Joseph Gibb
Historians have disagreed about the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War in
1914.
What is your view about the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914?
Introduction
Over one-hundred years after the start of the First World War, historians still debate the
origins of the war and which nation bears the majority of the burden. Initially, Germany was
designated the entirety of the blame for the outbreak of the war, as shown by the Treaty of
Versailles, which was signed on the 28th of July 1919, five years after the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Germany was ordered to pay £6.6 billion in reparation fines to all
the nations affected by the war. James Retallack aligns with this traditionalist viewpoint and
puts sole culpability on the nature of German imperialism as the reason for the outbreak of
the war in 1914. His interpretation outlines Germany’s driven yearning for ‘Weltpolitik’,
which ultimately led to heightened divisions between the great powers of Europe as a result
of German expansionist desires. On the other hand, English historian Nicholas Kollerstrom
holds a revisionist viewpoint, and attempts to remove Germany as the sole on the cause of
the war. His interpretation focuses on Britain as the main perpetrator for the war and
blames the incompetence of the few key figures in the high class of British government, in
addition to Britain’s secret loyalties to France, which ultimately diminished their apparent
non-interventionalist stance in European affairs and led to the deterioration of relations
between Britain and Germany, and consequently the outbreak of the war. Samuel R.
Williamson presents a different interpretation for the outbreak of the First World War and
accuses the decision-making and ineffectiveness of the Habsburg Monarchy of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire as the main factor which led to the war. Williamson also expresses the
failure to supress Serbian nationalism which was detrimental to the fate of widespread
European conflict which ultimately plagued the world.
James Retallack
James Retallack explores the viewpoint of German imperialism as the fundamental
component for the outbreak of the First World War through his written work Germany in
the age of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Retallack outlines the use of the German military in the driven
objective of colonising and expanding a materializing German empire, which influenced the
, Joseph Gibb
aspirations of the distinguished members of the German social hierarchy, including Kaiser
Wilhelm II. In addition, Retallack consolidates the arguably obsolete view that German
imperialism is the main cause of the war, amongst constant evolving viewpoints and
interpretations, as a result of increased access to a growing number of historical archives. In
Retallack’s account, he states “overtime, a consistently anti-militarist position within
German liberalism became marginalised, and the 1848 ideal of an apolitical army grew less
compelling as the army’s modern functions came more sharply into view” 1, showing that the
military became a tool of German policy, in both domestic and international affairs, in order
to further the objective of ‘Weltpolitik’. Retallack suggests “the military establishment itself
was hardly as feudal, archaic and narrow-minded as historians once believed” 2, implying the
strength of the united German army in their coherent goal of world domination was
underestimated by previous historians who attempted to lift the burden of the war off
German shoulders. The two Moroccan Crises showed how the increase in development of
the German military emboldened Germany, and also served to demonstrate the aggressive
actions of Germany and how it dealt with Europe’s behemoths, such as France and Britain.
The crises “revealed the futility of German efforts to divide Britain and France with the tactic
of brinkmanship”3, which was justified by the growth of the German militarism, and the aim
to increase German territory globally by any means necessary, including pushing nations to
the brink of conflict. This ultimately led to weakening continental relations and eventually
the outbreak of the war.
Furthermore, Retallack denotes that the view of ‘Weltpolitik’ greatly influenced German
colonial policy amongst the social elites as well as the German general public. Retallack
implies that the militarism and colonialism of German foreign policy “functioned as an
‘ideology’ that responded to the needs of certain segments of society” 4, which in this case
was the need of the social elites for the transformation of Germany into a global power. This
is evident through the German construction of the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway of 1903,
which consequently weakened the diplomatic relations in Europe. Strategically, the railway
intended to connect Turkey and Germany, whilst sabotaging British links with India by
threatening the Suez Canal. As a result, Britain became concerned with Germany’s desire for
1
Retallack, J (1996) pg. 76-77
2
op. cit. pg. 76
3
op. cit. pg. 78
4
op. cit. pg. 77
Historians have disagreed about the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War in
1914.
What is your view about the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914?
Introduction
Over one-hundred years after the start of the First World War, historians still debate the
origins of the war and which nation bears the majority of the burden. Initially, Germany was
designated the entirety of the blame for the outbreak of the war, as shown by the Treaty of
Versailles, which was signed on the 28th of July 1919, five years after the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Germany was ordered to pay £6.6 billion in reparation fines to all
the nations affected by the war. James Retallack aligns with this traditionalist viewpoint and
puts sole culpability on the nature of German imperialism as the reason for the outbreak of
the war in 1914. His interpretation outlines Germany’s driven yearning for ‘Weltpolitik’,
which ultimately led to heightened divisions between the great powers of Europe as a result
of German expansionist desires. On the other hand, English historian Nicholas Kollerstrom
holds a revisionist viewpoint, and attempts to remove Germany as the sole on the cause of
the war. His interpretation focuses on Britain as the main perpetrator for the war and
blames the incompetence of the few key figures in the high class of British government, in
addition to Britain’s secret loyalties to France, which ultimately diminished their apparent
non-interventionalist stance in European affairs and led to the deterioration of relations
between Britain and Germany, and consequently the outbreak of the war. Samuel R.
Williamson presents a different interpretation for the outbreak of the First World War and
accuses the decision-making and ineffectiveness of the Habsburg Monarchy of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire as the main factor which led to the war. Williamson also expresses the
failure to supress Serbian nationalism which was detrimental to the fate of widespread
European conflict which ultimately plagued the world.
James Retallack
James Retallack explores the viewpoint of German imperialism as the fundamental
component for the outbreak of the First World War through his written work Germany in
the age of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Retallack outlines the use of the German military in the driven
objective of colonising and expanding a materializing German empire, which influenced the
, Joseph Gibb
aspirations of the distinguished members of the German social hierarchy, including Kaiser
Wilhelm II. In addition, Retallack consolidates the arguably obsolete view that German
imperialism is the main cause of the war, amongst constant evolving viewpoints and
interpretations, as a result of increased access to a growing number of historical archives. In
Retallack’s account, he states “overtime, a consistently anti-militarist position within
German liberalism became marginalised, and the 1848 ideal of an apolitical army grew less
compelling as the army’s modern functions came more sharply into view” 1, showing that the
military became a tool of German policy, in both domestic and international affairs, in order
to further the objective of ‘Weltpolitik’. Retallack suggests “the military establishment itself
was hardly as feudal, archaic and narrow-minded as historians once believed” 2, implying the
strength of the united German army in their coherent goal of world domination was
underestimated by previous historians who attempted to lift the burden of the war off
German shoulders. The two Moroccan Crises showed how the increase in development of
the German military emboldened Germany, and also served to demonstrate the aggressive
actions of Germany and how it dealt with Europe’s behemoths, such as France and Britain.
The crises “revealed the futility of German efforts to divide Britain and France with the tactic
of brinkmanship”3, which was justified by the growth of the German militarism, and the aim
to increase German territory globally by any means necessary, including pushing nations to
the brink of conflict. This ultimately led to weakening continental relations and eventually
the outbreak of the war.
Furthermore, Retallack denotes that the view of ‘Weltpolitik’ greatly influenced German
colonial policy amongst the social elites as well as the German general public. Retallack
implies that the militarism and colonialism of German foreign policy “functioned as an
‘ideology’ that responded to the needs of certain segments of society” 4, which in this case
was the need of the social elites for the transformation of Germany into a global power. This
is evident through the German construction of the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway of 1903,
which consequently weakened the diplomatic relations in Europe. Strategically, the railway
intended to connect Turkey and Germany, whilst sabotaging British links with India by
threatening the Suez Canal. As a result, Britain became concerned with Germany’s desire for
1
Retallack, J (1996) pg. 76-77
2
op. cit. pg. 76
3
op. cit. pg. 78
4
op. cit. pg. 77
