CAMBRIDGEASHISTORYREVISION

THEORIGINSOFTHEFIRSTWORLDWAR

QUESTIONSANDANSWERS

QUESTION1PAG115

There were many causative factors that led to the outbreak of the First World War. In your opinion, which factor was the most important?

QUESTION1PAG115

This question could be set after covering the first section of the chapter (pages 108–15) or having studied the whole chapter. Answers may vary accordingly. If the question is set after studying the first section only, factors mentioned might include:

• the decline of the Habsburg and Turkish empires, leading to power vacuums

• France’s desire for revenge against Germany following its humiliating defeat in the Franco–Prussian War

• the fundamental change in the balance of European power caused by the unification of Germany (to be continued, tbc)

QUESTION1PAG115

Bismarck’s decision to provide security for the newly unified Germany by forming secret alliances with Austria-Hungary and Italy, which caused alarm in other European countries

• Russia’s fear of becoming isolated and its desire to protect its warm-water access through the Dardanelles, which led to rivalry with Austria-Hungary in the Balkans

• Germany’s more aggressive foreign policy under Kaiser Wilhelm II improvements in relations between France and Russia, largely due to fear of the Triple Alliance

• Britain’s decision to end its policy of ‘splendid isolation’, leading to alliances with France and Russia (both of which had previously been seen as potential rivals and enemies). (tbc)

QUESTION1PAG115

If the whole chapter has been studied before addressing this question, answers should also consider issues such as:

• the naval arms race between Britain and Germany

• imperial rivalry

• the developing problems in the Balkans

• the immediate causes, such as the assassination in Sarajevo and Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality.

In both cases, students should prioritise the causal factors, reach a judgement about their relative significance and then develop a supported and balanced argument.

QUESTION2PAG115

Could the outbreak of a world war in 1914 have been prevented?

QUESTION2PAG115Ideally, this question should be posed when the whole topic has been completed, so that students have access to the full range of evidence. Evidence in support of the view that the outbreak of war could have been prevented might include the following:

• The existence of the two rival sets of alliances did not make war inevitable; indeed, for a time it actually helped to maintain peace.

• Britain had closer ties with Germany (e.g. trade and related royal families) than with France (traditional enemies).

• Austria-Hungary would not have wanted to risk attacking Serbia without the guarantee of German support.

• The Balkan crisis could have been settled peacefully by negotiation, as Britain had suggested.

QUESTION2PAG115Arguments against the view might include the following:

• The power vacuums left by the disintegration of the Habsburg and Turkish empires made war inevitable. Wilhelm II’s aggressive foreign policy was effectively a challenge to Britain’s power and prestige, both in Europe and overseas. Russia’s determination to maintain its warm-water access through the Dardanelles, and Austria-Hungary’s determination to maintain the integrity of its empire by suppressing nationalism in the Balkans, would inevitably lead to conflict at some point.

• The two rival sets of alliances created fear/misunderstanding in Europe.

• The naval arms race between Britain and Germany – together with the preparations being made by all the great powers by increasing their armed forces – made war inevitable. The best answers will provide a well-argued, well-supported but balanced argument. (see pg. 108–34)

QUESTION3PAG115

Why did the system of alliances that developed fail to ensure peace in Europe?

QUESTION3PAG115It could be argued that the alliances themselves resulted from fear:

• Germany feared for its own security and the prospect of facing war on two fronts. France feared the growth in German power and the prospect of being isolated. Russia also feared the growth of German power and the loss of its warm-water access through the Dardanelles. Austria-Hungary feared the loss of its empire as a result of nationalism, but realised that it lacked the power to defend it without support from Germany. Britain became alarmed at the prospect of being isolated in Europe – a threat that increased as a result of growing rivalry with Germany. Although the alliances were established with defensive motives, the secrecy of their terms caused concern elsewhere. The alliance system became superimposed on other problems, such as the rivalry between Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. (pg 108–15)

QUESTION1PAG122

Why did Britain and Germany expand their navies in the early years of the 20th century?

QUESTION1PAG122Germany argued that it needed a stronger navy to protect its empire and defend its European coastline from attack.

Britain, which had long enjoyed naval supremacy, argued that the extent of Germany’s overseas colonies did not warrant such naval expansion and posed a threat to peace in Europe.

Britain’s main concern was that, while it clearly had the stronger navy, it was widely dispersed across the world in defence of the British Empire.

The German navy, although smaller, was almost entirely focused in the North Sea area, thus posing a threat to British shipping. (see pages 116–22)

QUESTION2PAG122

Compare Sources A and B as evidence of German policy towards Morocco.

QUESTION2PAG122Source A reflects Germany’s more aggressive and nationalistic foreign policy under Kaiser Wilhelm II. Germany’s aim was to undermine French power in Morocco, hoping to split Britain and France over the issue. The source claims that, despite setbacks, the policy that Germany adopted over Morocco would eventually succeed.

Source A was written during the crisis and, therefore, lacks the advantage of hindsight. The German foreign secretary was ultimately responsible for the manner in which Germany handled the crisis and is seeking to justify the German strategy.

QUESTION2PAG122Source B was written after the crisis, by which time the failure of Germany’s strategy had become clear. The source is heavily critical of the German political leaders (mainly the German foreign secretary), arguing that the German strategy showed a lack of understanding about Britain. Indeed, Britain did support France and threatened to go to war with Germany over the crisis. Rather than being enhanced, German prestige was adversely affected by its policy towards Morocco. (see pages 121–2)

QUESTION1PAG125

How far did Turkey’s lack of control over the Balkans lead to instability in the region?

QUESTION1PAG125• The disintegration of the Turkish Empire led to the emergence of new

Balkan states, such as Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia, and instability grew in the region. Both Austria-Hungary and Russia were concerned by this, but also saw it as an opportunity to extend their own power. Austria-Hungary was concerned that the growth of nationalism in the Balkans might spread to other parts of the Habsburg Empire. Having been defeated in the Crimean War and the Russo–Japanese War, Russia sought to extend its influence in the Balkans, exploiting its cultural and religious links with the Slavic population. Although they had no direct interest in the Balkans, Britain, France and Germany became involved because of the alliance system that tied them to either Austria-Hungary or Russia. (see pages 123–5)

QUESTION2PAG125

How did tensions between the Balkans and other countries continue to build up to 1914?

QUESTION2PAG125In 1908–09, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia, an area populated mainly by Serbs. Serbia and Russia were angry, but backed down because Germany threatened to support Austria-Hungary. This had profound implications because:

• Germany and Austria-Hungary believed that Russia would never go to war in support of Serbia

• Russia was determined not to back down in the future. In 1912, members of the Balkan League rose against Turkey. Serbia made gains from the resulting peace conference. Serbia was now determined to unify Serbs living outside Serbia itself, including those within the Habsburg Empire. (see pages 123–5)

QUESTION3PAG125

Why were outside nations particularly interested in the political situation in the Balkans?

QUESTION3PAG125Instability in the Balkans posed the risk of a major war. As a result of the alliance system, countries with no specific interests in the region could be dragged in. Britain, in particular, made strenuous efforts to arrange peaceful settlements to the Balkan disputes. (see pages 123–5)

QUESTION1PAG134

Which do you think was stronger in 1914, the Triple Entente or the Triple Alliance? Why?

QUESTION1PAG134There is little doubt that, on paper at least, the Triple Entente was stronger than the Triple Alliance. Although Germany had developed a strong army and navy, Britain still had naval supremacy. Moreover, in the event of war, Germany faced the possibility of fighting on two fronts (against France in the west and Russia in the east). Austria-Hungary was in decline, its army unable to defeat Serbia without German support.

Italy had a weak army and was an unreliable ally – for example, it did not support Germany over the Moroccan crisis. Moreover, Italy and Austria-Hungary had rivalry over their joint borders. Conversely, France had developed a large army (aided by conscription) and had provided loans for Russia to enhance its own military. (see pages 108–34)

QUESTION2PAG134

Below is a list of causes of the First World War. Rank these in order of significance (where 1 is the most significant and 6 is the least) and give brief reasons for the positioning of each reason in your list:

• The alliance system in Europe

• The naval and arms races

• The invasion of Belgium

• The assassination of the Austrian archduke

• Imperial rivalries

• Russian mobilisation

QUESTION2PAG134The question requires students to make a judgement that can be supported by factual evidence. The options given can be divided into two groups: long-term and short-term causes of the war. The short-term causes cannot be fully understood without the context provided by the longer-term factors, and this should be evident in answers. (see pages 108–34)

QUESTION3PAG134

What does Source A reveal about relations between Britain and Germany before the First World War?

QUESTION3PAG134Students should note that the source comes from memoirs published in 1938 – some 30 years after the conversation outlined within it – so the writer has the benefit of hindsight. However, the source comes from a senior British politician who, in 1908, was in a position to know intimate details of British government policy and who clearly met and discussed issues with senior German politicians.

The most important aspect of the source relates to the Triple Entente, and reflects the secrecy that surrounded the agreements and which led to the two rival sets of alliances. Britain interpreted the Triple Entente as a defensive agreement that did not reflect any hostile intentions against Germany. Britain was, however, concerned by the rapid growth of the German navy, which posed a potential threat to British security.

QUESTION3PAG134Conversely, Germany interpreted the Triple Entente as a major threat to German security. The Germans could not understand why Britain, France and Russia had reached friendly agreements – Britain and France were traditional enemies, while Britain had long seen Russia as a rival to its overseas possessions and trading arrangements in the Far East. From Germany’s point of view, the Triple Entente could only be explained as an attempt to encircle and defeat Germany. (see pages 108–15)