World War I and German Militarism

Essay: Were German militarism and diplomacy responsible for WWI?

The rise of fascism and communism was tied to the most notorious catastrophes dwelling upon the 20th century, causing havoc and destruction across all the major empires (Austrian, Russian, Turkish, and German) was considered World War I which produced a mass of deaths and annihilation. The anxiety and annihilation caused by the war attracted the attention of many debates and historians throughout the world, in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World History, Volume 2, 2nd Edition, History Professors, V.R Berghahn and Samuel R. Williamson both had different perspectives on the debate, Were German militarism and diplomacy responsible for WWI? History professor, V.R Berghahn, declared in his Imperial Germany, 1871-1914: Economy, Society, Culture, and Politics. (Berghahn Books, 1994); Berghahn, recognized that Europe had the foremost control over the commencement of the war, their was also new found evidence which provided that due Germany’s political and military standards at the moment they were indeed responsible for the bloodshed gruesome that occurred during the war. Berghahn’s believed that due to the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Germany was angry and wanted revenge since they sided with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Events that occurred before the murder of the Empires successor, it was believed that Europe was in harmony which seemed unlimited even in the face uncertainties and battles that were occurring at the moment. Leading after the death of Ferdinand, Germany was prearranged a chance to jolt the being for the gruesome war which was alleged to start the improvement and transformation of the empires in the 20th century.1 Berghahn stated that, it was thought that Germany wanted and planned to go to war prior to the assassination of Ferdinand, but concealed their plans with the change of events which occurred in the Austrian-Hungarian empires, Berghahn stated “After all, over the past two decades the country had seen a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity. German technology, science, and education, as well as the welfare and health care system, were studied and copied in other parts of the world.”2 This suggested that the changes occurred in Germany at the moment were all proof that the Germans wanted to pursue the war. After the accumulation of all his references Berghahn claimed that German militarism and diplomacy were actually responsible for the rise of WWI, he reinforces that it was thought that when nothing seemed to be working the only way Germans would transform their society would be to follow the political theory which viewed war as the only way to transform the political and societal standards of their empire, With the statement of James Joll, “…at each level there was a willingness to risk or accept war as a solution to a whole range of problems, political, social, international, to say nothing of war as apparently the only way of resisting a direct physical threat.” 3 With this notion the Reich Chancellor and other alias were prompted to preserve whatever act the Austrian-Hungarian empires would choose for Serbia. Berghahn wrote, Moltke the military planner had received and understood the message from Berlin to execute his strategy because Austria must defeat the Serbians then be friend them quickly, requesting an Austro-Serbian alliance as the only solution just as Prussia did with the Austria in 1866.”4 Most importantly, Berghahn argued that since Germany’s only reliable ally was the Austrian-Hungarian Empire they sought revenge for the humiliation caused by the murder of their successor. Berghahn used an excerpt written by Fritz Fisher in his Griff nach der Welt-macht and in War of Illusions;”… the Reign government seized the assassination of…as an opportunity to bring about a major war…”5creating a motion considering that the Reign government indeed established a strategy to create outcast and annihilate the war, since the German diplomacy had previously failed to bring about peace.6 On the contrary, History professor Samuel R. Williamson terminated the debate Berghahn’s stated with the impression that no one nation could be held responsible for the catastrophe caused by WWI. He believed that the allegations Berghahn made were false because he argued that despite, the German Empire started the crisis and took complete control through-out it, since the European empire had the major powers prior and during the war that they are as equally responsible for the outcome brought by the war than any other nation.7 Williamson wrote, "The legacy of Germany 's bombastic behavior, so characteristic of much of German Weltpolitik and Europolitik after 1898 also meant that Berlin was thoroughly mistrust. Its behavior created a tone, indeed an edginess that introduced fear into the international system, since only for Germany did mobilization equal war.”8 In Reference to this quote, Professor Williamson provides evidence that Germany was indeed an onset of starting the war but that not only should they be the only nation at fault. Professor Williamson argued that the contributions which influenced the conflict were powers such as the European-Serbian Empires. Williamson claimed, that the Serbian primes minister’s unwillingness to investigate the secret organization and the plot meant that they were also to be held responsible for the way WWI had been initiated, “Once confronted with the fact of Sarajevo, the Serbian leadership charted its own course, one which guaranteed a definitive confrontation with Vienna”9 The reason why Williamson, did not blame the German empire with full responsibility for the war was because he believed that there was a conspiracy between the Serbian government and terrorist groups which planned the assassination of the Austrian-Hungarian successor and his wife. According to Williamson, the Austrian empire was also a big onset on the war because they could have easily prevented the challenges that occurred during 1914; nonetheless, although it is believed that berlin was more responsible, it could have been prevented. Williamson states, “The most aggressive of the…responsible for the war in 1914, was General Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf." 10Williamson tries to generate that not only Berlin should be blamed, because General Conrad had declared war against them many times previous to the assassination of the successor, but not only until it occurred that he said the time had finally come. Additionally, Williamson did not fail to generate indications to upkeep his opinions that the factor and conditions that led to the First World War should be held as mutual accountability and that no one nation would be blamed for its creation. However, as Williamson blamed the other nations, he did the same to Russians for their resolute care of Serbia and their precipitate preparatory military measures that intensified the predicament past a place where the cataclysm could be controlled.11Williamson argued that Germany, Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia contributed to the conflict and each of them shared some responsibilities. Williamson said, we should understand that, "The most significant, immediate, and dangerous response came not from the Germans, but from the Russians. Upon learning of the ultimatum, Foreign Minister Serge Sazonov declared war inevitable. His actions thereafter did much to ensure a general European war."12 In conclusion, the evidence brought about by these two professors very good points but in my perspective, no one nation should be the blame for the bloodshed caused by WWI. Although, Germany had a lot to do with the initiation of the war and also took control, there were a lot of factors from other nations that also contributed to the war. I agree with Williamson because I think that every nation had their secret tactics to annihilate the beginning of the war. Although, both authors had a mutual agreement that Germany’s part in the war was unique, from a urban perspective, Williamson would be considered correct due to the fact that he not only used evidence from his own findings but he also cited things that Berghahn’s had used too. In a few words, it is amenable that Berlin accepts the additional accountability for beginning the battle and that all of Europe 's major powers shared some responsibility for the onset of the war.

Bibliography

Berghahn, V. R. “The Crisis of July 1914 and Conclusions.” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World History. Vol. 2. 2nd edition, Expanded. Edited by Joseph R. Mitchell and Helen Buss Mitchell, 126-134. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Williamson, Samuel R. "The Origins of the War.” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World History. Vol. 2. 2nd edition, Expanded. Edited by Joseph R. Mitchell and Helen Buss Mitchell, 135-143. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Bibliography: Berghahn, V. R.  “The Crisis of July 1914 and Conclusions.” In Taking Sides:  Clashing Views in World History.  Vol. 2.  2nd edition, Expanded.  Edited by Joseph R. Mitchell and Helen Buss Mitchell, 126-134.  New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2008. Williamson, Samuel R. "The Origins of the War.” In Taking Sides:  Clashing Views in World History.  Vol. 2.  2nd edition, Expanded.  Edited by Joseph R. Mitchell and Helen Buss Mitchell, 135-143.  New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill, 2008.