its own gain.
Another school of thought perceives the war as an outcome of a faulty system of International
Relations. No explanation for the outbreak of the First World War can be devoid of a
consideration of the nature and composition of the alliance system. By the end of the 19th
century alliances came to be developed. The rise of Germany was the principal factor which
produced anxiety among the major European countries. The victory of the Prussia in the
Franco-Prussian war in 1871 culminated in the unification of Germany and created a new
power at the heart of Europe. The foreign policy of Germany designed by Bismarck secured a
dominant position in European affairs through system of treaties and alliances.
In 1882, the Triple Alliance was formed comprising Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.
Italy’s loyalty to this alliance was uncertain from the very beginning as her prime interest lay
in gaining territories in Europe at the expense of Austria-Hungary and in conquering Tripoli
with French help. In addition, Germany signed a Re-insurance Treaty with Russia in 1887.
The balance of power was secured through a complex counter posing of interests and
ambitions that would succeed only if a man of Bismarck’s genius could sustain the system.
However, in 1891, Bismarck was succeeded by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Bismarck’s Realpolitik
was replaced by the Wilhelm II Weltpolitik. As opposed to triple alliance emerged the
Entente Cordiale between Britain and France in 1904. The concept of Quid pro quo
determined all the settling of all disputes in this context. Russia entered into an alliance with
Britain and France in 1907 and thus emerged the Triple Entente.
The formation of such alliances undoubtedly led to the increased tension in Europe. But they
could not automatically led to war and conversely they could contribute to peace by acting as
deterrent against possible aggressors. It was the change in the nature of alliances from
defence to aggressive that made a difference. Bernadotte Schmitt argues that the issue at
stake during the July Crisis was a struggle to decide the balance of power in Europe for an
indefinite time ahead between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. Thus, in Schmitt’s
view, alliance that had originally been formulated to serve the cause of peace, when put to
final test, almost automatically operated to convert a local battle into a general war. Few
scholars would disagree with the view that the alliance system was important in encouraging
the build-up of animosity in Europe. A.J.P. Taylor claims that the pre-1914 alliances were so
precarious and fragile that they should not be read as a major cause for the outbreak of the
War.
The division of Europe into two rival armed camp has to be seen in the context of growth and
expansion of imperialism. It was once by Marxist writers and historians that imperial rivalry
and the influence of monopoly capital were major underlying reasons for the war. The first
serious attempt to explain the role of imperialism was put forward by V. I. Lenin, who saw
the war as being the direct consequence of imperial rivalry, which led capitalist businessmen
to seek new markets and encouraged governments to support economic interests. Lenin
believed that German monopoly capital was behind German foreign policy. The primary aim
was to gain territory denied to Germany during the era of the ‘new imperialism’. Lenin saw
war as inherent in the nature of capitalism. In this way, the First World War can be seen as
the culmination of a search for territory and markets, led by capitalists whose aims were
supported by governments.
The growth of militarism which was actually closely connected with the system of alliances,
has also been assigned as a factor responsible for the war. Europe has been observed as an
“armed camp” from 1877-1914. According to Michael Howard each declaration of increased
armaments expenditure by European power before 1914 was perceived as a threat by its rival
and thus created an atmosphere of mutual fear and suspicion which contributed in creating
mood for the war. Niall Ferguson claimed that the arm race encouraged the world war I is an
exaggeration as Britain the most advanced military was least interested in war.
Another very important factor responsible for the war was the wave of nationalism which
swept all over Europe. Martil has argued that the first world war grew out of conflict between
Slav Nationalism and multi ethnic Austro-Hungarian empire. The murder of Archduke
Francis Ferdinand was the final straw in the struggle for mastery over the Balkans. However,
John Lowe argued that the crisis in Balkans was the occasion rather than the cause of first
world war.
Modern historians have drawn attention to the influence of internal politics on the actions of
the Great powers. Socialism had become a very popular political creed in Germany, Austria,
Russia, Italy and France. The ruling class in some countries hoped that a short victorious war
would put an end to class differences and reduce the support for socialism that threatened the
existing order.
Another essential cause of the war was the poisoning of public opinion by the newspapers in
almost all European countries. The newspaper were often tending to ignite nationalistic
feeling by distorting and misrepresenting the situation in foreign countries. On a number of
occasion when peaceful solution of complex international problems could be possible the
biased tone of newspaper spoiled the matter. Also, between 1900-1914 there had been 3
major crisis between great powers.; over Morocco and Austrian annexation of Bosnia. These
crisis exposed the difference between the powers and reinforced the hostility between them.