The ongoing debate among contemporary historians about the importance of the pre-World War I alliance system in Europe as a war cause persists. Some contend that the war resulted directly from the establishment of alliances between prominent European nations, while others argue that these alliances were an expression of longstanding conflicts, disputes, anxieties, and rivalries that had been building up since the breakdown of the Bismarck alliance system and even earlier.
The main reason for the outbreak of the war is increasingly acknowledged to be the alliance system. To fully comprehend its impact, it is essential to examine its origins. One point of departure is the Bismarck system in 1878, which was greatly influenced by the Franco-Prussian war and played a crucial role in its establishment.
The German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, established the alliance system to ensure peace in Europe. Nevertheless, its primary goal was to prevent Germany from engaging in a war with both France and Russia simultaneously. The main strategy involved diplomatically isolating France to hinder its aspirations of reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine. As part of this plan, the League of the Three Emperors or Dreikaiserbund was created in 1872 with the aim of uniting monarchs from Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. The confirmation occurred on October 22nd, 1873.
The agreement, which was originally vague, gained concrete form through military agreements. These agreements promised assistance to any country attacked by a fourth party, despite the mutual rivalry between Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. This strategy effectively isolated France, as neither Austria-Hungary nor Russia were available as allies according to E. Eyck and the League.
Bismarck did not view Britain as a potential French ally due to their long history of rivalry. Additionally, in 1887, the Reinsurance Treaty was signed with Russia. This treaty pledged support for Russia’s claims to the strait and neutrality in the event of war, unless the attack was on Austria-Hungary. Similarly, Russia promised to remain neutral unless France was attacked.
After Bismarck’s dismissal, the Kaiser and his advisers believed that the possible wars in Europe would involve Germany against France or Russia against Austria-Hungary. Therefore, they decided not to renew the Reinsurance treaty in 1890, as it contradicted Germany’s commitments to Austria-Hungary in 1879. Consequently, the previously friendly relationship between Russia and Germany came to an end. In the following year, the Triple Alliance between Germany, France, and Italy was renewed.
The alliance started as the Dual Alliance in 1879 between Germany and Austria Hungary due to a conflict between Germany and Russia. In order to have protection against a potential Russian attack, both countries agreed to assist each other if attacked. Italy then joined the Dual Alliance three years later in 1882.
In 1890, the Russo-German relationship deteriorated and the Triple Alliance was renewed. This caused concern in France and Russia, prompting the formation of the Franco-Russian alliance in 1892. Bismarck’s attempts to prevent this coalition were unsuccessful as both fronts grew stronger.
The breakdown of the Bismarck system led to the formation of two main alliances that would later participate in the Great War – the Dual (later Triple) Alliance and the Franco-Russian alliance, which later became the Triple Entente. E. Eyck states that this disintegration started after the Berlin Congress, an event considered a significant accomplishment in Bismarck’s diplomacy, aimed at resolving a conflict between Russia and Austria-Hungary.
Upon analysis, it can be contended that alliance systems are not the cause but rather a consequence of conflicts and disparities. This is evidenced by the requirement for personal interests, such as security concerns, to drive the formation of alliances. Consequently, it can be inferred that as distrust and tension between states intensified, alliances became a way to partially mask or alleviate those sentiments instead of being their origin.
Britain’s concerns about choosing a side arose after 1896. In the preceding years, Britain focused on developing its empire rather than engaging in the international affairs of other European nations. However, a conflict emerged in South Africa, where Britain engaged in a war against rebel settlers, known as the Boers, who sought autonomy and independence.
During the Boer War, Germany expressed support for the Boers. The Kaiser sent a telegram to President Kruger, congratulating him on the success of the Jameson Raid. Additionally, in 1897, he proposed to Tsar Nicholas that they collaborate to counter British expansionist aims.
The Entente Cordiale was signed between Britain and France in 1903 after a visit by King Edward. This marked the end of Britain’s isolation and led to a lack of trust towards Germany. Three years later, Britain formed a similar agreement with Russia. As a result, the Triple Entente was established, and by 1907 Europe was clearly divided into two sets of alliances: the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente.
The Triple Entente was formed due to mistrust and fear, which can be observed once again. Mistrust between Russia and France towards the Triple Alliance and Britain’s fear of Germany were the initial reasons behind its formation. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that the war was caused by the alliances; rather, these causes had already existed before the alliances were formed. Prior to 1914, there were six significant crises: the two Moroccan Crises, the Bosnian Crisis, and the two Balkan Wars.
The Kaiser’s motives for aiding the Moroccans against French annexation in the Tangier Crisis (1905) were not truly selfless. Instead, they were focused on evaluating the strength of the newly established Entente Cordiale. After careful consideration, British and French politicians chose to resolve the conflict diplomatically instead of resorting to military action.
Despite the Algeciras Conference’s decision in 1906 to grant special rights to France in Morocco, much to the Kaiser’s disappointment, he discovered that Britain and France were willing to support one another at the conference table but not prepared to go to war for each other. It is noteworthy that Italy, Germany’s ally, did not support Germany’s claim at the conference. This lack of support serves as a significant indicator of the fragility of their bond, as Italy would later join the Triple Entente during the war.
The Agadir Crisis of 1911 was a highly tense moment where Britain and Germany were on the brink of a naval confrontation. Although the Kaiser eventually backed down and ordered the warships to leave Agadir, the impact of the crisis lingered in both Britain and Germany. It served as a stark reminder to both countries of how easily a conflict could escalate due to the existing alliance system in Europe.
The Kaiser was highly dissatisfied with the unsuccessful outcome of his campaign in Morocco, as his intention was to humiliate France and showcase German grandeur before Britain’s eyes. He believed that this would weaken France’s standing as an ally in Britain’s perception, potentially leading Britain to align with Germany. At that time, Germany was almost as diplomatically isolated as Britain had been in the past. A. J. P Taylor has suggested that the partnerships within the Triple Alliance were so uncertain by 1911 that they were beginning to fall apart.
The Bosnian crisis had a significant impact on Russia because it was aligned with the Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary’s rejection of Russia’s proposal to control the Straits, supported by Germany, resulted in humiliation for Russia. It was essential for Russia to maintain its prestige and influence in the Balkans. Additionally, following the weakening of its military force during the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, Russia implemented a program for military reconstruction. Geiss argues that the Bosnian crisis can be seen as a rehearsal for World War I.
In addition to the conflict between the two alliance systems, the Balkan wars caused tension among countries involved. Austria-Hungary and Italy were displeased with the Balkan League’s victory because they strongly disagreed with Serbia having access to the Adriatic coastline. Instead, they favored the creation of an independent Albania. On the other hand, Russia and France supported the notion of a larger Serbia.
Both Russia and Austria-Hungary mobilized their troops in November 1912. Russia supported Serbia while Austria-Hungary opposed it. Germany and Britain tried to moderate their allies’ demands. In order to maintain peace, Russia was once again forced to retreat. This led to Albania becoming an independent country.
The repercussions of historical rivalries between nations are clearly visible in the formation of two alliances. The hostilities between Russia and Austria-Hungary led to their respective allies receiving backing, ultimately culminating in a significant conflict. This conflict, known as WWI, was ignited by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. This incident marked the peak of escalating tensions that had been building for years. Consequently, members from both alliance systems declared war on each other’s allies, triggering a series of conflicts.
The significance of the alliances in World War I cannot be understated. While they did not directly cause the war, they had a significant impact on its scope and provided a foundation for conflict. If the alliances had been structured differently, it would have undoubtedly altered the outcome of the war, resulting in a different arrangement of European nations and potentially fewer casualties. It was the balance of power within these alliances that prolonged the war beyond initial expectations, transforming what was anticipated to be a short Christmas truce into a protracted four-year battle.
In conclusion, the belief that the alliance system was a result and not a cause of conflict, including World War I, is confirmed. The alliance system did not determine the initial mistrusts, disagreements, and miscalculations but emerged as a consequence of these conflicts. It was an attempt to temporarily suppress the feeling that a major conflict would inevitably arise from these quarrels.
