I think that the driving factor seemed to stem from division resulting from a rise of nationalism. The very beginning of division began with much of Europe "yearning to break loose from their ordinary lives and embrace heroic values." A rise of nationalism and separating Europe by nationalities seemed to pin nations against each other and only served to increase conflict. Europe was very unstable at the time and Austria-Hungary was "opposed to nationalism," which put many against them and feed a desire for war. Austria-Hungary felt threatened by Pan-Slavism and wanted to make themselves stronger. If anything, I believe that there were actually two reasons why this came to be, over-confidence (nationalistic) and fear. Like Austria-Hungary and Germany, there were many other countries who were overly confident in their ability to overpower, but were afraid to stand alone, so they allied with others. The alliances prevented the conflict from being contained between just Austria-Hungary and Serbia, getting too many other countries involved, thus causing the war.
I agree with Farrah in that the division, both between the countries and within the countries, is what ultimately led to WWI. A united front is always stronger than a divided one, so differing views is what lead to conflict. On pg. 7 of "The Road to WWI" it says, "Committed to enhancing national power, statesman lost sight of Europe as a community of nations sharing a common civilization." It slipped even farther downhill after this. Many of the European countries started turning against each other, allying with each other as if they were playing a game. I noted in my active reading that this upheaval reminded me of middle school cliques the way that they are all about themselves and blind to the greater community.
Additionally, I feel that the romanticism of war egged them on a little bit. It " ignited the imagination of bored factory workers and daydreaming students". War didn't seem so bad when it was framed as heroic or glamorous, therefore people were less hesitant to enter into one.
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: Agreed
I would have to agree with Kate and Farrah. The strange aggravated nationalism of the German people, and hostility of other nations in response to the failure of the state, resulted in hostile, and heroic visions of going to war. On page 7 there it says "many europeans regarded violent confilt as the higest expression of individual national life". I think this kind of turn against humanism and civility could only arise out of the frustration between the nations. I would also say that the succession of Kaiser Willian II after Bismark greatly effected the outcome of Europe; under him there was no hesitancy towards Austria, that was dealing with fragile internal issues, and his decision to break the treaty with Russia, which dominoed into the mirrored triple alliances of Germay/Austria-hungry/Italy, and Britian/France/Russia.
I would say the reason why WW1 was inevitable among European coutries is Colonialism and Alliance
Firstly, During that time period, most of Imperial European countries desired to expand their territories throughout the whole Europe continents. Therefore, they were able to conqueor more colonies and gained natural resources, and etc.
Secondly, Alliance among European countries affected descent amount of role to outbreak the WW1. After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by the Serbian Black Hand terrorists, Austria-Hungary declared the war against Serbia and so did other nations. Every country was promising to protect others, so many nations joined WW1 for this reason.
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 6 Location: United States
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject:
Like Farrah, I agree that the attitude of nationalism was a strong driving point behind the war. It was cool to read about the various treaties and alliances that caused the domino effect pulling more and more countries into the war like we talked about in class! It is interesting to learn that Europe had a mostly positive, optimistic vibe pre WWI, since most of what I have learned about more modern European history is around WWII. I still feel confused about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand however. How exactly did it work as a catalyst in all of this?
The ‘romantic’ view of war that seemed popular in Europe also was another factor in the war. It be difficult to start something without passion behind it I suppose. Like General Erich Von Falkenhayn said, “Even if we end in ruin it was beautiful” The idea that a lost war is better than no war seems so interesting and just flat out illogical but then again, it’s certainly one way to motivate a country for violence.
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:38 pm Post subject: reason
I agree with what has already been said. The romanticism of war during the time for young people, especially, motivated fighting to a whole other level.
But fear, I believe, was the real reason underneath all of this romanticism. Germany, right before World War 1, was worried that other countries, particularly the Triple Entente, were teaming up against it. "If Germany were to survive, it must break this ring." [12] When Serbians killed the Archduke Franz Fertinand of Austria-Hungary, Germany most likely wanted to prove itself to the one ally that it felt like it could truly trust: Austria-Hungary. It wanted to expand its territory, also, but this was partially because it felt insecure.
Russia took France's side because it was scared of Germany after having just lost territory to Japan.
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 7 Location: United States
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:47 pm Post subject:
The main factor that led to WW1 was the idea of imperialism. Before WW1 Africa and Asia became targets for European countries because of their raw materials and natural resources. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I.
Germany themselves were thriving during this period and wanted to flex their muscles around other European nations. This also led to the building of Alliances which is the second factor that led to WW1. Over time most of the major powers in Europe made mutual defense agreements that would pull them into battle if necessary.
• Russia and Serbia
• Germany and Austria-Hungary
• France and Russia
• Britain and France and Belgium
• Japan and Britain
And because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated it triggered the motion of defense between the countries. Allied countries were bound to defend each other even if there was no significance for them joining the war besides the alliance factor. _________________ Manveer Singh
Like most of you guys who posted above me, I think that nationalism was a clear motivator for the war (and I really liked Kate's comparison to cliques in middle school). I, personally, find myself drawn to the romanticism of the war, though. A sense of duty and heroism drew people into the idea of a war once it had already begun, but I really think that it would be interesting to investigate how the celebration of war worked as force to start one. One of the quickest way to unite people is to provide them with a common enemy, and in my understanding, it was hardly as though these European powers were without their fair shares of problems. It would surprise me if no one in power thought that a war would stir up feelings of loyalty and excitement their countries seemed to be missing. "The word 'duty' had a meaning for them, and the word 'country' had regained its splendor." (page 17)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
