KHALED ULLAH
Historians have disagreed about how far Germany was responsible for the
outbreak of the First World War. What is your view about how far Germany was
responsible for the outbreak of the First World War?
Historians have devoted considerable attention to the origins and the responsibility of the
First World War. The view that Germany was responsible for the outbreak of the war
adhered amongst various historians. Germany was undoubtedly responsible to a greater
extent. The reason Germany is to be accountable remains within her government’s attitudes
and clear indications that they were ready to fight. Furthermore, they were prepared to
extend their power as argued by Geiss, and Rohl. Geiss’ argument concentrates on how the
German responsibility is from the miscalculated ideas; like the Tangier crisis when Germany
wanted to challenge France’s growing control over Morocco in March 1906. He also argues
that it was the negligent attitude of Germany towards a local conflict that escalated the
conflict into a global war. Like Geiss, Rohl argues that Germany was determined to unleash
war in Europe as early as 1912. He argues that there was evidence for Russia to be stronger
by 1916, which would mean a German defeat as a result Germany planned an attack to
avoid potential loss. Therefore, Germany was planning to attack as early as possible. To
some degree, historians argue that the responsibility of the First World war does not lie just
with Germany to an extent. Rather, likes of Williamson argues that the responsibility lies on
Austria-Hungary. Williamson argues that it was Vienna that first resolved for war because it
first sought German assurances as they found Serbia to be a threat. Furthermore, it made
them very assertive in the region which escalated tension, leading to war. However, it was
Germany who handed these assurances such as the ‘blank check’; to a greater degree
Germany is responsible.
Geiss looks at the German blame from a broad perspective; their liability is within the fault
of their incompetent strategies; this was seen in the Moroccan crisis in 1906. Geiss argues
that it was Germany’s negligible reaction of the threat of war which heightened the climate
of tension. Geiss states that ‘the major share for causing it lies with the power which willed
the local and/ or continental war. That power was clearly Germany’ 1. Indeed, it was
Germany as they nudged Austria-Hungary to act by giving them the blank check and as a
result the local war escalated into a continental war. Furthermore, Geiss mentions that
1
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-133
1|Page
, KHALED ULLAH
‘Germany did nothing to prevent continental war even at the risk of a world war’ 2 which
implies that Germany will not provoke war as they had already been planning to strike “now
or never”3 as stated by the Kaiser an example is the Schlieffen Plan. Consequently, stronger
bonds were tied between the Ententes, and this was a clear indication that the lack of
willingness by the German leaders to diminish conflict heightened tension in Europe.
Therefore, the strengthening of the ally system in Europe as a result of Germany’s negligent
reactions, the local conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary transformed into the First
World War. Geiss’ argument is also valid; indeed, Germany caused an escalation of tension
via their attitude toward the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Furthermore,
Geiss stated ‘So long as Britain kept out, she was confident of winning a war against Russia
and France’4 , Kaiser Wilhelm II gave the ‘blank check’ to Austria-Hungary, promising
Germany’s unconditional support, doing so, the Kaiser and the German government knew
that once Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, the Russian’s would undoubtedly intervene, and
the war would virtually engulf all of Europe which proves that Germany was ready to fight.
Geiss’ argument for the blame to be on Germany is supported by Jefferies’ argument that it
was Germany’s action because the German “government did not rescind the ‘blank check’
given to Austria-Hungary”5 this proves that, Germany was responsible to a greater extent.
Germany could have provoked the actions of Austria-Hungary to prevent violence, but they
did nothing, validating Geiss’ argument. Geiss’ argument is valid because Jefferies also
explains how the German efforts ‘to break the entente cordiale’ 6 was ‘counterproductive’7
during the Moroccan crisis of 1906 because the German calculations failed as they hoped
for and Anglo-Russian war but instead, Britain’s ties with Japan ignited a war in the far east
of Russia keeping Britain free of conflict. This caused Germany to be ‘encircled’ 8 by her
enemies which ultimately lead to tensions in the July crisis of 1914 followed by The First
World War. Jefferies’ argument too holds weight because of the use the effects of past
events to analyse the consequences of German strategies. It is indeed the Germans who
2
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-134
3
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-133
4
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-134
5
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 30
6
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
7
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
8
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
2|Page
Historians have disagreed about how far Germany was responsible for the
outbreak of the First World War. What is your view about how far Germany was
responsible for the outbreak of the First World War?
Historians have devoted considerable attention to the origins and the responsibility of the
First World War. The view that Germany was responsible for the outbreak of the war
adhered amongst various historians. Germany was undoubtedly responsible to a greater
extent. The reason Germany is to be accountable remains within her government’s attitudes
and clear indications that they were ready to fight. Furthermore, they were prepared to
extend their power as argued by Geiss, and Rohl. Geiss’ argument concentrates on how the
German responsibility is from the miscalculated ideas; like the Tangier crisis when Germany
wanted to challenge France’s growing control over Morocco in March 1906. He also argues
that it was the negligent attitude of Germany towards a local conflict that escalated the
conflict into a global war. Like Geiss, Rohl argues that Germany was determined to unleash
war in Europe as early as 1912. He argues that there was evidence for Russia to be stronger
by 1916, which would mean a German defeat as a result Germany planned an attack to
avoid potential loss. Therefore, Germany was planning to attack as early as possible. To
some degree, historians argue that the responsibility of the First World war does not lie just
with Germany to an extent. Rather, likes of Williamson argues that the responsibility lies on
Austria-Hungary. Williamson argues that it was Vienna that first resolved for war because it
first sought German assurances as they found Serbia to be a threat. Furthermore, it made
them very assertive in the region which escalated tension, leading to war. However, it was
Germany who handed these assurances such as the ‘blank check’; to a greater degree
Germany is responsible.
Geiss looks at the German blame from a broad perspective; their liability is within the fault
of their incompetent strategies; this was seen in the Moroccan crisis in 1906. Geiss argues
that it was Germany’s negligible reaction of the threat of war which heightened the climate
of tension. Geiss states that ‘the major share for causing it lies with the power which willed
the local and/ or continental war. That power was clearly Germany’ 1. Indeed, it was
Germany as they nudged Austria-Hungary to act by giving them the blank check and as a
result the local war escalated into a continental war. Furthermore, Geiss mentions that
1
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-133
1|Page
, KHALED ULLAH
‘Germany did nothing to prevent continental war even at the risk of a world war’ 2 which
implies that Germany will not provoke war as they had already been planning to strike “now
or never”3 as stated by the Kaiser an example is the Schlieffen Plan. Consequently, stronger
bonds were tied between the Ententes, and this was a clear indication that the lack of
willingness by the German leaders to diminish conflict heightened tension in Europe.
Therefore, the strengthening of the ally system in Europe as a result of Germany’s negligent
reactions, the local conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary transformed into the First
World War. Geiss’ argument is also valid; indeed, Germany caused an escalation of tension
via their attitude toward the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Furthermore,
Geiss stated ‘So long as Britain kept out, she was confident of winning a war against Russia
and France’4 , Kaiser Wilhelm II gave the ‘blank check’ to Austria-Hungary, promising
Germany’s unconditional support, doing so, the Kaiser and the German government knew
that once Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, the Russian’s would undoubtedly intervene, and
the war would virtually engulf all of Europe which proves that Germany was ready to fight.
Geiss’ argument for the blame to be on Germany is supported by Jefferies’ argument that it
was Germany’s action because the German “government did not rescind the ‘blank check’
given to Austria-Hungary”5 this proves that, Germany was responsible to a greater extent.
Germany could have provoked the actions of Austria-Hungary to prevent violence, but they
did nothing, validating Geiss’ argument. Geiss’ argument is valid because Jefferies also
explains how the German efforts ‘to break the entente cordiale’ 6 was ‘counterproductive’7
during the Moroccan crisis of 1906 because the German calculations failed as they hoped
for and Anglo-Russian war but instead, Britain’s ties with Japan ignited a war in the far east
of Russia keeping Britain free of conflict. This caused Germany to be ‘encircled’ 8 by her
enemies which ultimately lead to tensions in the July crisis of 1914 followed by The First
World War. Jefferies’ argument too holds weight because of the use the effects of past
events to analyse the consequences of German strategies. It is indeed the Germans who
2
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-134
3
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-133
4
Imanuel Geiss, The Fischer “Controversy” and German War Guilt, page-134
5
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 30
6
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
7
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
8
Henry A. Jefferies, GERMANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, page- 29
2|Page
