Pick one of the possible causes (nationalism, alliances, militarism, imperialism) and write your opinion about it here. Be sure to mention the criticism of this cause in your comments and tell why you think this is or is not an important cause of the war.
I think Nationalism is a major cause for World War because it caused long term tension between Serbia and Austria Hungary. This then led to the assasination. After the assasination Russia mobilized and so Germany attacked France to then carry on to attack Russia. All of these imediate events from the war came from the push of nationalism.
ReplyDeleteI believe nationalism was the major cause of World War I. Out of all the possible causes, nationalism, alliances, militarism, and imperialism. Nationalism is the most connected cause to war. Countries at the time wanted power and more land equaled more power. It's a chain reaction too, because if one country starts gaining more land the rest of the countries want to also gain more land and become more powerful. Without nationalism the countries would not have had the motivating that caused them to go to war.
ReplyDeleteMilitarism was a cause of the war because in 1914 Germany and Britain both had the greatest military power in the world, mostly Germany but Britain fell close behind. Along with military technology, their navies had both increased as well. This increase in militarism helped push the countries involved in the situation to war. Although I believe militarism caused the war I don’t think it is a direct cause to the war. Criticism is in the strength of the argument, you have to realize that militarism its self cannot cause the war, but power in armies and technology can push a country to want to involve in war, thinking it is powerful and capable of triumph.
ReplyDeleteI think imperialism is a weak cause for a main cause of World War 1 because although some European countries competed for land and this resulted in bad relations, the war was not fought over control of the colonies but control in Europe. The bad relations and fear of imperialism do not connect to why Germany chose to mobilize and fight Britain, Russia and France . Also, Austria- Hungary did not have colonies and was still involved in World War 1.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nationalism, out of the four causes mentioned above, is the strongest cause. Nationalism leads to pride in one own country. Austria-Hungry felt a duty to their people to fight for justice, same as the Russians willing to help their Slavic brothers. Nationalism, could have also made Germany want to prove itself or seek revenge on countries that had done them wrong. Nationalism, still is not a totally secure cause, but it has more connections to war than militarism and imperialism do in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is a great amount of controversy over each cause, I believe nationalism is the most accurate cause of World War I. Nationalism is pride in one's country and the country's identity. This sense of pride led Austria-Hungary to fight to preserve its multi-ethnic empire. Nationalism also encouraged the Germans to fight because they wanted to fulfill their aims against Russia. In order to prove strength and stability in a country, they may have gone to war which reflects nationalism. Many critics say nationalism set the conditions for war but it didn't necessarily bring war about. Overall, none of the causes are extremely accurate, but nationalism seems the most realistic since it has more connections to World War I.
ReplyDeleteOut of the four MAIN causes, imperialism seems to be the least important cause to WWI. As Kristen stated above, the war was over control in Europe and not over colonies in Africa and Asia. Also Germany, France and Russia participated in the Triple Intervention in China in 1895, showing that they actually worked together as imperialistic powers. Austria-Hungary had no colonies, and therefore was not even concerned with imperialism at the time. An interesting argument made by Historian B says that the war pushed Germany to expand outside Europe, thus the war caused an increase in imperialism rather than imperialism causing the war.
ReplyDeleteNationalism is the strongest cause of WW1 that we may choose from. The assassination of the arch duke by a Serbian was out of racial differences due to nationalism. from there Russia mobilized to assist Serbia against Austria Hungary because they were Russia's "Slavic brothers". This mobilization caused Germany to begin the war feeling pressure from Russia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ellie and Kristin. Considering the four possible causes of World War I, imperialism appears to be the weakest cause. Historian B said that World War I was fought over control of Europe, not over colonies in Africa and Asia. Additionally, only France, Great Britain, Germany, and Russia had competed for colonies in Africa and Asia. Austria-Hungary did not have territories in Asia or Africa, meaning that imperialism did not influence Austria-Hungary’s decision to go to war. Therefore, I do not see a strong connection between imperialism and World War I. Historian C acknowledged the fact that imperialism does not address the fact that Germany fought Britain, France and Russia or the fact that France and Britain sided with one another. Overall, the connection between imperialism and World War I is very weak.
ReplyDeleteI think alliances out of the four possible causes, is the main cause of World War 1. Alliances are most helpful depending on the location. Britain and France could be alliances because they were close to each other (not saying that they couldn't be with Russia) Once treaties are made among the alliances, a trust is built and that I think is very necesary, it is the backbone of a strong wall that may need to be built to defeat another country. However, alliances could also come as a threat to another country. Treaties being signed could state that if country A is attacked by Country B then they (one of the signing countries) would attack and country B will be completely oblivious
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cailin, Ellie and Kristen that imperialism is the weakest cause out of the four main causes. As historian B and C said imperialism would have caused conflicts between Britain and France, who supported each other during the war. Also Russia, Germany, and France were all part of the Triple Intervention which does not explain why Germany would fight both Russia and France. In addition, Austria-Hungry did not have colonies so if imperialism was the main cause then Austria-Hungry should not have been part of World War 1. I believe that these examples show that imperialism was not a main cause because it did not cause the conflicts between Germany and France, Russia, Britain. Lastly, the war was not fought over the colonies in Africa or Asia; therefore imperialism is a weak cause of WW1.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Devon, Cailin, Ellie and Kristen that imperialism is the weakest cause out of all the causes mentioned above. Like historian B said, “the war caused an increase in imperialism, rather than imperialism causing the war. ” I believe that imperialism had a small impact with the decision of going to war, but it definitely was not the key cause. It seems that nationalism is the strongest cause out of the four causes. I think that this pertains mostly to Germany because they did not want to fall behind Russia and France, so they gave confidence to their country and headed into battle. This sparked tensions with other countries when Germany attacked their allies, thus causing World War I.
ReplyDeleteOf the four causes, I think militarism is the strongest because it was the one that led to Germany's decision to incite war. The small group of German leaders that made the decision that they wanted to go to war with France early in order to beat Russia made that decision because they felt that other countries were progressing faster militarily than Germany and that if they did not wait then Germany would not be able to beat them in a war. It was Germany's desire to start a conflict that ended up setting off the chain reaction of the war, and since militarism was one of the things that majorly influenced that decision, I think that of the four MAIN causes, that is the one that makes the most sense.
ReplyDeleteTo me, imperialism is the least important and plausible cause for World Ward I. I say this because first of all, the war was not over Africa and Asia. Secondly, Austria-Hungary had no direct connection to imperialism because they had no colonies anywhere in the world at that time. Thirdly, if imperialism was the main cause, then how come Germany, France, and Britain were not able to settle the dispute over a few territory areas. There would have been no need for the entire world to get involved and become affected by it.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly suprised that Historian C argued that none of the traditional causes led to or explained the Great War. The historian argued that it was when Germany started to fall behind Russia and France militarily that the war came. I agree with Historian B that imperialism was the least logical cause of the war. The main reason being that if the war was over the colonies it would take place in the colonies, and it did not. I agree with Historian B that the war caused an increase in imperialism, rather than imperialism causing the war. I also agree that nationalism was a cause for the war. The reading described how nationalism mostly affected the Germans. I was very surprised that Historian B believed that in reality the war was only caused by a small group of leaders in Germany. In my opinion nationalism played a role in all the countries that were involved in the war, not only Germany.
ReplyDeleteHistorian B had truly fantastic insight into the argument that alliances were, in fact, not an important cause of the "Great War". While in theory, the rigid alliances between the various countries throughout Europe would lead to increased tensions and further volatility, this was not the case. Historian B noted that alliances in Europe were formed on a purely defensive note, aside from that of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Therefore, it is not as if the declaration of war by one country would result in the immediate mobilization of all its allies. Furthermore, Historian B brought up many good "If this was the cause, why did X happen" points, such as the absence of Britain and Italy in the war. It is clear that the alliances in Europe was not the spark to the powder keg.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nationalism is a main cause of World War I. The war was in fact caused by German military leaders who wanted to take preventive actions to keep up with other european militaries. They decided to act first and take out countries before they became too powerful for Germany to contend with. Though they could have lived in harmony but just as a weaker nation compared to the others, German leaders were too nationalistic and saw their country as destined to be better than other, developing countries. However, historian B points out that many europeans in Germany, Britain, Russia and France were not calling for war and that public sentiment was generally against militaristic operations. In the end however, military decisions are decided by the government, and in this case, the German military leaders wanted their country to be supreme and therefore wished to enact a war to eliminate developing countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that Nationalism was a major cause of the war because, as other people said, after the assassination rivalries were formed and the war started. This cause is also important because it is connected to all the other main causes. Nationalism led to Imperialism, Alliances, and Militarism because pride for your country causes people to join together, want to fight, and want to conquer territory for their land. In the reading of the historian B did not even have any criticism of Nationalism as a cause of the war but historian C thought that national divisions had nothing to do with the cause of the actual war. Nationalism, out of all the other causes, was one of the most connected to war.
ReplyDeleteBoth historian B and C provided very interesting insights to the causes of the war. They both claimed that the MAIN causes of the war provided by most historians are wrong. They say that those causes only apply to certain countries but nothing as a whole. AFter reading this I feel as if I understand decision making much more than I did before
ReplyDeletePeter Durgin:
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading, I think nationalism was the main cause of WWI. It stated that only Germany expressed nationalism, however being one of the greatest contributors to the war, this could have been what impacted/ forced the war to start. Nationalism led to every other process needed to start the war. This is definitely an important cause as without the nationalism which Germany expressed, the war may have been on a much smaller scale.
I think that Historian B brought up a really interesting point. I had never thought of Germany being the main force behind the war. Even though I knew that Germany did a lot of the initiation of fighting, I never thought about how its need to fight Russia was really the cause of the war. It is possible to put this driving force under the militarism or nationalism categories (as Germany thought that it could, and needed to crush Russia. I think it is interesting that he is proposing that Austria- Hungary's position in the war was not in the central conflict, but solely as an ally to Germany in Germany's war. It really makes you think about why the war was escalated to include so many countries.
ReplyDeleteI think imperialism is a very weak cause, if it can even be called a cause, of World War 1. World War 1 was not fought over control of the colonies in Africa and Asia but rather control in Europe. No imperial conflicts can exactly explain why Germany chose to mobilize and fight other European powers. Also, the argument of imperialism being a main cause is weakened by the fact that Austria- Hungary did not have colonies in Asia or Africa and she was still greatly involved in the war.
ReplyDeleteIn result to learning about the four MAIN causes of World War I, I believe that its most important cause was nationalism. Nationalism was a big contributor to the war because it helped the countries of Europe that were involved believe that they could preserve the uniqueness of their empires through fighting one another.By going to war and fighting one another, national pride was restored throughout the countries This occurred because the countries wanted to prosper and diminish any other factors that go in their way. Many examples of this were shown throughout WWI especially when the Germans wanted to prove to the Russians that they could pursue their goals. With this being said it is easy to tell that nationalism played an important role when contributing to WWI.
ReplyDeletewhile if I had to rank one of the MAIN causes as most important it would be far and away nationalism. I disagree with the analysis of historian C who greatly underplays its importance. "Likewise, national divisions weren’t an important cause of the Great War. There were minorities in every country. There were no pure nation states. The ethnic minorities in Austria-Hungary were important to the war with Serbia, but they weren’t an important cause in other countries to the Great War." This statement is ridiculous as it discounts the main cause of the original impetus for conflict as "unimportant". That said I think nationalism played less of a role than was traditionally thought. I tend to agree with historian B but I think emphasis on Pan-Slavonism is important as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nationalism was indeed the main cause of World War I. The fact that you had so many nationalistic countries believing that they were the greatest power, due to this belief those countries were fearful of backing down because they would lose face. Nationalism also fueled militarism in the respect that the population now due to their nationalist feelings would support the military. I agree with Addie in the fact that nationalism was a cause for all the other MAIN causes. Serbian nationalists were the ones who assinated the arch-duke of Austro-Hungary and that was the spark that lit the explosives.
ReplyDeleteNationalism was the spark that intiated WW1, it was the beginning to a series of events that triggered a reaction to cause a war. When the arch duke was assassinated by a Serbian, Austria-Hungry felt growining resentment as an entire nation. The whole country joined together in a movement to prevent such actions in the future. Russia felt compelled to join Serbia due to a connection between the two countries--again a country stands up to protect itself or others. These countries formed alliances as an offense mechanism--they wanted protection, and to so so they had to join forces. Germany at this time, felt weak compared to the other nations, soon after they were yanked into the war. The strong desires of the German officials wanted to rise up and take power was the last shot towards the intiation of the war. The other documented causes of WW1 (Miliatarism, Alliances, and Imperialism) when reserached did not sucessfully align to causing the war; they may have aided the war cause. However Nationalism was the cause which had the greatest links to WW1.
ReplyDeleteCassandra Fibbe
ReplyDeleteThe B+C reading on the hisroty website really changed mine mind about militarism being a main cause of WW1.The article faught that the war was not started by militarism because only the minority of people in Germany wanted war. It also stated that big companies were all against war and anti militaristic. These arguements make sense however I question where the
Darby Mackintosh
ReplyDeleteImperialism did not play a big part in the cause of the war. When I read the interpretations of B and C, it did not change my mind but reenforced what I thought before. They said that it was not a big part in the cause of the war because Britain and France were allies in the war and if imperialism played a big part in the war, then they would be enemies. Also, I feel like there would have been more fighting in the colonies if imperialism played a big part in the war.
I think both interpretations denied that the MAIN causes of the war were not the main causes of the war, except maybe nationalism. In interpretation C, it was said that Militarism was not a cause of war, since Germany did not put a big emphasis on naval arms, people who supported the war (military) was a minority. It was made clear in both interpretations that allies were not a cause. For example, Italy was allied with Austria-Hungary, but did not fight. Britain on the other was not allies, but fought. This was according to Interpretation B, which also said that the war, between Germany and Austria-Hungary was not because they were allied, but because the decision of them fighting. Which then brings nationalism into play. Interpretation C stated that Germany simply went into war because they started to fall behind on military in comparison to Russia and France. Germany then allied with Austria-Hungary (using the assassination as an excuse) to fight in the war against Russia with them. A bigger army was then created. Both interpretations clearly stated that imperialism was not a factor in the causes of the war. B said the war was to control Europe, not colonies in Africa and Asia. C said Imperialism was present when Constantinople existed, but that did not give a good enough reason as to why Germany attacked Russia and France. I think that nationalism of Germany was the cause of the war because if Germany did not want to go to war, and felt bad about its ‘not-so-great’ army, it would have less violent.
ReplyDeleteInterpretations B and C brought up questions about the MAIN causes of WWI. However, these sources must also be evaluated on reliability. It is impossible to evaluate every single source on the record, so it is impossible to know for sure what the causes were. For example, the argument against Nationalism was not supported by the documents we read in class by the simulation. In the class argument, I was Russia, and nationalism and solidarity with and protection of "Slavic brothers" such as Serbia was stated as a major goal for our country. The two interpretations say that this was not the case- the first one says that it was only the nationalism of a few German officials that played a role, and the second says that only the Germans and the minorities in Austria were the only thing connected to nationalism that played a role. So, it was interesting to see how these two views (that of what we learned in class and that of the interpretations) were pitted against each other in the case of nationalism. Having pledged my everlasting loyalty to Mother Russia I feel like nationalism WAS a cause... but seriously, it would be necessary to read more things like primary sources from the opposing viewpoints to find out how important nationalism (and all the other proposed causes) were to starting WWI.
ReplyDeleteSiobhan McDonough
Out of the four "main" causes, imperialism is definately the weakest. If imperialism was a main cause of WWI, Britain and France would have been fighting each other because of competition for new territories, instead of fighting on the same side. Imperialism caused other conflicts but not the war. If the main cause was imperialism, it doesn't explain why Austria Hungary was involved in the war even though they weren't competing for territories in Asia and Africa. The strongest of the four "main causes" is nationalism. A Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austria Hungary archduke. After the assassination, Austria Hungary felt they had to attack Serbia. It was the best thing to do for their country. Nationalism influenced Germany to fight because they didn't want to fall behind Russia and France.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose the MAIN cause of the war based on these two historians evaluations and what we have learned in class I would say nationalism is probably the most important cause. Although as Historian C points out there were minorities in every country, national pride played a huge part in attaining alliances and fighting the war. Countries banned together to preserve their nations and fight for what they believed had to be fought for. Imperialism is definitely the weakest cause of the war, and as Historian B pointed out, is probably more of an effect of war, rather than a cause. There were many variables to the war beginning but after evaluating the sources nationalism seems to play the biggest part.
ReplyDeleteI believe that most of the "main" causes like imperialism, nationalism, militarism, and alliances weren't the actual causes of WW1. Like historian C said, if imperialism was a cause the war, e should have seen Austria-Hungry being a part of the imperialist powers, which they were not. Also nationalism doesn't really mean that countries will go out and start wars for the pride of their country, but really they were more defensive and tried to make their country better. Militarism and the race for arms weren't really causes either because in history there have been other arm races that haven't led to war and wars that didn't start with arm races. I feel that the main cause of the war was Germany's fear of falling behind in the world leagues. The only real option was for them to start a war so they could stay in front.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Lorizio
ReplyDeleteI think that the most interesting cause for WWI are alliances. After discussing this possible cause in class, I found the most influential alliance to be between Germany and Austria-Hungary.Germany was a very strong ally to have considering it had the strongest army and second strongest navy. Historian B gave me a different perspective on the alliance between Germany and A+H. This historian says that Germany and A+H were looking for an excuse to go to war. The archduke's assassination was the perfect excuse for them to go to war with Serbia.
I had originally believed that Nationalism was the main cause of the war and our class discussion just reinforced this belief. As historian B states, Nationalism is a cause but only for Germany. Germany started the war though so if Nationalism caused Germany to start the war, then Nationalism was definitely a main cause. Also our discussion reinforced the fact that imperialism was not a cause of the war at all because Austria Hungary did not even have any colonies at the time. Also at first I thought that militarism had to be a cause because this was a war but as shown by historian C only a small minority of German's favored war and most were anti-militarists.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a combination of Nationlism and Militarism that caused World War I. According to Historian C, the war was started by a group of German leaders who were interested in taking over Europe. Militarily, the Germans had started falling behind Russia and France and they believed they had to fight before they fell behind forever (Historian C.)They wanted to fight before the Russia finished their railroads. I am assuming this is because they wanted a military advantage. Both Historian B and C felt that imperialsim was not a key cause of World War I.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Addi because I had also originally believed that Nationalism was the primary cause of World War I. After our discussion in class, my belief was only reinforced. There were some interesting points made about Militarism and Alliances being strong causes of the war, but after thinking about it, I decided that Nationalism was the primary cause. I believe that Nationalism is the primary cause because it is what led Germany to start the war, which then brought in other countries due to alliances and having to defend themselves. Overall, Nationalism is what really started the war. The other causes just helped to increase tensions and keep the war going.
ReplyDeleteAfter having a discussion on the main cause of World War I, I feel more confident with my view that nationalism was the main cause for the war. I originally believed that nationalism was the main cause but after going over it in class I am sure of my decision. Both militarism and alliances had a part in the war but were not the main cause and imperialism I believe to not have any cause in the war. Nationalism was the mind set at the time. Everyone wanted to most land and power. Once everyone saw that nationalism is what helped you achieve more power it became more and more popular. Germany seemed to start this mind set of nationalism which rapidly spread throughout Europe. Overall, nationalism was the main cause of the was and the other causes militarism, alliances and imperialism were smaller causes that increased the tension and nationalism throughout Europe.
ReplyDeleteOut of these four possible causes I believe that nationalism is the strongest cause of the war. Let me make it clear, nationalism is the strongest, but I don't think it is the only cause for the war. I believe that nationalism set the conditions for war, but didn't bring it about (like Historian B) stated. The reason why I say this is because the German people were not calling for war, it was a small group of leaders in Germany who were. Then Germany saw the strength of Russia, and they thought that they needed to start the war in order to weaken Russia. Then the assassination of the Arch Duke in Austria-Hungary, allowed Germany to convince Austria-Hungary to fight against Russia and begin the war.
ReplyDeleteThough I don’t feel that any of the “MAIN” causes of World War I were truly the main causes after this reading, I think that the greatest factor of these causes was nationalism. As a result of nationalism, Austria-Hungry was driven to fight in order to preserve its multi-ethnic empire. In Germany, nationalism was a factor in war as the Germans wanted to meet their goals in regards to Russia. Germany went to war in an attempt to stay powerful and prove that it was strong to other nations, which can be considered an effect of nationalism. However, in reading the sources, the historians seem to think that nationalism did not cause the war but rather set the climate for war. Though it clearly isn’t a perfect cause, I think nationalism is the most relevant cause of the four well-known causes of World War I.
ReplyDeleteMy cause was imperialism and I found it interesting that there was little debate as to it validity as a cause. Both groups thought that while there was a plausible connection between the war and Imperialism the connection was not very clear. I think that while imperialism may have cause unhappy feelings between countries the case did not make many other points. Also, the way that is was written made it seem like Britain and France should have been feuding and this was not the case. I don't think the case for imperialism was very clear.
ReplyDeleteAfter our class discussion I believe that out of the four MAIN causes of World War I, nationalism is the only possible cause. In class, we discussed that nationalism was mainly a cause for the Germans. The fact that Germany started the war supports the idea that nationalism was a cause for World War I. Nationalism was not the cause for most other countries. Although Austria – Hungary believed that they went to war for their own purposes, in reality they were helping Germany. However, it was a small group of German officials that started the war and the German citizens felt no strong desire to go to war like other countries. Furthermore, I agree with Historian B, in that, nationalism did not bring about war but did set up the conditions for war.
ReplyDeleteBefore the discussion in class I had originally thought that militarism was a weak cause of WW1 but after watching the video in class and having the discussion I believe that it is a stronger cause of the war. The other day when I was reading the opinions of historians B and C I concluded that militarism was a weak cause because historian C said “only a minority of Germans favored war in 1914”. I believed that it could not be a main cause if only a minority of Germans wanted war. However, after watching the video in class and getting another perspective on militarism I believe that it is a stronger cause because in the video it explained how the military disobeyed their leaders and went war. The leader Austria-Hungry knew that if he went to war with Serbia, it would cause a chain of reactions. Russia would get involved then Germany and France and Britain. This series of events would cause a terrible war with thousands of deaths. Militarism was a cause of the war.
ReplyDeleteI think the war was jump-started by Germany's desire to stay on top. Germany thought war was inevitable, and wanted to protect her people. Austria-Hungary was dragged into the war when Germany pushed her to. German leaders chose to go to war so they didn't fall behind. I believe that World War I was caused by primarily Germany's own agenda. Imperialism was definitely not a cause of the war, as Austria-Hungary did not have an interest in any country and no real rifts were caused between countries during their conquest of other countries. As historian C said, German leaders chose to go to war "out of fear that the military situation was changing against them."
ReplyDeletePrior to the class discussion, I had originally thought that the weakest cause of the war was imperialism and nationalism was the strongest. I thought the other said to be "causes" were actually just factors that played into the war or results. After the class discussion, I concluded that my assumptions about imperialism and nationalism were correct. Imperialism had nothing to do with the war of control in Europe but the mindset of imperialism, to take over and gain power and control, which was nationalism, was a cause. After watching the video though, the ideas of militarism and the alliance system were argued as the main causes. Historian C, from our homework, said that only a minority of Germans favored war so I believed that it could not be a main cause. But in the video, it was explained how the military disobeyed their leaders and went war regardless. Leaders were aware of the outcomes of war if they went through with it, so that's why they opposed. But military leaders didn't. It then said that because one country went to war, this country went to war because they were allied with the previous country, which caused another country to go to war, and etc, supporting the alliance system as why it became a world war rather than just a small war between two or three countries. Then again, who knows if this perspective is true or not. The video could be made by biased historians with a different outlook. I would need to evaluate further to draw my own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteMatt Vogus
ReplyDeleteMany of the comments we made in class came up in the arguments made by Historians B and C. I feel that Imperialism is truly not a cause of World War I, because if it was we would have seen fighting between different countries, and this fighting would have most likely occurred in Africa or Asia. Also, militarism does not seem as much of cause anymore. As Historian B said, In some respects, Germany didn’t spend enough on arms. Had she spent more, she wouldn’t have felt she was falling behind and decided for war." So perhaps it was a lack of militarism that helped cause the war, and militarism did not always lead to wars in history.
I believe after discussion in class and after thinking on my own that the strongest cause for the war was nationalism. German leaders were calling for war and their nationalistic mindsets brought about their need to stay on top and prove their power. Germany also had bad blood with France which brought about great hostility. Historian B from our readings also brings in the fact that the decisions are made by higher up government officials and that it what it comes down to in the end, the war was greatly influenced or even started by the German officals. Also the assassination by a Serbian nationalist pushed for the war to begin. Although there are other causes of the war nationalism was a great factor and I believe it was the strongest of the four "main causes".
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this reading I did not realize that it was basically Germany starting the war. The reading said that, "In reality, the war was started by a small group of leaders in Germany." Just this fact alone makes all the other MAIN causes not very good ones. One of the flaws that I did not think of with the imperialism cause was that imperialism didn't even cause the Germans and the British to dislike each other, so then they did they fight a war against each other? Thus weakening the cause. If imperialism was actually a cause of the war then Germany wouldn't have faught the British, they could have maybe even been allies.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that Historian B referenced alot of the causes we identified in class. However, at the same time, this historian did not use them as the main cause. I didn't really think that the assassination was just an excuse to start the war before reading this, but now it makes sense that something like that wouldn't start the entire war. This historian also talked about allies. I think the relationships nations had with other countries played a big role. First of all, this historian mentioned the bad relationship between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. The allies of these countries got pulled into the fighting and caused an even bigger conflict. Historian C seemed to think that most of these were not major causes at all and were only trivial points in the cause of the war.
ReplyDeleteThis reading (especially Interpretation C) definitely clears things up to me. It was already clear to me that imperialism was not a cause of the war, because the war was fought between European countries, in Europe. If the war even related to imperialism, battles would have taken place in colonial parts of Africa and Asia. I find it very interesting how Germany essentially started the war (both Interpretations commented on this). They wanted to take out Russia, so they made the pact with Austria-Hungary. Militarism clearly did not cause the war either, as many citizens did not favor war. Due to all of these, it shows that German leaders were primarily fearful about their military situation was changing, more specifically that Russia and other nations were becoming more powerful,so they felt the urge to start the war.
ReplyDeleteOut of the 4 MAIN causes of WWI I believe that nationalism was the strongest. Like Historian B said, "Nationalism was the cause of war, but mainly for Germany". Since Germany started the war in order to get power and land and to protect its country then the cause of WWI war nationalism. Also, I agree with Historian C that the other MAIN causes of WWI were just factors that caused tensions between countries. Imperialism, alliances, and militarism were all factors that started the momentum for war, but did not actually cause it.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Klobucher
ReplyDeleteThis reading really made the MAIN causes of WWI not make any sense at all. Both Historians came up with arguments that our class had thought of. An example is that imperialism just has not connection to the war. It was also interesting to see that they point out that the assassination really didn't cause the war because the war was already going to happen. Also they talked about the allies being a small portion of the cause because the war between Austria Hungry and Serbia was going to happen but because Germany got involved it blew up the war.
I think the comment that Historian B said about the assassination was very interesting in how it was not a cause of the war, but rather an excuse to go to war. I understand we went over this a little in class, but when the historian said it, it really clicked. If indeed the Germans were just waiting for a reason to fight and bring down Russia. This would provide the perfect opportunity to get allies to fight for them and with them even though it's for their own benefit.
ReplyDeleteChristina Serpa
ReplyDeleteI found this reading to be very interesting because the historians had very different viewpoints and arguments from what we learned about the MAIN causes of WWI in class. Historian B says, "Imperialism is clearly wrong as a cause of the war." After reading his/her argument, I agree that imperialism did not create the actions of war, but the war itself helped the expanding of imperialism because with all of the fighting, it made it much easier for the stronger countries to take over the weaker and they were definitely inspired.
After reading the reading, I am confident that Nationalism was the main cause. The tension between Austria-Hungry and Syrbia was primarily caused by nationalism, and each country wanting to protect their own. As for Germany, the war was started by a small group of leaders in Germany. Austria-Hungary wanted to preserve its multi-ethnic empire, but in reality, they were simply fighting to fulfill German aims against Russia. Germany especially, seemed to have only their won nation's benefits in mind.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading these two different viewpoints it was interesting to see that both Historian B and C agreed that imperialism was not a cause. Thus showing how unimportant imperialism was on WWI. Also it was interesting to see that both historians mentioned that the Germans wanted to go to war to try to show its power before becoming a weak major power. This shows that the Germans feared things could only get worse, and like Historian C it was to to better protect themselves. However, it was interesting to see that the Historian B focused in on the fact that the assassination of the Archduke, like Cristi said, gave the Germans and the people of Austria-Hungary an excuse to begin a war. While Historian C does not mention the death of the Archduke.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all of the different info on the causes of WWI, I realized that your definition of "cause" determines how you see and feel towards these other causes. Originally, I feel I had been taking the causes to literally and was only looking for the one cause that set off all of the countries and sent them into war, but what I came to realize was that there is really very few events like that. In this case, I disagree slightly with what historian B said about Serbia vs. Austria-Hungary: that the assassination was just an excuse to go to war. I think it was definitely the trigger to the war, but other things, such as militarism, maybe not as "triggering" causes, but important causes nonetheless, especially as political leaders debated over whether or not it was a good idea to start a war. In this way I think that both the nationalism associated with the assassination and militarism were causes for the war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both historians on the point that the main cause of the war was really Germany's fear of other powers in Europe, especially Russia. It was Russia's railroad that specifically scared Germany, which is why they went to war before it was completed, this is was outlined in the Schliffen Plan. I found it a little comical that imperialism wasn't really a cause because we had discussed that in class. I really liked the point that Historian B made saying the war caused more imperialism. To realted the main cause of German fear back to the four causes we learned in class, I would most likely tie this back to militarism and nationalism. It wasn't exactly an arms race type of militarism, but more of an increase in military power on all sides at the same time with the exception of Germany (as noted by Historian C) which is why they ended up feeling threatened. They had a smaller army of men, and put a lot of their military resources into their navy to compete with Britain. The navy would not be able to help them resist a land invasion from Russian railroads. Nationalism like Historian B said set up the conditions for war, it did not bring it about. This relates to a point I made in class the other day, stating that the four main causes exists codependently and not only caused the war but couldn't have caused it without causing each other. Nationalism really only motivated the German's because they were the only ones pushing for a total war in Europe. Austria-Hungry really only wanted to defeat Serbia, but Germany backed them up on that also. I actually believe that what happened with the rest of the powers was much like our class activity where almost every country got very trigger happy and dove right into the war due to what they thought were ally obligations and a nationalistic sense of duty. At any rate, the causes we learned in class aren't exactly wrong so much as being a good starting point for cause analysis, they are very general and there are certainyl smaller deeper causes that had a profound impact upon the war.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very surprising to me because I had not thought of how the MAIN causes could be seen as so unrelated to WWI. I was mostly surprised by the disregard towards alliances. Historian B said that "Italy, which was allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, did not join the fight. Britain, which was not allied with France and Russia, did join the fight." This used a skill that we were using in class the other day, showing that one should apply the cause to different aspects and see if it had the same effect. After reading this I agree with Historian B that alliances were not a cause of WWI. I also think that it is safe to say that many countries were simply defending themselves--an approach commonly used when attacked.
ReplyDeleteFrank McCarthy
ReplyDeleteDuring out class discussion the other day when we rated each of the possible causes on a scale of 1 to 10, I felt rather confident that militaristic advancements taking place at the time just before WWI was a large cause for the war. The reading that we had for homework however didn't support the idea of militarism as much. I found it interesting and valuable to see a different point of view on the matter because realistically WWI didn't just happen from any one of the topics discussed but rather a combination of several which launched the world into war. I did agree with some of the points brought up in the reading such as historian C's belief that Imperialism was not a very large cause. I feel that Imperialism was winding down at this point in global history and if countries were fighting over colonies, then why weren't they fighting in them? Overall I found this reading very interesting to see several more viewpoints on the causes of World War I.
When reading about the viewpoints of these two historians, I found a few pointsvery interesting. First, Historian B brought up the point that the assassination was just a mere excuse for the war, not a cause. I strongly agree with this historian and I believe that in class on Wednesday we also used the assassination as an excuse when we were unable to draw a direct connection between one of the MAIN cuases and WWI. I also found it interesting the way in which Historian B talked about alliances. He made it clear that alliances were often strategies instead of a direct cause for the war. In addition, Historian C's interpretation of imperialsm as a cause, or lack of cause was a very different perspective. I found it particularly helpful that he or she stated many imperialistic conflicts between super powers and then pointed out that none of the conflicts explain why Germany fought Britain.
ReplyDelete-Caroline Flores (H)
Christina Serpa
ReplyDeleteF Block
Before the discussion in class, I thought that WWI's least important cause was nationalism and when one of the historians (b) argued that it was one of the main causes, I was very surprised. Out of all of the MAIN causes, in my mind, the least significant was nationalism because I felt that there were just so many more important incentives for war. After our discussion in class about nationalism, I now understand how important it is in a society and how it leads to numerous other causes of the war as well. With great nationalism, comes imperialism because some countries gain pride and confidence which makes them feel like they are able to take over other weaker countries easily. In this discussion, the class talked about how nationalism is like gravity, because it is always there and that is why it cannot be labeled as a direct cause of the war, but it was definitely an underlying cause of other causes of the war. Overall, this discussion really helped clarify how nationalism effected WWI.
Seminar Discussion.
ReplyDeleteAfter the discussion, I changed my mind about Alliances. I was seriously very torn between all four main causes. But after alot of thought, I've decided that militarism was the main cause of the War. I think that the potential threat and the wanting to be better then other countries pushed the military force to grow and to train harder and push for better weapons. Other countries may have seen this as a threat or a challenge and thus the war has been caused. (this also adds with alliances, if countries saw it as a threat, then they may have signed treaties for alliances as a "just in case" that country attacked.)
The discussion brought a lot of information to me that I hadn’t realized before. Before the discussion it seems as if militarism would be a legitimate reason for the war to happen. Everyone was mobilizing and they wanted wars. However, Historian C said that in during the war, anti-militarist parties were popular. Businesses, steel owners and others who contribute to the financial cost of the war were not a fan of war. I understand that military powers can overrule those of the people in Europe, but by Anti-militarist parties being present in Europe was what really hurt Militarism as a cause of World War 1 in my opinion. Nationalism, one that I believed was quite strong, still seems strong after the discussion. Germany was made to look like the reason for war in both Historians B and C, but they wouldn’t have wanted to fight if they did not believe they could win or they were the best country. This seminar definitely opened my eyes to the many flaws in the MAIN causes of WW1.
ReplyDeleteAfter discussing this in class, I still maintain that Germany's desire to stay on top and not fall behind led to the start of the war. Though nationalism played an important part, it really only affected Germany. As Fromkin said, "nationalism set the conditions for the war, but didn't bring it about." Germany was influenced by different things, such as nationalism and the fear of falling behind, which is why they decided to enter into war. Had they not entered into war, neither would Austria-Hungary. Germany was very geared for war, and saw Austria-Hungary as a way to get to that war. Though there were certainly other causes, I think Germany's fear of falling behind is the primary cause.
ReplyDeleteToday in class I agree with the others that Germany was the cause of the war. But the one thing hard to find is what motivated Germany. Based on today's class discussion I know think that Germany started the war to stay on top and show their power. Also nationalism played a small part in
ReplyDeleteGermany's decisions. If Germany weren't to have allied then the war may have not been so wide-spread. From today's class discussion I learned that everything somehow came back to Germany.
Today in class, I was intrigued by some of the arguments people came up with. I came into this discussion thinking nationalism was the main cause of the war because all of the countries involved were proud of their country or fighting for their country.After today's seminar, I think that Germany is not the main cause of the war. I don't think something as complicated as a "world war" can be attributed to just one cause. Since there are so many countries and people involved, it is hard to say everyone fought because of this one reason. All countries and individuals have their own personal motivation for fighting. For example, Belgium became involved because it was a small country in need of protection. Germany did not get involved because it was a small country in need of protection. Such a large conflict is too complex to label with only one main cause.
ReplyDelete~ Sami Davis
Essentially in the class seminar today we discussed how each of the causes aren't actual causes of WWI. These seminars are so eye-opening and really help me formulate my own opinion. There is no doubt that both of these historians we biased in their own views, believing that certain possible causes should never even be considered as actually causing the war. In my first comment I focused more on alliances but now nationalism has interested me more. My personal view on nationalism is that nationalism is not a cause of the war, it merely makes it possible to get involved in war. I'll explain. Wars are fought over many different things: money, religion, resources, weapon development, etc. If one country has too much of the aforementioned and possibly abuse them, other countries get mad. Angry countries start fights. So, is a country more successful in a war if its people are united? Is a country more successful is the entire country rally around the idea of war? Well I'd have to say yes. A country divided over war would suffer severe setbacks, such as protesting and criticism of those who are leading the war effort, when going to war. What causes war is conflict. What makes it possible for actual war and mobilization to occur is nationalism: pride, unity, and support for your country to go to war. Hopefully this doesn't sound like too much stream-of-consciousness.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to rachel, I really have deducted The actions of Germany as the main cause of the war. To me, the only question really remaining is why Grmany chose to start the war, or at least chose to attack Serbia and Russia, dragging other nations in certain alliances into the war. According to Historian C from last nights reading, the only real reason that germany declared was to preserve their position of power In Europe, because they saw other countries, specifically Russia, becoming more powerful. As a result, I believe that German nationalism and militarism was the main cause of WWI.
ReplyDeleteThe class seminar today not only opened my eyes to other possibilities of causes for WWI, but also confirmed certain thoughts that I had going into class. Last night I tweeted that Nationalism was the strongest of the four main causes for war. Even though I still believe that it was the strongest of the four, the point about what essentially is imperialism really made me think. Was Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia to show their superiority? That still remains a mystery to me. Now going back to Nationalism. Although Nationalism seemed to be strong in being a cause of the war, I believe that fear in militarism was the strongest cause. Germany saw Russia as this growing threat, therefore when the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, Germany immediately looked to Austria-Hungary as a possible use to hide their fear of Russia. The majority of the German people did not want war, the German leaders may have been nationalistic, but their cause for war was fear of Russia's military capability. In addition, when Germany began to plan on attacking Belgium and France quickly, then turning around to face Russia, this I think was Great Britain's worst nightmare. Even though Great Britain did have the strongest navy at the time, the idea of Belgium and France being under the control of Germany scared Great Britain at what the future could hold for their nation. Therefore, they sided with France and Russia, not because of alliances, but because they feared the potential German threat. This may be a lot of historical analysis, but this is why I believe that this strange World War happened in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAfter having the seminar in class, my views on militarism as a MAIN cause have changed. The fact that there were anti-militarist parties in Europe seems to sway the argument that war was not a favorable option for the Europeans. But then the question was asked whether or not it matters if there are anti-militarist parties? It's the executive branch that indeed has a large role in whether or not war happens. Also after the discussion I still retain my view that the war was inevitable even if the assassination hadn't happened. Germany had a feud with Russia, and just needed the perfect moment to go to war. Concurring with Historian B and C I don't believe that Germany should solely be blamed for the vastness of the war. Going along with the video, alliances did play a key role in the wide-spread act of war, which involved Austria-Hungary and Serbia at first. Then Russia, Germany and France all got involved due to their ties with one another. Of course Germany had her own motivation for getting involved, specifically nationalism which prompted Germany to be proud of war and her military. But I believe without the alliances, the war would be been smaller.
ReplyDeleteCassandra Fibbe
ReplyDeleteAfter having the discussion in class on the causes of the world war I have completely changed my mind about imperialism and allies being a cause of the war. I do not believe imperialism was the cause of the war in any way because if it was the fighting would be between France and Britain, two countries that were fighting over land in Africa. Alliances was also rule out in my mind for a cause of war in class. We talked about how Italy did not jump on board with their side during the war, even though they had a strong alliance. We also discussed that Britain fighting with France did not make much sense due to the alliances at the time. I am having a hard time putting my finger on the main cause of war, or even a big cause of it. I feel like most of the causes we have discussed can go either way, and I am in a way still unclear why the war occurred.
Today because of the class discussion, I have changed my view. I previously believed that alliances were the main cause of World War I. However, because of the points made in class, I have concluded that alliances are not as important of a cause as I previously thought. This is because many of the countries were not solidified allies (for example Britain and France). Also, Germany's main goal was to take out Russia, so they blew up the small conflict between Serbia and Austria to goad Austria into war so that Germany could be strengthened by Austria to fight Russia. Also, alliances were only prevalent with Russia-Serbia and Austria-Germany because Italy, an ally of Germany, did not get involved. Furthermore, I believe the only reason Britain and France got involved was because of the close proximity of European countries.
ReplyDeleteAlso, after the discussion in class today, I changed my view of militarism as a cause because many Europeans did not want war. However, the actions of the small group of government officials/military leaders and their decisions fueled by militarism caused war. For example, Germany's public did not want a war, but the motives of the leaders were clear as shown by the Schlieffen plan. Therefore, I believe the close proximity of European countries to be the main cause of the war. With countries developing into the modern age and tensions still high after imperialism (not direct correlation to alliances, I do not think imperialism as a cause), a war was bound to happen eventually.
Today’s seminar was very interesting because it opened me up to a couple new ideas. Before class I was totally agreeing with everything that the historian where saying that imperialism, nationalism, militarism, and alliances did not cause World War 1 and that Germany’s desperate measure to stay on top did. I still agree that Germany’s want for the top position of power is a main cause but I also believe that nationalism had a bit to do with it. I used to think that nationalism caused the countries to go and e more defensive than offensive because if they were nationalistic they would be more focused on themselves than the rest of the countries. Now I think that since Germany was so nationalistic, they needed to stay on top to remain respected by the other countries. Because they were such a new country (in comparison) their nationalism was much higher than a lot of the other countries nationalism (we can see this portrayed in America after the American revolution because after they gained independence, people memorized the DOI and had meeting on the fourth of July that would recite it – nowadays that has clearly changed because most people’s idea of the fourth of July is a day to have a barbeque and watch fireworks explode). This sense of nationalism set the Germans in a position that they would fight to maintain the status of their country. Other than that, my opinions on imperialism, militarism, and alliances haven’t really changed. Only that the alliances brought the “world” war 1.
ReplyDeleteAfter todays discussion in class, my view has stayed the same, but has become a lot stronger. I still think that that main cause of WWI was Germany. Militarism, like what was discussed, was not a factor that contributed to the war. Only a small amount of people were in germany were in favor of the war, everyone else (workers, bankers, steel laborers) were not in favor of it. My view on alliances has changed a little. The interpretations made it clear that alliances were not contributors to the war. It also gave strong examples of why it was not. I now think that it may have had an impact a little bit. Someone had brought up the fact that if it weren't for alliances, Germany and Austria-Hungary would never have gotten together. If they had never gotten together, then a war probably would not have formed, since Germany needed a stronger army which Austria-Hungary helped them out with. MAN should be the new word for the main causes of WWI, since imperialism was definitely not a factor. It wasn't like these countries at war were going against each other for land in Africa. Nationalism i still think is the stingiest reason why WWI was created, and this was all due to Germany. Germany felt like it needed a stronger army, so clearly it just allied for that reason, and therefore caused a war out if it because they felt insecure about being inferior to countries like Russia.
ReplyDeleteAfter having the seminar in class today, my view as militarism as the main cause have changed. I overall, do not see any of these causes, as exact causes because there is criticism in all of the causes, yet in life there are criticism on everything so clearly they somewhat all caused the war yet at the same time they have conditions that did not. I completely agree with Mr. O's point on the condition of gravity when someone falls off of a cliff. This is extremely insightful and also clearly draws the line between causes and conditions. The main four causes chosen, as the causes of WW1 are all typically causes for most wars yet it is in the details that directly align the causes to the war. With this said, I believe it is hard to pick a certain cause as the MAIN one because all of them are somewhat conditions in my opinion, yet I also believe they all connect specifically to the war as well. Overall, my opinion as the MAIN cause of the war would be alliances. I feel all of the other causes tie into this main cause. The cause of alliances started with Austria-Hungary and Serbia then Germany, Russia and France became involved, through their intertying connections with each other. My main belief in the cause of alliances is without all ties other country had the war would have only been between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.
ReplyDeleteAfter the discussion we had in class today I do still believe Nationalism and Militarism were causes of World War I, I do not see alliances nor imperialism as a cause. Historian B stated “Italy, which was allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, did not join the fight. Britain which was not allied with France and Russia did join the fight.” Italy did not help Germany and Austria-Hungary even though they had a very strong alliance and Britain which was not and alliance with France or Russia joined the fight, shows the insignificance in alliances as a cause of the war. Imperialism was also not a cause because the war was over control of Europe, not over colonies in Africa and Asia. Overall, my ideas on what caused the war have not changed.
ReplyDeleteAfter today's class discussion, I no longer think that alliances were one of the main causes of World War 1. Before today's discussion, I thought that the European Alliances were one of the most important causes. I thought that the war was started because allies had to protect one another. However, I now think that the alliances did not start the war. The war was started because Serbian nationalists assassinated the Austria-Hungary archduke. The war was caused by nationalism but then alliances caused the war to become a "world war". War between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was inevitable but then Germany got involved because Austria-Hungary was its ally. If alliances were the main cause of World War 1, it doesn't explain why Britain and France fought on the same side. If it was the most important cause why did Italy abandon its allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary? I think it is very difficult to think of the single most important cause of World War 1 because there are so many possibilities and debating them could go on forever. Different countries will be going to war for different reasons so it is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact cause. Some countries fought because of geography and pride and others could have fought because of nationalism and militarism. It is hard to pick just one.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion in class made me more confident in my original statement that Germany contributed greatly to the cause of World War I but the discussion also made me realize that militarism, alliances, and nationalism all played a large part too. It is fair to say that we all agreed on ruling out imperialism as a cause because it is just not logical considering that if it were true, Britain and France should have been fighting against each other in Africa, not allied with them. Nationalism seemed to be the spark that led to militarism which then led to alliances. Germany’s nationalism caused it to turn to militarism in which it prepared to be aggressive in order to defend their national interests. After the Austria-Hungary war, Germany being allied with Austria-Hungary entered into the war which therefore brought in other countries with other allies creating World War I. In my opinion it is not a matter of choosing only one cause but the connection and sort of “chain reaction” each individual cause had to the overall effect of WWI.
ReplyDeleteThe seminar we had on the causes of WWI opened my eye to several things. First and foremost was that it cemented for me the fact that Imperialism was not a cause of WWI. The debate also brought into question the role of nationalism as a cause of WWI. I however, still believe it is a cause of the war. Serbian nationalism was the reason the war broke out in the first place. It was a Serbian Nationalist that shot Archduke Ferdinand which was the spark that set Europe on fire. While the argument has been made that war would have broken out had the archduke not been murdered, that argument is irrelevant, because he WAS killed for nationalist reasons, and that WAS what set the war off. That would make nationalism a cause of the war.
ReplyDeleteMilitarism tends to along with Nationalism. While this does not always happen, it certainly does a good bit of the time (take Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Victorian Britain for example). Militarism did help cause the war in a rather minor way, by helping ensure Germany's envolvement, which caused france and britain to join as well. This, more than the alliance system was what caused the war to become a 'World War', as opposed to the Austria-serbia war.
Today's discussion really made me think about how a cause could differ from one war to another. It also made me think about how many different elements play into a cause. DIfferent time frames and situations make causes differ significantly from case to case. I also saw how the different causes were intertwined. Some causes may have more affect on the event, WWI, than others, however they are all equally important because of how they relate. For example, militarism was caused by nationalism. Without a strong sense of country, it is very difficult to build up the military.
ReplyDeleteAfter further discussing the MAIN cause in the seminar in class today I believe my views have changed. As of yesterday I believed that nationalism was the main cause of the war but after discussing it further I believe that there is not just one cause of WW1. I still believe that nationalism played a great part in starting the war because it is still fact that the assassination in Austria-Hungary was committed by a Serbian nationalist and that sparked a lot of controversy through out Europe. But I now also keep in mind that in smaller ways I believe that alliances and Militarism also caused the war. All of these causes are important and it seems now that I can not narrow it down to just one, the only one I seem to be able to eliminate is imperialism, because it makes sense that the war would have most likely been fought in Asia, or Africa had that been a cause.
ReplyDeleteIn today's discussion I thought more about the MAIN causes of the war, but also it made me think more about the causes that may not be considered at first glance such as location, pride and fear. The seminar made me think that maybe there wasn’t one concrete cause to the war, but maybe that each cause brought on the other, which eventually led to war. It doesn’t seem like one of these causes could have been the be all end all. Although I still believe that out of the MAIN causes nationalism has the most solid connection between cause and effect I believe there were many other factors that led to the war.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the seminar in class the other day, the class talked about how alliances were not very important in the start of World War One. We talked about Italy not joining the war even though it was allied with Germany and Austria- Hungary. This only makes me think however, that this is only an example of one country. Also, I must think, if alliances were not important in the cause of the war, what other major reasons would there be for Russia to join? The documentary touched on the subjects of cousins Nicholas and William who ruled Russia and Germany at the time. There was evidence that the two did not want to fight each other, but their countries were on opposite sides of the war. William, the Kaiser of Germany, did not say that he wanted to defeat Russia in war after defeating France, so Russia had little reason to be afraid of German war. The only other possible reason for Russia to join would be the desire to protect its honor. However, there are many examples throughout history when countries were prideful, but did not enter a war to fight a war against a seemingly non- apparent enemy.
ReplyDeleteKristen Adams
ReplyDeletePart of the seminar the other day made Germany seem to blame for the main cause of WW1 because of its militaristic government and the Schleifen plan. But After the video put forth a different perspective it shows that Germany does not hold all the blame- The Austria-Hungary conflict with Serbia and the assassination is what in my opinion involved so many different countries--Germany supported Austria-Hungary who was more than ready to crush Serbia in a war - The moment when the two countries met together and Germany gave them the O.K. to go to war was crucial - this got Russia involved in the war when they had not been before, and this Slovak honor and willingness to support Serbia is what made them true to their alliance.
In the seminar, the question of the reliability of some of the analogies was brought up. This made me think about about militarism as a cause. After reading the interpretations of the historians, I began to rule out militarism as a cause, but the analogy that was used is flawed. The Cold War and WWI are very different. Not only is it between different countries and in a different time, there are different risks in going to war. The Cold War involved nuclear weapons and millions of lives were at stake, and WWI was fought with guns, only putting soldier's lives at stake. This also shows why leaders were more likely to go to war during WWI because their lives were not actually at stake.
ReplyDeleteImperialism has been ruled out as a cause. First, the war would have been fought in Africa, and would have been fought against different countries (Austria-Hungary and Serbia were not imperialist powers, so if imperialism was a cause, why would they be involved?)
Alliances could still have played a role in getting more countries involved, but these alliances were more for defensive purposes, rather than for war, so the countries were not obligated to go to war.
Nationalism seems to have helped play a role in leading up to the war, but was not one of the final causes.
It seems that Germany's leaders were the main cause of war. A majority of the German people did not support the war, and Germany's lack of militarism and its dwindling power could have pushed the leaders into a war, in order to preserve Germany's status as a worldly power.
-Matt Vogus
During the class discussion today, we detracted the significance of each MAIN factor as a leading cause to WW1. We read statements and arguments fashioned by historians devaluing each argument and its importance in leading to the war. During the discussion I was led towards thinking that it isn’t accurate to pinpoint a few or even one cause as the leading one. Serbia assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand, because Austria-Hungary was trying to gain complete control over Bosnia. Austria-Hungary’s plans conflicted with Serbia’s wish to join all Serbians together as a nation. A struggle for power, a wish for Nationalism, and a drive for power all seem to be key factors towards various countries actions. However the Seminar showed me that each country was not influenced by all or even one of those leading causes. Each country reacted differently—which is why it is difficult to label only 4 general causes for the war, which don’t even apply to every single country. For example Germany did not feel Nationalism at the time; Historian B makes it clear there was a strong contrast in opinion between the leaders of Germany—and the German people. After considering those arguments I disagree with my primary opinion, that Nationalism was the strongest overall factor. Militarism seems to be the cause in which each country had in common. The seminar led me to believe that a struggle for power or Militarism is what had the greatest influence towards leading the majority of the countries into war.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion today in class was very interesting. The points of causes of the war were debated with much enthusiasm from everyone involved. The topic that brought the most conversation was Nationalism. From the beginning all the countries descriptions in the original simulation involved the concept on Nationality. On that simulation day i noticed that most people commented about how their country was very nationalistic and so was mine. This sense of nationalism in all the countries led to a sense of looking out for yourself. Everyone wanted their country to be protected as well as respected as a world power. After the discussion today there were many ideas thrown out both in favor and against the concept of Nationalism as a major cause of the war. One reason why people say that it wasn't was because nationalism is viewed as an emotion that may back action but it may not actually cause war to ensue. I disagree with this point I think that Nationalism was what cause a war of "my country is better than your country" leading to a war to prove who was justified in their pride of country.
ReplyDeleteToday's seminar in class, helped to strengthen my belief that Imperialism was not a main cause of the war. My partner, Matt Chigas, and I had come to the conclusion that the wars would have been fought in the countries that were alluring to the imperialistic powers. The seminar today, reinforced this idea as it was discussed that fighting should have happened in Africa. In contrast, the seminar did nearly changed my view on the impact alliances had on the war complete. When we discussed that there were countries that were in alliances with those at war did not fight, it was a new fact that had no been brought to my attention before. Countries such as Italy, allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, did not fight. Finally, today's seminar, although we did discuss how it could be argued against, strengthened by belief that militarism was a cause of the war, however, maybe not the most important. Although arms races have not always caused wars in the past, I think this case was different and the arms race, along with other factors, such as fear and the desire for power and respect, were catalysts in the initiation of the war.
ReplyDelete-Caroline Flores
Comment on the Causes (didn't allow me to post last night).
ReplyDeleteI feel that Historian C's explanation for why militarism was not a cause of World War I is flawed. He says, "The Cold War had an arms race which didn't result in war and the 1930s did not have an arms race..., but did have a war." This makes it sound as though, because an arms race has not historically been a cause for war, the arms race was not a cause for World War I. I'm not saying that it was or wasn't because I'm really not sure, but I disagree with Mr. Ferguson's argument. Also, I feel like German nationalism was an important cause for the war because as a fairly newly-formed country, the Germans would likely do all they could to prevent being defeated by Russia. As I mentioned in class today, Germany would probably have been in a "honeymoon period" of nationalism, still gung-ho about fighting for themselves thus enabling them to compile an army to fight the Russians and other countries.
After the seminar today in class, I have come to the conclusion that the MAIN causes are all causes in some way or another, but they are not necessarily the most important causes of WWI. It seems like nationalism leads to militarism which leads to imperialism (which wasn't really a cause of the War, but is still a result of militarism) and alliances. At the root of this cause-chain seems to be Germany and their overwhelming nationalism, insecurity, fear, and status as a young nation. However, I'd rather not say that the war began because of Germany when it appears that really only a small group of German leaders called for war. It seems unfair to put WWI on the shoulders of the German people.
ReplyDeleteAfter the class discussion I came to the clonclusion that Imperial was not a major cause for WWI. Before the discussion and the reading I had thought that imperialism was responsible for introducing and sparking conflicts between the different European countries, this now doesn't seem as logical to me. If imperialism was responsible for war than Britain and France would be fighting and Britain and Russia would also be fighting. Another example is that Germany decided to join France and Russia and go forth in the triple intervention. They all joined onto the same side. Not to mention that Austria-Hungary didn't have any imperial conflicts. Another aspect of imperialism that I forgot to think of was that if Imperialism was a main cause for the war then the war would be fought in the colonized countries, not Europe. the class discussion also centered around Germany. The class discussed how WWI was mainly to be blamed on the elite group of Germany officals that caused the war. We were informed in class today that the majority of German people did not support the war. This is very interesting because it appears to cancel out the meaning of nationalism- not the entire country wanted to go to war. The class discussed that Germany was falling behind or lacking militarism caused German leaders to push for the war, they felt that they had to fight before they fell behind forever. I found it interesting how the Russian railway pushed even more for Germany to go to war. We disscussed in class how the Russian railroad construction was very close to the border and would cut mobilization from 30 to 18 days, therefore making a German victory much less likely. I think that this enforced the mindset that Germany felt. Russian and French military was improving as well, this confirmed the fear that Russia felt to catch up with the rest of the European powers. German leaders chose to go to war because of fear that military situation was changing around them and that they would be left behind.
ReplyDelete-Julia Ferreira
Prior to the seminar on Wednesday about the four MAIN causes of World War I, I believed that the most important cause of the war was nationalism and only nationalism. While discussing our different views about the causes of WWI in class it became more apparent to me that nationalism wasn't just the only one. Based on the ideas of a few classmates, during the seminar, they stated that nationalism, yes had a part in the start of WWI, but it was an underlying cause that led to other greater ones. For instance nationalism started imperialism in different countries because nationalism gave them that push to go and takeover new land and expand their territories. This happened with Germany wanting to take victory over France and Russia by using the Schlieffen Plan when it stated that they were going to have "Paris for lunch, St. Petersburg for dinner." Nationalism was also an underlying cause of alliances in WWI because the want for victory over defeat in countries made countries realize that they could only achieve accomplishment with other countries by their side with their support. With this being said I still believe that nationalism was a cause of World War I, but I don’t believe in it as much as I did before the seminar.
ReplyDeletePrior to today's seminar, I was convinced that nationalism was the main cause to World War I. I thought this because nationalism was the idea that country's fought to fulfill their reputation and show strength to other countries. Although this is somewhat true, it is not a main cause of WWI. After much dispute and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that none of the four MAIN causes were extremely monumental as causes of WWI. As Meg had stated, nationalism seemed to lead to militarism which lead to imperialism and the idea of alliances. Each of the four main causes did have an impact on the war but in reality they all have contradictions that make it hard to say they were reliable causes. Historians say nationalism was a cause because Austria-Hungary was fighting to preserve its multi-ethnic empire but then they say it isn't because it only set the conditions for war. Historians say imperialism was a cause because they were already fighting over land but that is irrelevant because the war was over the control of Europe, not over colonies in Africa and Asia. Militarism is also said to cause the war because there was glorification of strength but only a minority of Germans favored war. Lastly, many say alliances were a cause because major powers entered into defensive alliances but it is proven that the alliance of Austria-Hungary and Germany did not drag Germany into war. Lastly, Germany as a cause was discussed in great detail in H block but I don't think it's accurate to put the full blame of a war on one country.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion in class surprised me because before class I thought that the alliances were a very important cause of the war. After the seminar we had in class I believe that the alliances is what made into a World War, but not what was a cause for the war. The cause for the war was the killing of the Austria Hungry Archduke. Also, before, I never thought that militarism played a big part in the cause of the war, but after hearing my classmates talk about how it did play a part in the cause of the war, I changed my mind. Historian B said that militarism played a big part in the cause of the war because Germany was afraid that it was going to fall behind Russia and therefore the only way to fix it was to go into war. I do not believe this was the only way, along with historian B who thought negotiation was another way it could be dealt with. Lastly, my classmates got me thinking about the definitions of imperialism and nationalism. They said that wouldn't it only be nationalism in Germany if all were united on the idea of war? I never thought of that, I thought that having people be very pro war and proud and having other people in your country that were not pro war, was still considered nationalism. This changes my view on whether or not nationalism was a main cause in causing the war. Also the definition of imperialism was also questioned. We were wondering if it was considered imperialism if you were taking over a country not overseas. We concluded that it was not considered imperialism and therefore decided that Austria Hungry fighting Serbia was not because they were trying to imperialize into it. Overall, the seminar really got me thinking about the MAIN causes for World War I and which ones I thought were the most important causes.
ReplyDelete-Darby Mackintosh
After the class discussion, I was persuaded that of the four MAIN causes, nationalism was the most important after someone made the argument that it was what led to the three other causes. However, besides that, the discussion only made me feel more confident that Germany's fear of falling behind France and Russia before they could invade them, as well as the group of German leaders' Shlieffen plan which had been set up before war broke out was the central cause of the war. The video showed me no evidence otherwise- on the contrary, it showed me further evidence in the form of the quote about having Paris for lunch and St. Petersburg for dinner. While this might not be the most important reason that war broke out- it is possible that war may have broken out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary without Germany intervention- I believe it was the German plan, which involved ALL of the countries, that made it a WORLD war.
ReplyDeleteAfter the discussion in class i was surprised to believe that many of the causes of the WWI have very good arguments. I was not able to come to a conclusion because of the great arguments that were made in class. If i had to chose one cause that stood out amongst the others i think that militarism was the strongest. Germany wanted to fight because of their slow development compared to Russia or France. This led them to alliances with Austria-Hungry who wanted war with Serbia. This led to the war because of the alliances but it was militarism that started the war.
ReplyDeleteIn class we were shown a video that showed a different perspective than both the readings and the demonstrations we did in class. The movie showed a ssituation where it was the A in MAIN that caused the war. Alliance. It said that after there was a declared war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, Russia acted and mobilized in order to help its slavic brothers in Serbia and the Balkans, to which Germany tried to keep Russia out of Austria-Hungary, and then France reacted in order to help Russia and Britain got involved in order to help France. This chain reaction caused by alliances was said to be the cause of the war when in contrast, before in class we were convinced that nationalism was the main cause of the war. This intrigued me because the cause of the war is so undefined that no one can understand WHY we had and needed this war. If there is no cause to the war, then why did we even have it in the first place?
ReplyDeleteAfter the discussion, video and reading B and C I have decided that nationalism is the main cause of the war and all of the other causes were actually effects of nationalism. Nationalism caused countries such as Germany to make such elaborate war plans and defeat France and Russia. Nationalism also caused alliances such as Russia and Serbia because Russia wanted to defend their slavic brothers which is part of Social Darwinism thinking that they are the superiour race. All in al, nationalism caused everything in the WWI
ReplyDeleteToday's discussion made me stray more from natinoalism being the most relevant "main" cause of World War I to it being a catalyst for other causes (we brought up that nationalism can be seen to have caused militarism) and isn't that strong of a cause for the war itself. Now, I feel strongly that Germany's desire to defend itself and prove it's power, especially with Russia building a new railroad which would reduce mobilization time, was the main cause of World War I. Germany felt that she had no option but to fight then or else it would be too late and she would have fallen too far behind. Nationalism cannot be seen as a large cause behind Germany going to war as it was only a few elite who made the decision to go to war in Germany - thus, it wasn't a national decision. We also brought up the fact that many polls showed that people in countries (e.g. Britain) didn't want to go to war even though the country did, indicating that it was not supported by the country as a whole and therefore cannot be considered to be largely affected by nationalism. Before this seminar, I had already ruled out the other causes (alliance system, imperialism, militarism) as weak though this discussion led me to believe that nationalism is also a weak cause for World War I.
ReplyDeleteBefore the discussion I really didn't see militarism as being a cause of the war and much less an important cause, but after talking in class militarism is one of my top causes for the war. In the articles, the historians were trying to disprove militarism as a cause, but the way they went about it ended up proving it by saying Germany went to war because they were afraid of getting behind. The historians even though wanted to disprove militarism showed that Germany wanted a war as a result of Militarism. My view also changed on nationalism. I had originally thought that Nationalism was a huge cause of the war, but one comment really stuck out to me in the discussion. It was the comment that "nationalism is there all the time, it takes something extra to cause a war." I think there's something to that. Many nations are nationalistic, but that doesn't mean they are going to fight a war with each other. It takes something more than nationalism to start a war. This is not to downplay nationalism, i still think it was important, but not as key as I had originally thought.
ReplyDeletePeter Durgin:
ReplyDeleteAfter the seminar in class today, it is hard for me to name a specific cause. Though it appeared (debatably) that nationalism jumpstarted the war, nationalism leads to every other cause that we mentioned (militarism, imperialism, etc) and then somehow right back to nationalism again. It's hard to pinpoint a specific cause to the war because there were so many actions taken that turned into something else. For example, one countries' actions would cause another country to do something completely different, etc. They could all be doing different things (one imperializing, one working on their military) but both contribute to the main issue. Personally I don't believe that it is a single cause, but a bunch of causes which contribute to an outcome.
After our classroom discussion and reading Historians B and C's arguments I Think that Germany had the driving push that led to the war, the Germans wanted to use the assination as an excuse to start the war, However I do believe that the assination was the cause of Austria-Hungary to go to war with Serbia. But for the World war the assination was more of and excuse for war in result of a lot of unsolved tension between the different countries. I do think Nationalism still did play a large role in the causes of the war because I believe the reason Germany wanted to go to war was due to a nationalistic mindset.
ReplyDeleteAfter the class discussion, I think that the most important MAIN cause was nationalism. Nationalism is intertwined with all the other MAIN causes. For example, without a united nation, there would not be a militaristic nation. All of the MAIN causes are created to some extent by nationalism. Germany, another important cause of the war, was very untied. The Germans had a strong sense of nationalism, however, not all of the Germans supported the war. Although this is a good criticism of nationalism, to me it is still the biggest MAIN cause. There are way to many factors and different causes for there to be one cause that started WWI, but nationalism was a huge part in the start of WWI.
ReplyDeleteAfter the class discussion today, I have changed my mind about nationalism being the strongest cause for WW1. I now don't think that nationalism was a storng cause. In class we discussed how only a small group of the Germans started to fight and if the cause of the war was truly nationalism then the whole country would want to fight. I don't think that any of the MAIN causes were actually true causes of WW1. I agree with Meg that out of the four MAIN causes, nationalism was the factor that lead to militarism, imperialism and alliances. However, I think that Germany's desire to prove itself was an important factor to the cause of WW1. Even though it was a small group of Germans who started the war, they started the moementum of it. Once war started, the allies of the countries who were already fighting in war began to fight.So I don't think that you can pinpoint a specific cause for WWI, but I do think a part of the cause of the war is Getrmany.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of militarism was changed by historian B's arguments. While before I was skeptical of militarism, historian B's points actually gave me a reason to believe that it is quite an important reason. The reason why it is so important is because while it was not the major factor across all countries, it was the key cause from Germany's point of view. This is so important because Germany was perhaps the single most important catalyst to World War I. One of the most striking arguments made in favor of militarism and Germany was the idea that Germany was constantly afraid of being overtaken by Russia. Due to Russia's militarism (the advancement of the railroad to Germany's eastern boarder), Germany felt that war was inevitable and believed it might as well be on her own, more favorable, terms.
ReplyDeleteBefore class today, I was fairly certain that Nationalism was, though not the only cause, the primary and most important cause. Our discussion in class today only furthered my opinion. A nationalistic Germany only wanted to be on top. They wanted to expand their military, to show their dominance, and to 'be the best'. Germany was the definition of nationalism. The other causes came as a result of the nationalism. It created militarism, and even alliances. Germany formed alliances with whatever countries would help them to expand their military and win the war. The "Axis" alliance with Italy and Japan was simply another strategy of furthering German power(nationalism) and winning the war. Nationalism was the push that set of a domino affect of causes, leading to world war one.
ReplyDeleteThrough our discussion in class and the reading from Historians B and C, I believe that the main cause for WWI was militarism. I think this because Germany wanted to show its power while it still had a slight chance against the new powerful countries, like Russia and France. However, I do believe that nationalism is a strong cause because it became an underlying reason why Germany ended up going to war.
ReplyDeletePrior to the discussion, I had dismissed imperialism as a cause both based upon the arguments made in class and the reasoning of historians B and C. In class, though, an intriguing point was brought up. Depending upon what the definition of imperialism is, it could be considered as a cause because Austria-Hungary wanted to expand their empire by invading Serbia. When I looked up the definition of imperialism on Google I got that it was (roughly the same as the other online definitions): "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." Using that definition, Imperialism was indeed a main cause of World War I. Historian B says "Austria-Hungary already had a plan to crush Serbia before the assassination." Crushing another country is a way to extend your country's power and influence through military force. Though I still think nationalism was the main cause out of the MAIN causes, I now believe that inter-European imperialism played a part in starting the war- after all, WWI would not have happened the way it did had Austria-Hungary not fought Serbia in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSiobhan McDonough
I'm finding that my main struggle to classify causes of this war are because the MAIN causes proposed are very stiff, solids sorts of reasoning. In class discussion however I find we achieve better understanding when we do dissect a definition (such as imperialism) or debate if specific actions constituted one of the causes(was nationalism the source of German aggression0/ What this amounts to, to me, is that this conflict wasn't nailed down into neat boxes and when we add more fluidity into our analysis, that is not adhering to the MAIN causes, we tend to come to more satisfactory conclusions. Instead of trying to classify all the things that contributed to WWI into one of four ridged causes we should take things for what they are and avoid arbitrarily organizing them. If something clearly lends itself to being a symptom of nationalism then of course classify it as such but if it is not definitively related hold off on pigeon-holing and belittling your analysis with MAIN.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the MAIN causes nationalism is by far the strongest cause. Nationalism is a cause or motive for almost all the other MAIN causes. A nation cannot be militant if they do not have at least a small nationalist movement. ALso as we learned in the last unit nationalism itself was a cause of imperialism. Alliances aren't a strong cause because if alliances were a cause then how come Italy did not stand by Germany and Austria-Hungary. In fact later in the war they were on the other side. Therefore in my opinion nationalism was the strongest cause of WWI.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the discussion we had in class today. I thought it was a great way to tie everyone's opinions and comments together. The main points we discussed were officially revoking imperialism as a MAIN cause, and adding Germany as one. Germany at the time was rather tumultuous and had things going on that seemed to transcend the other three MAN, if you will, causes. Again in class it was mentioned that these causes are strongly reliant upon each other, however some are more important. Nationalism is really the key cause, it set the conditions for war, militarism brought the ability for war, and alliances shifted the Austro-Hungarian v. Serbia Conflict eventually to World War I. We came to the conlusion as a class that though you may be able to sum the war up into a few causes, there is always a lot more than meets the eye, so to speak, going on. We disregarded the Cold War example made by historians in the previous night's homework because as an analogy it was not accurately comparing the two arms races. There is a difference between one country having a few more Maxims and couple of Dreadnoughts than one country having a nuclear rapid deployment ability that another one does not. It's just apples and oranges, they're both fruit but they're very different. There was more or less agreement across the board in the class semianr today. A few minor debates sprang up over certain finer points but the general conclusion came to be what is aforementioned, the MAN causes are the most important and what we will be studying next. Imperialism is very minor in importantance. Militarism does not just have to do with Germany, it has to do with Russia also. Nationalism was more for the German elite than the German people. Alliances didn't have as much of an effect than previously thought because Italy did not get involved, Germany didn't have to follow Austria-Hungary into war, and Great Britain didn't have to involve themselves at all but they chose to do so. As we move further into the unit we will learn much more specifically about these points.
ReplyDeleteAfter our class discussion yesterday which evaluated the MAIN causes of World War I based on the historian B and C document. Our discussion firmed up my previous beliefs that Imperialism was not a significant cause for the war in any measurable sense. If he problem had been about Imperialism, we would have seen fighting in and over colonies by many of the global powers in order to gain new land. Since the war was confined to Europe, it is apparent that Imperialism was not a cause. Our class discussion also helped me evaluate which of some of the apparent causes of the war had their own causes which seemed to always lead back to Germany. To claim that Germany alone was the reason for World War I would be a bit extreme but many issues can be tracked back to Germany. Their advancement in military strength put much of Europe on edge and caused them to do the same by building up their own military's strength as a direct response. We saw that this would also have its own separate causes such as fear of the other countries militarism. In conclusion it is apparent that many of these causes are intertwined and require each other in order to progress to World War I.
ReplyDeleteMy partners and I were Great Britain, when we were reenacting WWI. It was interesting to see how some of the supposedly "MAIN" causes were very unrelated to our decisions. Like many other people's comments, Imperialism definitely seems to be the weakest cause of the war. Imperialism seems to be driven by the mindset of Nationalism, which I believe is the strongest cause of the war. Germany and most other countries would not have formed large armies if men were not motivated by their duty to their country. Like Paul in All Quiet the Western Front, he was misinformed by the idea of fighting for glory for Germany. He later realizes that all men are fighting for their country, so it is impossible to determine who is in the wrong. Although military tactics may have had some affect on the war, Nationalism pushed people to fight for their country.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both the ideals of Historian B and Historian C, many of my beliefs on the causes of WWI were altered. I was left with the idea that it was possible that none of the MAIN causes were indeed main causes. However, after our discussion in class today I realized that it is likely that they were all causes, except for Imperialism which still does not seem to be a cause, but in a different way that I had thought before. Although it is ambitious to say that the war was all because of Germany, mnay of the facts do lead us back to germany. This is where the MAIN causes come into play. Militarism, Nationalism, and alliances seemed to all be the cause for Germany choosing to fight. For example, Germany feared Russian expansion, specifically the railroad to Germany's eastern boarder, and therefore they felt the need to go to war in order to defent themselves and war being GERMANY's decision, was also a hope of giving them the upperhand.
ReplyDeleteI originally didn't think that imperialism was a cause for the war in the least and my opinion was more or less confirmed by the multiple historians. The class discussion over these causes cleared up a lot of things for me today and I now have a different thought: that nationalism is the most important cause as it fueled the creation of the causes. For example, the militarism seen throughout this period was brought about by national leaders that wanted their respective nations to be on top and to dominate the region. This militaristic competition stemmed from a more personal competition on the home front. Another example of nationalism impacting other causes is through the alliances. While many countries had clashing ideals or conflicting interests (France and Great Britain) that would normally prevent them from getting along, alliances were formed before the World War because the nations needed to allies to keep their own nations intact. Without forming bonds with other nations, the countries involved would risk losing their own cultures.
ReplyDelete