alliances were the main cause of ww1 essay

• Advanced Search

Version 1.0

Last updated 15 august 2019, alliance system 1914.

Alliances were an important feature of the international system on the eve of World War I. The formation of rival blocs of Great Powers has previously considered a major cause of the outbreak of war in 1914, but this assessment misses the point. Instead of increased rigidity, it was, rather, the uncertainty of the alliances’ cohesion in the face of a casus foederis that fostered a preference for high-risk crisis management among decision-makers.

Table of Contents

• 1 Introduction: Alliances and Great Power relations in Europe, 1815-1871
• 2 Dual Alliance and Triple Alliance
• 3 Franco-Russian Alliance and Triple Entente
• 4 Great Power Alliances on the Eve of War
• 5 Conclusion: 1914 - Have Alliances Failed?

Selected Bibliography

Introduction: alliances and great power relations in europe, 1815-1871 ↑.

Alliances were nothing new to international relations in modern Europe. The patterns of cooperation in the first half of the 18 th century had become so familiar that switching strategic partners in preparation for the Seven Years War was dubbed as “ renversement des alliances ”. However, with religious and ideological issues only of marginal relevance to the cabinets of Europe, war-time alliances could be overturned quite easily. The French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) put Great Britain and France in the role of perennial adversaries, both of them forging alliances with other powers if useful and possible. Paul W. Schroeder has argued that the anti-Napoleonic coalition of 1813-1814 proved to be a turning point in international relations, because the four major coalition partners - Great Britain, Russia , Austria , and Prussia - decided to put their alliance on a peace footing after the end of war in 1814 and the Vienna Settlement of 1815. The Quadruple Alliance was meant to guarantee the peace of Europe by keeping a watchful eye on France and to cooperate closely to thwart any threat to international stability on the continent, while the Holy Alliance (originally consisting of Russia, Austria and Prussia) added glamorous rhetoric to this idea. According to Schroeder, traditional balance of power policy gave way to a collective effort among the Great Powers to defend the rights and mutual obligations of all sovereign states, big or small. With France co-opted in 1818, the five Great Powers became known as the Pentarchy. The Pentarchy discussed problems related to the situation of smaller states and decided on solutions to them, a de-facto privilege of the Great Powers in a Europe of sovereign states with different level of strategic clout. Although conflicts among the Great Powers would set limits to their close cooperation in the following decades, the Concert of Europe was still at play in the debates about Balkan crises in the years and months prior to the outbreak of war in 1914. [1]

At its heyday, in the first years after the Congress of Vienna, the new consensus among the Great Powers was strong enough to make separate alliance treaties between some of them seem irrelevant. In the 1820s, with disputes over the future of Spain and her former colonies in Latin America and divergent intentions in the Eastern Question, Great Power relations were transformed. New alliances were forged between Britain and France and between the conservative monarchies of Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The latter was perceived as a bulwark anti-revolutionary policy, the former as a cooperation of more liberal-minded cabinets. With regard to the decline of the Ottoman Empire and its geopolitical consequences, different patterns of alignment emerged in 1840. It was this Eastern Question that sparked the first war between Europe’s Great Powers after the defeat of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French (1769-1821) . His nephew, Napoleon III, Emperor of the French (1808-1873) , was instrumental in the formation of an anti-Russian war coalition in 1853-1854. The Crimean War was a decisive blow to the Vienna Settlement, although the peace treaty of Paris in 1856 reiterated the idea of a Concert of Europe. It left Russia reeling from defeat and encouraged further revision of the international system. Alliances became important tools in the ensuing transformation of Europe. Secret treaties between France and Sardinia and Italy and Prussia, respectively, were crucial in the preparation for the wars of 1859 and 1866, and Prussia’s treaties with the southern German states came to bear in 1870-1871. The so-called Wars of Italian Independence and of German Unification changed the map of Europe by creating new nation states. They also left the Habsburg Monarchy and France in a much weaker position. The creation of Germany under Prussian leadership and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was the most obvious shift in the balance of power. [2]

Dual Alliance and Triple Alliance ↑

With the creation of nation states in Germany and Italy completed, 1871 marked a turning point in the development of Europe’s international order. In a series of three victorious wars, Prussia had forged the economically and militarily strong German Empire, which now held a particularly powerful position on the continent. After a crisis in the mid-1870s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) settled on a course of securing the empire ’s position by isolating France and engaging with the other Great Powers, in particular Austria-Hungary and Russia. Ever the skillful diplomat, Bismarck was able to achieve this much, but he left a difficult legacy to his successors after his dismissal in 1890. It turned out to be particularly difficult to maintain close ties with Russia without encouraging St. Petersburg to wage a policy of expansion on the Balkans . Several times, Bismarck tried to build on the traditional pattern of anti-revolutionary cooperation between the monarchies of the Romanovs, the Hohenzollern, and the Habsburgs. The Three Emperors’ League was agreed upon in a treaty between Alexander II, Emperor of Russia (1818-1881) , Wilhelm I, German Emperor (1797-1888) , and Francis Joseph I, Emperor of Austria (1830-1916) in September 1873. It evoked the spirit of the Holy Alliance, but would not survive the clash of interests between Austria-Hungary and Russia that developed just a few years later over the expansion of Russian influence in South East Europe and the creation of a Greater Bulgaria in the 1878 San Stefano peace treaty between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. [3]

The Balkan Crisis of the 1870s and the Congress of Berlin in 1878, at which Bismarck did not save Russia from international pressure to give up on the project of Greater Bulgaria, rattled the foundations of the cooperation between the three conservative monarchies of the Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs, and the Habsburgs. An Austrian initiative led to the so-called Dual Alliance, a defensive alliance between the German Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy. The secret alliance treaty of 7 October 1879 assured Austria-Hungary of German military assistance in case of a Russian attack on the Dual Monarchy. Austria-Hungary also committed herself to come to the rescue of her ally in case of a Russian attack on Germany, a highly unlikely scenario. The Germans would get little in return, since the Austrians were under no obligation to come to their ally’s rescue in the case of a French attack on the German Empire. Benevolent neutrality was all they had to promise, unless France would be fighting alongside Russia. [4]

Bismarck wanted to shield the Habsburg Monarchy from Russian aggression and to get a say in Austria’s foreign policy. Without German consent, any diplomatic or military action taken by the Austrians that led to Russian countermeasures might jeopardize Germany’s commitment to the alliance. The casus foederis , Bismarck made clear in the 1880s, would only be triggered if Austria’s actions were first cleared with Berlin and the subsequent Russian attack labeled “unprovoked”. In this way, Bismarck avoided a situation in which the weaker of the allies would be able to steer the stronger one towards war. The German chancellor was not only trying to commit Vienna to close coordination of its Balkan policy with Berlin; he also hoped to make the Dual Alliance the cornerstone of cooperation in other fields and to tie the Habsburg Monarchy to the German Reich in a way reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire. Gyula Andrássy (1860-1929) , Bismarck’s opponent, refused to have the treaty ratified by parliaments , and it would be kept secret until 1889, when Bismarck published it to deter Russia at the height of the Dual Crisis. [5]

Nevertheless, the Dual Alliance was not considered to be just another international treaty, but rather the foundation and symbol of a special relationship between the German Empire and the Dual Monarchy. The very basis of Austro-Hungarian dualism, the dominating influence of the Germans in Austria and the Magyars in Hungary, was seen as non-negotiable in Berlin, in order to keep Slav aspirations in Europe at bay. German diplomats and politicians would not shy away from telling their counterparts so, but up to a point, the underlying Teutonic, anti-Slav rhetoric also limited Germany’s freedom of action. The term “ Nibelungentreue ”, applied to German-Austrian relations by Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow (1849-1929) in 1909, put a name to the cultural underpinnings of the Dual Alliance that had to be accounted for by German politicians. With Italy staying out of the fray in 1914, the Dual Alliance became the nucleus of what would be called the war coalition of the Central Powers. [6]

The Dual Alliance would be renewed on a regular basis and still existed in 1914, but by that time, most contemporaries had begun to use the term Triple Alliance when they were talking about Germany’s and Austria-Hungary’s most important alliance treaty. As in the case of Germany, the creation of Italy as a nation state had come at the expense of the Habsburg Monarchy. But unlike Germany, where the idea of uniting the German-speaking parts of Austria with the German Empire enjoyed almost no support, the vision of an Italy that included the Italian-speaking regions of the Habsburg Monarchy held considerable appeal for the Italian elites. In addition, the aspiring new – and still not very strong – Great Power Italy was vying with Austria-Hungary for control in the Adriatic. The potential for conflict between both powers notwithstanding, Italy had reasons to cover her back while she was striving for colonial expansion in the Mediterranean. With France blocking Italy’s path by seizing Tunisia in 1881, the government in Rome had to turn to Vienna and Berlin in search of protection in case of future colonial conflicts.

In the Triple Alliance Treaty of 20 May 1882 between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, Italy and Germany were promised military support in case of an unprovoked attack by France. If two or more of the Great Powers attacked one of the three alliance partners, the other two would also be required to intervene by force. If only one Great Power forced one of the allies to resort to war, the others were obliged to keep a neutral stance, unless they decided to help militarily. [7]   Romania , whose king was a member of the Hohenzollern dynasty, acceded in October 1883. [8] The treaty was meant to be secret, but in 1883 an Italian politician made the existence of the alliance public. Its text would be kept secret, as would the articles that were to be added in later years when the treaty was up for renewal. From an Italian point of view, her allies’ pledge of support in case of a war with France was essential; for Bismarck, the alliance helped to keep France isolated and would, in combination with the Dual Alliance, allay Austrian fears of Russian dominance in South East Europe. Vienna’s intention to preserve the status quo on the Balkan peninsula resonated with British priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was also in Berlin’s interest to see the emergence of an alignment of Italy, Great Britain, and Austria-Hungary. This was formalized in a set of agreements brokered by Bismarck that culminated in a treaty between Great Britain and Italy in February 1887, with Austria-Hungary in March 1887 and with Spain in May 1887. The so-called Mediterranean Entente defused conflicts between Austria-Hungary and Italy, but most importantly, it contained Russia in the Eastern Mediterranean quite successfully in the late 1880s and early 1890s.

In 1891, when the Triple Alliance was to be renewed for the second time, the Austrian minister of foreign affairs suggested to the Italians that an agreement between the two allies should be included, which aimed to preserve the status quo in the Balkans and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. But if the status quo “collapsed”, any temporary or permanent occupation of territories in the area should, according to Article VII, “take place only after a previous agreement between the two Powers, based upon the principle of a reciprocal compensation for every advantage, territorial or other.” This article would be part of the renewed and extended versions of the treaty agreed upon in 1902 and 1912. [9] In 1914-1915, Italy would use Article VII to gain leverage in her negotiations with Austria-Hungary over Trentino and Trieste. In the years before, the article kept a lid on Austro-Italian rivalry in Albania . But with Italy seeking British, French and Russian support between 1899 and 1911, the Triple Alliance was no longer essential for Italy’s colonial aspirations in North Africa and in the Eastern Mediterranean. During the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912, Rome could count on the tacit support or at least acquiescence of the other Great Powers. As the Ottoman Empire, weakened by the Italian attack on its North African possessions and the ensuing war, came close to collapse in 1912 in its fight against the Balkan League, which had been forged by Russian diplomacy, the Great Powers set up the London conference. The Concert of Europe was meant to contain the shockwaves and to help find viable solutions to territorial disputes when the spoils of war were divided up. The Triple Alliance was renewed for the last time in December 1912, in the wake of the First Balkan War, with tensions between the Great Powers at crisis level. [10]

Although contemporaries were still using the term Triple Alliance, the cabinets in Berlin and Vienna were no longer convinced of Rome’s attachment to the alliance. In Austria-Hungary, suspicions of Italian duplicity were widespread. Rivalry between both allies in the Adriatic and fear of Italian plans to grab Habsburg territory fueled anxieties and inspired military build-up and heavy-handed policing along the border. A naval armaments race between the allies ensued in the early 1900s that would slow down only on the eve of war. By that time, support for the Triple Alliance in Italy’s political elite had waned. Whereas the alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary had been pivotal to Italian efforts to become a modern, respected great power in the 1880s and most of the 1890s, in the early 20 th century, ties to Vienna and Berlin had become a matter of weighing strategic opportunities. [11] Consequently, uncertainties about Italian policy played a significant role in British, French, German and Austro-Hungarian calculations.

Italy was not the only one about to jump ship and seek closer relations with Britain, France, and Russia; Romania was, as well. In both cases, Austria-Hungary stood in the way of the possibility of expanding influence and gaining territories in the Balkans. In the case of Romania, Vienna’s stance during and after the Second Balkan War soured relations. Both in Italy and in Romania, the hope of annexing parts of the Habsburg Monarchy that had a majority population of co-nationals started to gain more traction among publicists and politicians. Fears of such a policy among the political elites in Vienna and Budapest were not without justification, but greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, those fears fed into a growing sense of instability and imminent threat to the very existence of the Habsburg Monarchy. By 1914, the future of the Triple Alliance seemed to be in question, but many decision-makers in Vienna and in Berlin who started the July Crisis hoped to keep the Triple Alliance – including Romania – together in case of a European war, or at least to be able to count on Italian and Romanian neutrality. Compared to the days of Bismarck’s chancellorship, the German Empire looked more and more isolated in Europe, with only the declining Habsburg Monarchy left as a weak, but reliable ally. [12]

Franco-Russian Alliance and Triple Entente ↑

Until the late 1880s, the French Republic held a rather isolated position among the Great Powers. Colonial disputes with Britain and Italy played a role, but so did the perception of France as a standard-bearer of revolution . Republicanism and revolution were considered deadly threats to Europe in general and to Russia in particular, especially by the tsar and his government . Bismarck had successfully appealed to the tsar’s conservatism in 1873 and did so again in 1881, when Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary signed treaties that followed the traditions of the Holy Alliance. With the secret Reinsurance Treaty of 1887 between Germany and Russia, [13] Bismarck tried to keep Russia engaged, but a tariff dispute and Germany’s decision to ban the floating of Russian state loans on German markets in 1887 proved counterproductive. After Bismarck’s fall in 1890, the German decision to let the Reinsurance Treaty expire, and the assertive policy of Berlin’s partners in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1891, furthered the alienation between Germany and Russia. French politicians sensed an opening for closer relations with the only strategic partner left on the continent that might help to counter Germany. The detention of Russian anarchists in France made the republic more palatable to the tsar. Financial support was something the French Republic had to offer, but it also had sizable military capabilities. The visit of a French naval squadron to the Russian harbor of Kronstadt 1891 and a Russian return visit to Toulon in 1893 made the realignment public.

It was the French who insisted on a written agreement. In August 1892, the two general staffs signed a military convention that would be endorsed by an exchange of diplomatic notes. Thus, on 4 January 1894, the agreement between the general staffs gained the status of an alliance treaty. Just as in the case of the Dual Alliance, the Franco-Russian alliance was a defensive one. Russia promised support with all her forces available in case of an attack on France by Germany or by Italy with German assistance. The French would do the same if Russia were attacked by Germany or by Austria with German support. Unlike the Dual Alliance or the Triple Alliance treaties, the Franco-Russian agreement was more specific in terms of military aspects. Article 2 regulated mobilization and deployment:

In Article 3, the text even mentioned troop numbers and defined the basic strategic concept of coalition warfare :

Little wonder that Article 4 called for close cooperation between the two general staffs in order to allow for coordinated campaigns in case of war. [14]

Throughout the following years, the allies discussed strategy, operations, and logistics. France supported armaments and the construction of strategic railways in Russia. [15] In 1899, due to a French initiative, the allies agreed to support French aspirations in Alsace-Lorraine and Russian ones on the Balkans. At the time, Russo-Austrian relations had taken a turn for the better and a French conquest of Alsace-Lorraine in the context of a general war seemed farfetched. After she had suffered defeat at the hands of the Japanese in Manchuria and at Tsushima in 1904-1905, and in the wake of revolutionary turmoil in 1905, Russia needed to rebuild her military capabilities. French support and rapid economic modernization allowed for fast rearmament, but not fast enough to save Russia from humiliation in 1909, when a German ultimatum forced St. Petersburg to abandon Serbia in the conflict with Austria-Hungary over the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But the Bosnian Crisis also indicated a massive change in French and Russian strategic options, because Britain had openly abandoned her commitment to the defense of the Habsburg Monarchy’s role as a Great Power on the Balkan peninsula. Compared to the late 1880s and early 1890s, British policy had changed profoundly under Edward Grey (1862-1933) , who had become foreign secretary in 1905. [16]

As a means to contain Russian expansionism in the Far East, Britain had abandoned her previous policy of “splendid isolation” and signed an alliance treaty with Japan in January 1902 when the Second Boer War was drawing to a close. After three years of fierce fighting, the war in South Africa inspired dystopian visions of decline in Britain. To protect the empire and the United Kingdom, alliances would be useful, or even necessary. In early 1904, at a time when a Russo-Japanese war seemed imminent and threatened to draw the belligerents’ respective allies into the fray, Britain was willing to form closer diplomatic ties with France, her long-standing competitor in overseas expansion. On 8 April 1904, Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne (1845-1927) and the French ambassador to London signed a declaration that was meant to resolve conflicts concerning colonial interests in Morocco, Egypt , and other territories overseas. [17] This agreement would become known as the Entente Cordiale.

What initially looked like a low-level deal about more or less far-flung places marked the beginning of a major realignment among the Great Powers. Withstanding German pressure with regard to the Moroccan Question in 1905 and 1911, the Entente Cordiale proved its mettle as a tool in crisis diplomacy. It was no formal alliance and therefore neither a casus foederis nor a military commitment were part of the agreement. Nevertheless, army leaders on both sides of the Channel gave thought to coalition warfare against the Triple Alliance on the continent. In secret negotiations, they agreed on a British Expeditionary Force of 100,000 to 120,000 troops, to be deployed alongside the French army. Revealed to the British cabinet only in 1912, the military plans still did not have the same binding character as the Franco-Russian Alliance. In addition, the naval agreement between Britain and France in 1912 would provide for burden-sharing between both fleets, with the French focusing on the Mediterranean and the British being in charge of the North Sea and the Channel. [18]

Grey inherited the Entente Cordiale from his predecessor, but he would give it broader significance. This was in line with efforts to improve relations with Russia, not least to safeguard British interests in India and the Persian Gulf. In a long-term perspective, Russia seemed much more of a challenge to the British Empire than Germany, and from this point of view, it made perfect sense to foster close relations with her. [19] The Anglo-Russian Convention of 31 August 1907 dealt with spheres of influence in Persia , Afghanistan , and Tibet. [20] But the agreement opened the way for a general alignment of British and Russian interests in Asia, including the Near East, and closer relations between the signatories. The convention was the capstone of a new pattern of cooperation between France, Britain, and Russia, which was called the Triple Entente by contemporaries. As in the case of the Triple Alliance, it was not easy to foresee the coherence and effectiveness of the Triple Entente in the event of a major European war. The possibility that another revolution in Russia might overturn the balance of power could not be dismissed. From the French point of view, there was also reason to doubt Russia’s commitment to concentrate her army against Germany, not Austria-Hungary. And it was quite unclear how Britain would act in case of a European war, not only because of divisions in the cabinet, but also because of the unpredictable mood of parliament and of the British public. [21] Nevertheless, the Triple Entente was an element of European politics to be reckoned with.

Great Power Alliances on the Eve of War ↑

By 1912, both the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente had become established features of international relations. The public had become used to debating Great Power politics in Europe in this mould. The same held true for diplomats, officials, and ministers. Scrutinizing the coherence of both alliance systems was a common topic in memoranda and official correspondence, but also in letters and diaries of experts and decision-makers. Whenever a crisis arose in international relations, the current situation of alliances and possible repercussions on their future would be considered. This pattern of thought did not necessarily lead to an escalation of crises. Alliances could even restrain the assertiveness of a Great Power in a conflict scenario. Austria-Hungary’s stance in the First Moroccan Crisis and its effect on her ally Germany; Russia’s backing off in 1909 after British and French signals of disengagement; and Germany’s disapproval of the Habsburg Monarchy’s gamble in the Winter Crisis of 1912-1913 were the most important examples of alliances helping to deescalate a crisis in the last decade before 1914. The alliance between the perennial rivals on the eastern shore of the Adriatic, Austria-Hungary and Italy, made it easier to contain their competition for dominance in Albania and thereby allowed for collective – albeit inefficient - Concert-of-Europe-style intervention on the ground and in the negotiations about the country’s future. In this respect, alliances did not necessarily hasten the sequence of crises that characterized European Great Power politics from 1904 until 1914. They could even be used to frame policies of détente. [22]

But from the First Moroccan Crisis in 1904-1905 onwards, all the major conflicts that dominated the agenda of diplomats and politicians over the course of a decade were perceived as tests of the stability of alliances. The outcome of any given crisis was judged accordingly; as a sign of alliances’ coherence, of their usefulness in times of conflict, and of their credibility as a deterrent. To be sure, not being isolated and having reliable partners among the Great Powers was important for prestige. This mattered, because any gain or loss of prestige would not go unnoticed by the public at home and decision-makers abroad. But it only became such a pressing issue because the stability or instability of alliances could overturn the calculus of military capabilities so dramatically. Since the collapse of her navy and army in 1904, Russia’s efforts to regain her military power had become key to the assessment of Europe’s strategic situation. With Russia out of the picture, Germany and her allies were in a comfortable, almost inviolable, position. With Russia rebuilding her navy and army (with support from the French), German superiority was fading away. How strong Russia was in military terms at any given moment and how strong she would be in the future was a primary concern of military experts, not just in Berlin or Vienna, but also in Paris and London. Striving for security and strategic leverage, the Great Powers, Italy included, joined armaments races at sea, but more importantly on land, which gripped Europe in the final years before the July Crisis. Technological change and shifting notions of quality at the tactical level of operations added another set of “known unknowns” concerning a coming Great Power war. [23]

Under these conditions, the impact of Italy or Romania switching sides or of Britain backing out of her informal alliances on the equation of military capabilities in Europe would be enormous. So it made perfect sense to look for signs of erosion, consolidation or extension of Great Power alliances. By 1914, things had become even more complex because of the growing relevance of alliance patterns in South East Europe. Whether Romania could still be counted upon to honour her obligations under the terms of the Triple Alliance was doubtful. This question was closely intertwined with expectations with regard to Bulgaria’s stance in a major war. The answer mattered immensely, because the Balkan peninsula had once again become the hot spot of Great Power conflict. As became obvious in the Winter Crisis of 1912-1913, this put Austria-Hungary and Russia in the front row of a possible general conflagration. The balance of military power on the Balkans had become an important factor in any war scenario. Therefore, perceptions of an impending regional realignment fed into the overall assessment of changes in the strategic situation on the continent. Short of a diplomatic coup that would both attach Bulgaria to the Triple Alliance and keep Romania as an ally, Austria-Hungary’s foreign office expected the end of the Habsburg Monarchy’s status as a Great Power sooner rather than later. By the early summer of 1914, the Germans had come to similar conclusions. From this perspective, time was on the side of the Triple Entente, provided Russia continued to build up her military and was able to shield client Serbia from Austrian pressure with the assistance of France and Britain. [24]

After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este (1863-1914) in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, the debates about the Habsburg Monarchy’s response among a small circle of Austria-Hungary’s leaders reflected their experience with the pitfalls of alliance politics. Unwilling to offer Italy any say in the future settlement of affairs in Serbia and distrustful of its loyalty, they tried to keep Rome in the dark about their plans and negotiations with Berlin during the early stages of the July Crisis. As it turned out, Italian sources passed German hints about impending Austrian action against Serbia on to Russia. With regard to Germany, there was no alternative to vetting Berlin’s stance in advance. Wilhelm II, German Emperor (1859-1941) had, on previous occasions, forgone Germany’s right to judge on the appropriateness of Austrian policy that might trigger the casus foederis , something Bismarck had always refused to do. Nevertheless, in 1912-1913, Vienna had been left in the lurch by Germany as soon as the crisis with Russia escalated. So, in July 1914, it was essential to get German approval in advance and to make sure that it would not be withdrawn later. The German “blank cheque” was the necessary precondition for Austria-Hungary’s policy in the July Crisis. As Berlin’s efforts to keep the Triple Entente from meddling with the Austro-Serbian conflict failed and Russian military measures alerted the German general staff to a possible Great Power war, Germany’s belated attempts to ask for more flexible Austrian crisis management evoked fears of a second 1912 in Vienna. They were as telling as they proved to be unfounded.

By the end of July 1914, with Russia mobilizing her army, strategic concerns shaped the policies of Germany. After the renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1912, plans for the deployment of Italian troops along the German front against France had been made by the German and Italian general staffs, but since Italy opted for neutrality, these preparations were useless. In the context of the Dual Alliance, only very general strategic and operational concepts had been shared by the general staffs in Vienna and Berlin. The Austrian general staff had promised to launch a major offensive against Russia, while the bulk of the German army would fight against France in the early stages of war. Since 1909, this idea of burden-sharing in case of a European war had been the basis of Austrian and German war planning . When the general staffs faced Russian mobilization at the end of July 1914, they had to come to a decision: whether to follow through with plans suitable for a general war or just deter Russia from intervention in the Austro-Serbian conflict. The political situation and strategic considerations suggested that the Franco-Russian alliance would aim at a two-front war against Germany. [25] In fact, France assured the Russians of her commitment to the alliance and reminded them to do the same. The lingering sense of uncertainty about Britain’s role did not help to contain the crisis. [26] In the end, alliances didn’t restrain the drift to brinkmanship and Britain did not back away. [27] The Dual Alliance and the Triple Entente were at war.

Conclusion: 1914 - Have Alliances Failed? ↑

Alliances had been a fixture of Europe’s international system for centuries. For almost 100 years, from 1814/1815 until 1914, they were used to manage Great Power politics. Alliances could bolster cooperation among all or at least most of the Great Powers, as in the case of the Quadruple Alliance, which would form the basis of the European Pentarchy and the Concert of Europe. They could also become instruments designed to wage war, as in the case of France and Sardinia in 1858 or Prussia and Italy in 1866. After 1871, the alliances of the Great Powers provided some sense of security in an age that was still shaped by the concept of war as a legitimate political tool. The formalized, treaty-based defensive alliances and Britain’s less formal alignment with France and Russia on the basis of agreements about colonial issues gave structure to international relations, changing rapidly due to economic, social, and cultural developments. The relative decline of Britain in economic terms and the corresponding ascent of the United States , the rising fear of social unrest and even revolution, and the emergence of public debate about foreign policy in most European countries, questioned traditional notions of diplomacy and vital interests. To perceive Great Power relations in terms of alliances offered some predictability in the case of an international crisis and could offer an opportunity to contain conflicts. In the Winter Crisis of 1912-1913, when Germany reined in her ally Austria, the de-escalating potential of defensive alliances was demonstrated again. The conference in London about the future of Albania bears witness to Great Power cooperation between states in opposing alliance blocs. But as the military experts got used to including assumptions about the evolving international situation in their strategic analyses, diplomats and politicians paid increasing attention to shifts in military capabilities. Thus, reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of alliances fostered a militarization of security policy in the cabinets of Europe.

As such, neither the Triple Alliance nor the Triple Entente were incompatible with efforts to keep the peace of Europe. What turned them into destabilizing forces in European politics was a combination of inherent problems of alliance politics and other factors. Keeping the existing alliance together became a driving motivation for the British Foreign Office and, up to a point, also for its French counterpart. The same holds true for Germany and Austria-Hungary, in particular with respect to Italy and Romania. The urgency given to defending one’s alliance’s coherence limited the scope for compromise in a crisis. In the case of the Triple Alliance, Austrian and – to a lesser degree – German fears about Rome’s and Bucharest’s reliability fostered the perception that time was on the side of the Triple Entente. This mattered immensely to the decision-makers in the major European capitals, because the sequence of crises that had begun in 1904 had taught them the ever-increasing relevance of military power in international relations. Alliances were means to increase this power. They could embolden foreign policy makers or – depending on expectations about the stability of one’s own alliance and that of one’s future adversaries – challenge international status. In this way, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente had a negative impact on crisis management in July 1914.

Alliances failed to keep the peace in 1914 and, in combination with the militarized perception of security that had emerged among decision-makers and large parts of the public in Europe, even played a role in bringing about war. But is it correct to judge them as a complete failure in 1914? The answer depends on an assumption about the purpose of alliances in the early 20 th century. They certainly did not stop the escalation towards war in the summer of 1914. Germany did not even try to brake Austria-Hungary’s high-risk course until the very end of July 1914, whereas France and finally even Great Britain underwrote Russia’s strategy of escalation. More importantly, both alliances did not work as effective deterrents. Consequently, they failed as a means to avoid war. However, they made sure that none of the Great Powers would have to face isolation. Although the Triple Alliance fell apart in the summer of 1914, as Italy decided to stay neutral, Berlin and Vienna were able to fall back on their treaty of 1879 as a foundation on which to build a wartime coalition. Due to Britain’s decision to declare the infringement of Belgium’s territorial integrity a casus belli , the Triple Entente effectively became a reliable alliance. Since the Great War would be shaped by coalitions, making it perniciously hard to overcome adversaries who were able to use a pool of combined resources in order to counter setbacks, the alliances would provide the belligerent powers of 1914 with the most crucial asset of all: partners in coalition warfare. The pre-war alliances did not help to extend Europe’s long peace, but they made it easier to fight a long war.

Günther Kronenbitter, Universität Augsburg

Section Editors: Annika Mombauer ; William Mulligan

• ↑ Schroeder, Paul W.: Systems, Stability, and Statecraft. Essays on the International History of Modern Europe, New York et al. 2004, pp. 37-57, 195-199, 223-241.
• ↑ Ibid., pp. 199-208; Bridge, Francis Roy / Bullen, Richard: The Great Powers and the European State System, 1814-1914, Harlow et al. 2005, pp. 1-174.
• ↑ Canis, Konrad: Bismarcks Außenpolitik 1870-1890. Aufstieg und Gefährdung, Paderborn et al. 2004, pp. 39-140.
• ↑ Dual Alliance with Austria (October 7, 1879), issued by German History in Documents and Images (GHDI), online: http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1856 (retrieved: 25 June 2019).
• ↑ Canis, Bismarcks Außenpolitik 2004, pp. 141-159; Baumgart, Winfried: Europäisches Konzert und nationale Bewegung 1830-1878, Paderborn et al. 2007, pp. 416-428; Canis, Konrad: Der Zweibund in der Bismarckschen Außenpolitik, in: Rumpler, Helmut / Niederkorn, Jan Paul (eds.): Der “Zweibund” 1879. Das deutsch-österreichisch-ungarische Bündnis und die europäische Diplomatie, Vienna 1996, pp. 41-67.
• ↑ Angelow, Jürgen: Kalkül und Prestige. Der Zweibund am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges, Cologne et al. 2000. For the intellectual and cultural underpinnings of the Dual Alliance and their wartime effects, see Vermeiren, Jan: The First World War and German National Identity, Cambridge et al. 2016.
• ↑ Triple Alliance with Austria and Italy (May 20, 1882), issued by German History in Documents and Images (GHDI), online: http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1860 (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Austro-Hungarian / Rumanian Accord, issued by The World War I Document Archive, online: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Austro-Hungarian_/_Rumanian_Accord (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Expanded version of 1912 (In English), issued by The World War I Document Archive, online: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Expanded_version_of_1912_(In_English) (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Afflerbach, Holger: Der Dreibund. Europäische Großmacht- und Allianzpolitik vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Vienna et al. 2002.
• ↑ Afflerbach, Holger: Der Dreibund als Instrument der europäischen Friedenssicherung vor 1914, in: Rumpler / Niederkorn, Der “Zweibund” 1996, pp. 87-118.
• ↑ Canis, Konrad: Der Weg in den Abgrund. Deutsche Außenpolitik 1902-1914, Paderborn et al. 2011, pp. 611-655.
• ↑ Secret Reinsurance Treaty with Russia (June 18, 1887), issued by German History in Documents and Images (GHDI), online: http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1862 (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ The Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention. August 18, 1892, issued by Lillian Goldman Law Library, online: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/frrumil.asp (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Kennan, George F.: The Fateful Alliance. France, Russia, and the Coming of the First World War, New York et al. 1984; Snyder, Glenn H.: Alliance Politics, Ithaca et al. 1997, pp. 109-124, 261-296.
• ↑ Rose, Andreas: Between Empire and Continent. British Foreign Policy before the First World War, New York et al. 2017, pp. 273-305.
• ↑ The Franco British Declaration, 1904, issued by Lillian Goldman Law Library, online: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/entecord.asp (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Williamson, Samuel R., Jr.: The Politics of Grand Strategy. Britain and France Prepare for War, 1904-1914, Cambridge, MA 1969.
• ↑ Neilson, Keith: Britain and the Last Tsar. British Policy and Russia, 1894-1917, Oxford 1995.
• ↑ The Anglo-Russian Entente. 1907, issued by Lillian Goldman Law Library, online: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angrusen.asp (retrieved: 26 June 2019).
• ↑ Lieven, Dominic: Towards the Flame. Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Rusia, London 2015, pp. 182-224; Schmidt, Stefan: Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ausbruchs des ersten Weltkrieges, Munich 2009, pp. 246-288.
• ↑ Kießling, Frieder: Gegen den “großen Krieg”? Entspannung in den internationalen Beziehungen 1911-1914, Munich 2002; Otte, T. G.: Détente 1914. Sir William Tyrrell’s Secret Mission to Germany, in: The Historical Journal 56/1 (2013), pp. 175-204.
• ↑ Stevenson, David: Armaments and the Coming of War. Europe, 1904-1914, Oxford et al. 1996; Mulligan, William: The Origins of the First World War, Cambridge et al. 2010, pp. 49-91.
• ↑ Soutou, Georges-Henri: La Grande Illusion. Quand la France perdait la paix 1914-1920, Paris 2015, pp. 15-42.
• ↑ Kronenbitter, Günther: “Krieg im Frieden”. Die Führung der k.u.k. Armee und die Großmachtpolitik Österreich-Ungarns 1906-1914, Munich 2003, pp. 369-519.
• ↑ Clark, Christopher: The Sleepwalkers. How Europe Went to War in 1914, London et al. 2012, pp. 242-358; Otte, T. G.: Entente diplomacy v. détente, 1911-1914, in: Geppert, Dominik / Mulligan, William / Rose, Andreas (eds.): The Wars Before the Great War, Cambridge et al. 2015, pp. 264-282.
• ↑ Otte, T. G.: July Crisis: The World’s Descent into War. Summer 1914, Cambridge 2014.
• Afflerbach, Holger: Der Dreibund. Europäische Grossmacht- und Allianzpolitik vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg , Vienna 2002: Böhlau.
• Angelow, Jürgen: Kalkül und Prestige. Der Zweibund am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges , Cologne et al. 2000: Böhlau.
• Bridge, Francis Roy / Bullen, Roger J.: The great powers and the European states system 1814-1914 , Harlow 2005: Pearson Longman.
• Geppert, Dominik / Mulligan, William / Rose, Andreas (eds.): The wars before the Great War. Conflict and international politics before the outbreak of the First World War , Cambridge et al. 2015: Cambridge University Press.
• Kennan, George F.: The fateful alliance. France, Russia, and the coming of the First World War , Manchester 1984: Manchester University Press.
• Mulligan, William: The origins of the First World War , Cambridge 2010: Cambridge University Press.
• Rose, Andreas: Between empire and continent. British foreign policy before the First World War , New York 2017: Berghahn Books.
• Rumpler, Helmut / Niederkorn, Jan Paul (eds.): Der 'Zweibund' 1879. Das deutsch-österreichisch-ungarische Bündnis und die europäische Diplomatie , Vienna 1996: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
• Schroeder, Paul W., Wetzel, David / Jervis, Robert / Levy, Jack S. (eds.): Systems, stability, and statecraft. Essays on the international history of modern Europe , New York 2004: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Snyder, Glenn H.: Alliance politics , Ithaca 1997: Cornell University Press.
• Stevenson, David: Armaments and the coming of war. Europe, 1904-1914 , Oxford; New York 1996: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
• Williamson, Jr., Samuel R.: The politics of grand strategy. Britain and France prepare for war, 1904-1914 , Cambridge 1969: Harvard University Press.

Kronenbitter, Günther: Alliance System 1914 , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz, Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin 2019-08-15. DOI : 10.15463/ie1418.11398 .

This text is licensed under: CC by-NC-ND 3.0 Germany - Attribution, Non-commercial, No Derivative Works.

Related Articles

External links.

• Modern History

The four MAIN causes of World War I explained

The First World War was the first conflict that occurred on a staggering scale. World War I (WWI) was unprecedented in its global impact and the extent of its industrialization.

However, the reason why the war originally began is incredibly complex. To try and explain the causes of the war, historians have tried to simplify it down to four main causes.

They create the acronym: MAIN. 

Imperialism

Nationalism.

This simplified acronym is a useful way to remember the four MAIN causes of the war.

However, we will explain each of these concepts out of order below.

One of the most commonly discussed causes of WWI was the system of alliances that existed by 1914, the year the war started.

An 'alliance' is an agreement made between two countries, where each side promises to help the other if required.

Most of the time, this involves military or financial assistance. When an alliance is created, the countries involved are known as 'allies'.

By the dawn of the First World War, most European countries had entered into one or more alliances with other countries.

What made this an important cause of WWI, was that many of these alliances were military in nature: that if one country attacked or was attacked, all of their allies had promised to get involved as well.

This meant, that if just one country attacked another, most of Europe would immediately be at war, as each country jumped in to help out their friends. 

Imperialism, as a concept, has been around for a very long time in human history. Imperialism is the desire to build an empire for your country.

This usually involves invading and taking land owned by someone else and adding it to your empire. 

By the 19th century, many European countries had been involved in imperialism by conquering less advanced nations in Asia, the Americas or Africa.

By 1900, the British Empire was the largest imperial power in the world. It controlled parts of five different continents and owned about a quarter of all land in the world.

France was also a large empire, with control over parts of south-east Asia and Africa.

By 1910, Germany had been trying to build its own empire to rival that of Britain and France and was interested in expanding its colonial holdings.

This meant that when an opportunity for a war of conquest became available, Germany was very keen to take advantage of it.

Militarism is the belief that a country's army and navy (since air forces didn't exist at the start of WWI) were the primary means that nations resolved disagreement between each other.

As a result, countries like to boast about the power of their armed forces.

Some countries spent money improving their land armies, while others spent money on their navies.

Some countries tried to gain the advantage by having the most number of men in their armies, while others focused more on having the most advanced technology in their forces.

Regardless of how they approached it, countries used militarism as a way of gaining an edge on their opponents.

An example of this competition for a military edge can be seen in the race between Britain and Germany to have the most powerful navy.

Britain had recently developed a special ship known as a 'dreadnought’. The Germans were so impressed by this, that they increased their government spending so that they also had some dreadnoughts.

The final of the four causes is 'nationalism'. Nationalism is the idea that people should have a deep love for their country, even to the extent that they are willing to die for it.

Throughout the 19th century, most countries had developed their own form of nationalism, where they encouraged a love of the nation in their citizens through the process of creating national flags and writing national anthems.

Children at schools were taught that their country was the best in the world and that should it ever be threatened, that they should be willing to take up arms to defend it.

The growing nationalist movements created strong animosity between countries that had a history of armed conflict.

A good example of this is the deep anger that existed between Germany and France.

These two countries had a recent history of war and struggling over a small region between the two, called Alsace-Lorraine.

Germany had seized control of it after the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, which the French were deeply upset by.

As a result, France believed that they should be willing to fight and die to take it back.

Conflicts and Crises

In the two decades before WWI started in 1914, there were a number of smaller conflicts and crises that had already threatened to turn into global conflicts.

While these didn't eventually start the global war, it does show the four causes mentioned above and how they interacted in the real world.

The Moroccan Crisis

In 1904, Britain recognized France's sphere of influence over Morocco in North Africa in exchange for France recognizing Britain's sphere of influence in Egypt.

However, the Moroccans had a growing sense of nationalism and wanted their independence.

In 1905, Germany announced that they would support Morocco if they wanted to fight for their freedom.

To avoid war, a conference was held which allowed France to keep Morocco. Then, in 1911, the Germans again argued for Morocco to fight against France.

To again avoid war. Germany received territorial compensation in the French Congo in exchange for recognizing French control over Morocco.

The Bosnian Crisis

In 1908, the nation of Austria-Hungary had been administrating the Turkish regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878, but they formally annexed it in 1908, which caused the crisis.

The country of Serbia was outraged, because they felt that it should have been given to them. As a result, Serbia threatened to attack Austria-Hungary.

To support them, Russia, who was allied to Serbia, prepared its armed forces. Germany, however, who was allied to Austria-Hungary, also prepared its army and threaten to attack Russia.

Luckily, war was avoided because Russia backed down. However, there was some regional fighting during 1911 and 1912, as Turkey lost control of the region. 

Despite this, Serbia and Austria-Hungary were still angry with each other as they both wanted to expand into these newly liberated countries.

Further reading

What do you need help with, download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project - Origins to the Present

Course: world history project - origins to the present   >   unit 7, read: what caused the first world war.

• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Britain and World War I
• WATCH: Britain and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: How World War I Started
• WATCH: How World War I Started
• READ: The First World War as a Global War
• READ: World War I — A Total War
• READ: The Mexican Revolution
• READ: The Power of One — The Russian Revolution
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Armenian Genocide
• WATCH: Armenian Genocide
• READ: Capitalism and World War I
• World War 1

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

• Who killed Franz Ferdinand? Why did they kill him?
• How did the European alliance system help start the war?
• How did imperialism help start the war?
• Why does the author argue that industrialization made the war inevitable once preparations were started?
• How might the First World War have happened on accident?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

• This article gives several examples of how transformations in the nineteenth century led to the war. Things like nationalism (communities frame), industrialization (production and distribution frame), and outdated diplomatic technology (networks frame) are blamed for the war. Can you think of any transformations during the nineteenth century that might have helped prevent war?

What Caused the First World War?

World war why, one shot: the assassination of archduke franz ferdinand, deeper trends: help me help you help me, accidental war: missed the memo, hit the target.

• Yes, these terms can get confusing. Nationalism was introduced to you as the idea that a state should govern itself, and not have some empire as its boss. But at some point, that feeling that you should get to govern yourself can turn into the idea that you are better than other nations, and becomes a kind of extreme patriotism. We call that nationalism as well. As we will see, nationalism is a pretty flexible thing, and it can be used for lots of different purposes.
• Top map by Joe Mabel, CC BY-SA 3.0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_German_Empire_-_1914.PNG
• Bottom map by Andrew0921, CC BY-SA 3.0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Empire_in_1914.png

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Sign Up Today

Start your 14 day free trial today

The History Hit Miscellany of Facts, Figures and Fascinating Finds

• 20th Century

Europe in 1914: First World War Alliances Explained

Alex Browne

03 aug 2018.

The European alliance systems are often seen as a major cause of World War One . On one side, you had the dual alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and on the other you had the Triple Entente between France, Russia and Great Britain.

But it wasn’t a simple case of one side declaring war on the other; indeed the Triple Entente wasn’t really an ‘alliance’ at all, and the picture was further complicated by countries on the periphery of these two major systems.

The Treaty of London – 1839

Belgium had broken away from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830. In 1839, the new nation was officially recognised by the Treaty of London. Great Britain, Austria, France, the German Confederation, Russia and the Netherlands all officially recognised the new independent Kingdom, and at Britain’s insistence agreed to its neutrality.

A British cartoon of Europe in 1914.

Dual Alliance – 1879

An alliance was signed by Germany and Austria Hungary on 7th October 1879. The two nations pledged to aid each other in the event of attack by Russia. Also, each state promised neutrality to the other if one of them was attacked by another European power (which was more than likely going to be France).

Italy joined in the Triple Alliance in 1882, but later reneged on their commitment upon the outbreak of the war in 1914.

This cartoon illustrates the Central Powers in defensive positions against the advances of Russia and France.

Reinsurance Treaty – 1887

In June 1887 Germany also signed The Reinsurance Treaty with Russia. With the competition between Russia and Austria Hungary in the Balkans, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck felt that this was essential to prevent a Russian agreement with France. After all, this could lead to Germany faced with a possible war on two fronts.

The secret treaty agreed that the two countries would observe neutrality should one the other be involved in a war with a third country – although this would be wavered should Germany attack France or Russia attack Austria Hungary. It also agreed that Germany would declare herself neutral in the event of a Russian intervention in the Bosphorous and the Dardanelles.

The new German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II believed the treaty could enrage both the British and Ottoman Empires, so when it came to renewal in 1890, Germany refused to sign it.

Franco – Russian Alliance – 1894

The Triple Alliance and the failure to renew a treaty with Germany had left Russia vulnerable, while France had been isolated in Europe since its defeat 1870 – 1871 Franco Prussian War. France began to invest in Russian infrastructure from 1888, and the two formed The Franco-Russian Alliance on January 4th 1894.

It was to remain in place for as long as the Triple Alliance existed, and stipulated that if one of the countries of the Triple Alliance attacked France or Russia, its ally would attack the aggressor in question, and that if a Triple Alliance country mobilized its army, France and Russia would mobilize.

Another German cartoon of European alliances – 1914.

Entente Cordiale – 1904

The next major agreement in Europe came about with the Entente Cordiale in April 1904. Having been involved in three rounds of British German talks between 1898 and 1901, Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance. When the Russo-Japanese War was about to erupt, France and Britain found themselves being dragged into the conflict on the side of their respective allies.

France was allied with Russia, while Britain had recently signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. In order to avoid war, the sides negotiated a treaty that settled many long standing issues – particularly their differences in Africa over British control of Egypt and French control of Morocco.

The agreement marked the end of nearly a thousand years of intermittent conflict between the two countries .

“The Triple Entente” – 1907

Another agreement was reached in August 1907, this time including Britain and Russia, thereby firming their stance against The Triple Alliance. But in reality, there was no Triple Entente – the 1907 treaty was specifically between Britain and Russia to stop their rivalry in Central Asia, and there was no three way agreement as there was with the Triple Alliance.

Even after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the July crisis, neither of Britain’s agreement’s with France or Russia guaranteed that she would ally with the countries in the event of a European war. However, when Germany executed the Schlieffen Plan on August 3rd 1914 and crossed the Belgian border, Britain decided to act upon the violation of Belgium’s neutrality.

This map of Europe clearly shows the surrounding of the Central Powers by the Allies.

You May Also Like

The Peasants’ Revolt: Rise of the Rebels

10 Myths About Winston Churchill

Medusa: What Was a Gorgon?

10 Facts About the Battle of Shrewsbury

5 of Our Top Podcasts About the Norman Conquest of 1066

How Did 3 People Seemingly Escape From Alcatraz?

5 of Our Top Documentaries About the Norman Conquest of 1066

1848: The Year of Revolutions

What Prompted the Boston Tea Party?

15 Quotes by Nelson Mandela

The History of Advent

The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

World War I

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 11, 2023 | Original: October 29, 2009

World War I, also known as the Great War, started in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. His murder catapulted into a war across Europe that lasted until 1918. During the four-year conflict, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (the Central Powers) fought against Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan and the United States (the Allied Powers). Thanks to new military technologies and the horrors of trench warfare, World War I saw unprecedented levels of carnage and destruction. By the time the war was over and the Allied Powers had won, more than 16 million people—soldiers and civilians alike—were dead.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Tensions had been brewing throughout Europe—especially in the troubled Balkan region of southeast Europe—for years before World War I actually broke out.

A number of alliances involving European powers, the Ottoman Empire , Russia and other parties had existed for years, but political instability in the Balkans (particularly Bosnia, Serbia and Herzegovina) threatened to destroy these agreements.

The spark that ignited World War I was struck in Sarajevo, Bosnia, where Archduke Franz Ferdinand —heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire—was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. Princip and other nationalists were struggling to end Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand set off a rapidly escalating chain of events: Austria-Hungary , like many countries around the world, blamed the Serbian government for the attack and hoped to use the incident as justification for settling the question of Serbian nationalism once and for all.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause. Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well.

On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept.

World War I Begins

Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.

Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

The Western Front

According to an aggressive military strategy known as the Schlieffen Plan (named for its mastermind, German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen ), Germany began fighting World War I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and confronting Russia in the east.

On August 4, 1914, German troops crossed the border into Belgium. In the first battle of World War I, the Germans assaulted the heavily fortified city of Liege , using the most powerful weapons in their arsenal—enormous siege cannons—to capture the city by August 15. The Germans left death and destruction in their wake as they advanced through Belgium toward France, shooting civilians and executing a Belgian priest they had accused of inciting civilian resistance. 

First Battle of the Marne

In the First Battle of the Marne , fought from September 6-9, 1914, French and British forces confronted the invading German army, which had by then penetrated deep into northeastern France, within 30 miles of Paris. The Allied troops checked the German advance and mounted a successful counterattack, driving the Germans back to the north of the Aisne River.

The defeat meant the end of German plans for a quick victory in France. Both sides dug into trenches , and the Western Front was the setting for a hellish war of attrition that would last more than three years.

Particularly long and costly battles in this campaign were fought at Verdun (February-December 1916) and the Battle of the Somme (July-November 1916). German and French troops suffered close to a million casualties in the Battle of Verdun alone.

HISTORY Vault: World War I Documentaries

Stream World War I videos commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

World War I Books and Art

The bloodshed on the battlefields of the Western Front, and the difficulties its soldiers had for years after the fighting had ended, inspired such works of art as “ All Quiet on the Western Front ” by Erich Maria Remarque and “ In Flanders Fields ” by Canadian doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae . In the latter poem, McCrae writes from the perspective of the fallen soldiers:

Published in 1915, the poem inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance.

Visual artists like Otto Dix of Germany and British painters Wyndham Lewis, Paul Nash and David Bomberg used their firsthand experience as soldiers in World War I to create their art, capturing the anguish of trench warfare and exploring the themes of technology, violence and landscapes decimated by war.

The Eastern Front

On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian forces invaded the German-held regions of East Prussia and Poland but were stopped short by German and Austrian forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August 1914.

Despite that victory, Russia’s assault forced Germany to move two corps from the Western Front to the Eastern, contributing to the German loss in the Battle of the Marne.

Combined with the fierce Allied resistance in France, the ability of Russia’s huge war machine to mobilize relatively quickly in the east ensured a longer, more grueling conflict instead of the quick victory Germany had hoped to win under the Schlieffen Plan .

Russian Revolution

From 1914 to 1916, Russia’s army mounted several offensives on World War I’s Eastern Front but was unable to break through German lines.

Defeat on the battlefield, combined with economic instability and the scarcity of food and other essentials, led to mounting discontent among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants. This increased hostility was directed toward the imperial regime of Czar Nicholas II and his unpopular German-born wife, Alexandra.

Russia’s simmering instability exploded in the Russian Revolution of 1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks , which ended czarist rule and brought a halt to Russian participation in World War I.

Russia reached an armistice with the Central Powers in early December 1917, freeing German troops to face the remaining Allies on the Western Front.

America Enters World War I

At the outbreak of fighting in 1914, the United States remained on the sidelines of World War I, adopting the policy of neutrality favored by President Woodrow Wilson while continuing to engage in commerce and shipping with European countries on both sides of the conflict.

Neutrality, however, it was increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of Germany’s unchecked submarine aggression against neutral ships, including those carrying passengers. In 1915, Germany declared the waters surrounding the British Isles to be a war zone, and German U-boats sunk several commercial and passenger vessels, including some U.S. ships.

Widespread protest over the sinking by U-boat of the British ocean liner Lusitania —traveling from New York to Liverpool, England with hundreds of American passengers onboard—in May 1915 helped turn the tide of American public opinion against Germany. In February 1917, Congress passed a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war.

Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships the following month, and on April 2 Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany.

Gallipoli Campaign

With World War I having effectively settled into a stalemate in Europe, the Allies attempted to score a victory against the Ottoman Empire, which entered the conflict on the side of the Central Powers in late 1914.

After a failed attack on the Dardanelles (the strait linking the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean Sea), Allied forces led by Britain launched a large-scale land invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion also proved a dismal failure, and in January 1916 Allied forces staged a full retreat from the shores of the peninsula after suffering 250,000 casualties.

Did you know? The young Winston Churchill, then first lord of the British Admiralty, resigned his command after the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1916, accepting a commission with an infantry battalion in France.

British-led forces also combated the Ottoman Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia , while in northern Italy, Austrian and Italian troops faced off in a series of 12 battles along the Isonzo River, located at the border between the two nations.

Battle of the Isonzo

The First Battle of the Isonzo took place in the late spring of 1915, soon after Italy’s entrance into the war on the Allied side. In the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, also known as the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917), German reinforcements helped Austria-Hungary win a decisive victory.

After Caporetto, Italy’s allies jumped in to offer increased assistance. British and French—and later, American—troops arrived in the region, and the Allies began to take back the Italian Front.

World War I at Sea

In the years before World War I, the superiority of Britain’s Royal Navy was unchallenged by any other nation’s fleet, but the Imperial German Navy had made substantial strides in closing the gap between the two naval powers. Germany’s strength on the high seas was also aided by its lethal fleet of U-boat submarines.

After the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, in which the British mounted a surprise attack on German ships in the North Sea, the German navy chose not to confront Britain’s mighty Royal Navy in a major battle for more than a year, preferring to rest the bulk of its naval strategy on its U-boats.

The biggest naval engagement of World War I, the Battle of Jutland (May 1916) left British naval superiority on the North Sea intact, and Germany would make no further attempts to break an Allied naval blockade for the remainder of the war.

World War I Planes

World War I was the first major conflict to harness the power of planes. Though not as impactful as the British Royal Navy or Germany’s U-boats, the use of planes in World War I presaged their later, pivotal role in military conflicts around the globe.

At the dawn of World War I, aviation was a relatively new field; the Wright brothers took their first sustained flight just eleven years before, in 1903. Aircraft were initially used primarily for reconnaissance missions. During the First Battle of the Marne, information passed from pilots allowed the allies to exploit weak spots in the German lines, helping the Allies to push Germany out of France.

The first machine guns were successfully mounted on planes in June of 1912 in the United States, but were imperfect; if timed incorrectly, a bullet could easily destroy the propeller of the plane it came from. The Morane-Saulnier L, a French plane, provided a solution: The propeller was armored with deflector wedges that prevented bullets from hitting it. The Morane-Saulnier Type L was used by the French, the British Royal Flying Corps (part of the Army), the British Royal Navy Air Service and the Imperial Russian Air Service. The British Bristol Type 22 was another popular model used for both reconnaissance work and as a fighter plane.

Dutch inventor Anthony Fokker improved upon the French deflector system in 1915. His “interrupter” synchronized the firing of the guns with the plane’s propeller to avoid collisions. Though his most popular plane during WWI was the single-seat Fokker Eindecker, Fokker created over 40 kinds of airplanes for the Germans.

The Allies debuted the Handley-Page HP O/400, the first two-engine bomber, in 1915. As aerial technology progressed, long-range heavy bombers like Germany’s Gotha G.V. (first introduced in 1917) were used to strike cities like London. Their speed and maneuverability proved to be far deadlier than Germany’s earlier Zeppelin raids.

By the war’s end, the Allies were producing five times more aircraft than the Germans. On April 1, 1918, the British created the Royal Air Force, or RAF, the first air force to be a separate military branch independent from the navy or army. 

Second Battle of the Marne

With Germany able to build up its strength on the Western Front after the armistice with Russia, Allied troops struggled to hold off another German offensive until promised reinforcements from the United States were able to arrive.

On July 15, 1918, German troops launched what would become the last German offensive of the war, attacking French forces (joined by 85,000 American troops as well as some of the British Expeditionary Force) in the Second Battle of the Marne . The Allies successfully pushed back the German offensive and launched their own counteroffensive just three days later.

After suffering massive casualties, Germany was forced to call off a planned offensive further north, in the Flanders region stretching between France and Belgium, which was envisioned as Germany’s best hope of victory.

The Second Battle of the Marne turned the tide of war decisively towards the Allies, who were able to regain much of France and Belgium in the months that followed.

The Harlem Hellfighters and Other All-Black Regiments

By the time World War I began, there were four all-Black regiments in the U.S. military: the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry. All four regiments comprised of celebrated soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War and American-Indian Wars , and served in the American territories. But they were not deployed for overseas combat in World War I. 

Blacks serving alongside white soldiers on the front lines in Europe was inconceivable to the U.S. military. Instead, the first African American troops sent overseas served in segregated labor battalions, restricted to menial roles in the Army and Navy, and shutout of the Marines, entirely. Their duties mostly included unloading ships, transporting materials from train depots, bases and ports, digging trenches, cooking and maintenance, removing barbed wire and inoperable equipment, and burying soldiers.

Facing criticism from the Black community and civil rights organizations for its quotas and treatment of African American soldiers in the war effort, the military formed two Black combat units in 1917, the 92nd and 93rd Divisions . Trained separately and inadequately in the United States, the divisions fared differently in the war. The 92nd faced criticism for their performance in the Meuse-Argonne campaign in September 1918. The 93rd Division, however, had more success. 

With dwindling armies, France asked America for reinforcements, and General John Pershing , commander of the American Expeditionary Forces, sent regiments in the 93 Division to over, since France had experience fighting alongside Black soldiers from their Senegalese French Colonial army. The 93 Division’s 369 regiment, nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters , fought so gallantly, with a total of 191 days on the front lines, longer than any AEF regiment, that France awarded them the Croix de Guerre for their heroism. More than 350,000 African American soldiers would serve in World War I in various capacities.

Toward Armistice

By the fall of 1918, the Central Powers were unraveling on all fronts.

Despite the Turkish victory at Gallipoli, later defeats by invading forces and an Arab revolt that destroyed the Ottoman economy and devastated its land, and the Turks signed a treaty with the Allies in late October 1918.

Austria-Hungary, dissolving from within due to growing nationalist movements among its diverse population, reached an armistice on November 4. Facing dwindling resources on the battlefield, discontent on the homefront and the surrender of its allies, Germany was finally forced to seek an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending World War I.

Treaty of Versailles

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Allied leaders stated their desire to build a post-war world that would safeguard itself against future conflicts of such a devastating scale.

Some hopeful participants had even begun calling World War I “the War to End All Wars.” But the Treaty of Versailles , signed on June 28, 1919, would not achieve that lofty goal.

Saddled with war guilt, heavy reparations and denied entrance into the League of Nations , Germany felt tricked into signing the treaty, having believed any peace would be a “peace without victory,” as put forward by President Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points speech of January 1918.

As the years passed, hatred of the Versailles treaty and its authors settled into a smoldering resentment in Germany that would, two decades later, be counted among the causes of World War II .

World War I Casualties

World War I took the lives of more than 9 million soldiers; 21 million more were wounded. Civilian casualties numbered close to 10 million. The two nations most affected were Germany and France, each of which sent some 80 percent of their male populations between the ages of 15 and 49 into battle.

The political disruption surrounding World War I also contributed to the fall of four venerable imperial dynasties: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

Legacy of World War I

World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.

World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks , aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.

The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remain in effect today.

Photo Galleries

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

5 Key Causes of World War I

Illustration by Hugo Lin. ThoughtCo.

• M.A., History, University of Florida
• B.A., History, University of Florida

World War I, known as the "war to end all wars," occurred between July 1914 and November 11, 1918. By the end of the war, over 17 million people had been killed, including over 100,000 American troops. While the causes of the war are infinitely more complicated than a simple timeline of events, and are still debated and discussed to this day, the list below provides an overview of the most frequently-cited events that led to war. 

Watch Now: 5 Causes of World War I

Mutual defense alliances.

Countries throughout the world have always made mutual defense agreements with their neighbors, treaties that could pull them into battle. These treaties meant that if one country was attacked, the allied countries were bound to defend them. Before World War 1 began, the following alliances existed:

• Russia and Serbia
• Germany and Austria-Hungary
• France and Russia
• Britain and France and Belgium
• Japan and Britain

When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia got involved to defend Serbia. Germany, seeing that Russia was mobilizing, declared war on Russia. France was then drawn in against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany attacked France by marching through Belgium pulling Britain into war. Then Japan entered the war to support its British allies. Later, Italy and the United States would enter on the side of the Allies (Britain, France, Russia, etc.).

Imperialism

Imperialism is when a country increases their power and wealth by bringing additional territories under their control, usually without outright colonizing or resettling them. Before World War I, several European countries had made competing imperialistic claims in Africa and parts of Asia, making them points of contention. Because of the raw materials these areas could provide, tensions around which country had the right to exploit these areas ran high. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I.

As the world entered the 20th century, an arms race had begun, primarily over the number of each country's warships, and the increasing size of their armies—countries began training more and more of their young men to be prepared for battle. The warships themselves increased in size, number of guns, speed, method of propulsion, and quality armor, beginning in 1906 with Britain's HMS Dreadnought . Dreadnought   was soon out-classed as the Royal Navy and Kaiserliche Marine quickly expanded their ranks with increasingly modern and powerful warships. 

By 1914, Germany had nearly 100 warships and two million trained soldiers. Great Britain and Germany both greatly increased their navies in this time period. Further, in Germany and Russia particularly, the military establishment began to have a greater influence on public policy. This increase in militarism helped push the countries involved into war.

Nationalism

Much of the origin of the war was based on the desire of the Slavic peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to no longer be part of Austria-Hungary but instead be part of Serbia. This specific essentially nationalistic and ethnic revolt led directly to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand , which was the event that tipped the scales to war.

But more generally, nationalism in many of the countries throughout Europe contributed not only to the beginning but to the extension of the war across Europe and into Asia. As each country tried to prove their dominance and power, the war became more complicated and prolonged.

Immediate Cause: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

The immediate cause of World War I that made the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, and nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand  of Austria-Hungary. In June 1914, a Serbian-nationalist terrorist group called the Black Hand sent groups to assassinate the Archduke. Their first attempt failed when a driver avoided a grenade thrown at their car. However, later that day a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip shot the Archduke and his wife while they were driving through Sarajevo, Bosnia which was part of Austria-Hungary. They died of their wounds.

The assassination was in protest to Austria-Hungary having control of this region: Serbia wanted to take over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The assassination of Ferdinand led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. When Russia began to mobilize to defend its alliance with Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia. Thus began the expansion of the war to include all those involved in the mutual defense alliances.

The War to End All Wars

World War I saw a change in warfare, from the hand-to-hand style of older wars to the inclusion of weapons that used technology and removed the individual from close combat. The war had extremely high casualties over 15 million dead and 20 million injured. The face of warfare would never be the same again.

• Causes of World War I and the Rise of Germany
• The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, 1914
• Biography of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria
• The Causes and War Aims of World War One
• World War I Timeline: 1914, The War Begins
• World War 1: A Short Timeline Pre-1914
• The Major Alliances of World War I
• World War I: Opening Campaigns
• The First Battle of the Marne
• The Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson's Plan for Peace
• The Black Hand: Serbian Terrorists Spark WWI
• The Consequences of World War I
• Causes of World War II
• World War I's Mitteleuropa
• The Countries Involved in World War I

How Did Alliances Contribute to WW1?

The various military and political alliances, which had been agreed between certain European countries by the early twentieth century, are considered by many historians to be one of the four longterm causes of the First World War.

While the role the alliance system played in the road to war may sometimes be exaggerated, there is no doubting that the different alliances made between the major European powers prior to 1914 did play their part.

In this article, we shall attempt to define what the alliance system was, in the context of nineteenth and twentieth century Europe, and have a look at how these alliances helped cause WW1.

Alliance System Definition

The alliance system is a mutually beneficial formal agreement between two or more nations, which can be economic, political or military in nature.

In Europe, during the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, military alliances in particular were prevalent, as countries sought to defend themselves from possible aggressors close to home.

Early Examples of the Alliance System

The need for such a system was brought about from centuries of wars within Europe, culminating in the French Revolutionary Wars, at the end of the eighteenth century, and the Napoleonic Wars, in the early nineteenth century.

These battles, which involved nearly all of the countries from the continent at some point or other, consisted of an ever changing web of alliances, which became known as the Coalition Wars.

The Coalition Wars (1792 – 1815)

Encompassing both the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, the Coalition Wars were a series of seven wars undertaken by a number of different military alliances between the great European powers.

This period of super alliances, or coalitions, came about either in support of Napoleon Bonaparte, or in order to defeat him, and involved a total of twenty-seven duchies, kingdoms and empires at one time or another.

The main European powers who allied together to form the anti-French Coalitions were Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, but only Britain fought in all seven of the wars.

Following Napoleon’s defeat, European leaders worked to restore some stability on the continent. The major powers met in 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, to establish an informal system of diplomacy, in order to try and prevent any future wars or revolutions. They also set the national boundaries within Europe.

The Holy Alliance (1815)

Only a few months after the Congress of Vienna, the Holy Alliance came about at the behest of Tsar Alexander I, and consisted of a coalition between the Russian Empire, the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia.

The coalition got its name due to the fact that it was based around Tsar Alexander’s vision of instilling Christian values and the divine right of kings across European political life. Although in reality, the three monarchs in the Alliance used it to suppress any revolutionary influences from entering their kingdoms.

The Quadruple Alliance (1813 – 1815)

First formed in 1813, Austria, Prussia and Russia also joined with Great Britain to form the Quadruple Alliance.

The main goal of this alliance was to stabilise European international relations and counter any revolutionary republican threats, like those which had led to the French Revolution.  

Following the defeat of Napoleon, the alliance was formalised with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, on the 20th November 1815.

The Quintuple Alliance (1818)

In 1818, four became five at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, when France joined the Quadruple Alliance as an equal member, thus making it a Quintuple Alliance.

The main goal of the Congress was France offering to pay most of the war indemnity still owed to the allies, in exchange for the withdrawal of their armies of occupation out of France.

During the 1820s, British foreign policy went in a different direction to the other four European powers, thus weakening the alliance somewhat.

In 1822, the Quintuple Alliance met for the last time at the Congress of Verona, and the alliance was later disbanded (along with the Holy Alliance of the three original members), following the death of Tsar Alexander I, in 1825.

The First Treaty of London (1839)

The First Treaty of London, also known as the Convention of 1839, while not strictly speaking an alliance, is mentioned here given its importance in the events leading up to World War I.

The Treaty came about following the Belgians establishing an independent Kingdom of Belgium, in 1830, having reluctantly been a part of the Netherlands since 1815. The Kingdom of Belgium was now officially recognised by the co-signatories, namely Great Britain, the German Confederation (led by Prussia), Austria, France, Russia, and of course the Netherlands.

At the time, Britain insisted that the co-signatories agreed to Belgium’s neutrality, which proved to be a key point seventy-five years later, when Germany invaded Belgium, in August 1914,  and was in direct violation of the treaty, thanks to an important ‘scrap of paper’.

When German Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, was informed that Great Britain would declare war over Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality, he reportedly asked the departing British Ambassador how Britain could go to war over a mere “scrap of paper”.

League of the Three Emperors (1873)

Having taken full control of German foreign policy in 1870, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck negotiated an agreement between the Kaiser of Germany, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary and the Tsar of Russia.

The alliance saw a resurrection of the Holy Alliance of 1815 and again acted as security against rising radical sentiments, which each of the monarchs found unsettling.

Bismarck’s overriding objective was to ensure peace in Europe based on a balance of power, thus preventing any one state from gaining enough power to dominate the others. Trouble in the Balkan’s eventually undermined Russia’s commitment to the League, and it collapsed five years later, in 1878.

The Three Emperors’ League was the first in a series of alliances masterminded by the German Chancellor, whose political machinations certainly played an important part in the alliance system’s contribution to being a cause of WW1.

Splendid Isolation

After its short involvement within the Quadruple and Quintuple Alliances, Britain decided to abstain from the alliance system for most of the nineteenth century. Instead, Britain decided upon a policy of splendid isolation—a term coined by the Canadian politician, George Eulas Foster.

Indeed, for the second half of the nineteenth century, Britain sought to maintain the status quo in Europe, while protecting the trade routes to its colonies.  Perhaps the Foreign Secretary, Lord Derby, explained the country’s policy of isolation best, in a speech he made in 1866:

It is the duty of the Government of this country, placed as it is with regard to geographical position, to keep itself upon terms of goodwill with all surrounding nations, but not to entangle itself with any single or monopolising alliance with any one of them; above all to endeavour not to interfere needlessly and vexatiously with the internal affairs of any foreign country. Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby

Military Alliances Prior to WW1

A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations, which promises the defence of all of its signatories according to the terms laid out in the agreement.

A number of important military alliances were signed within Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century, which would eventually have a bearing in the lead up to the First World War.

The Dual Alliance (1879)

Part of Bismarck’s system of alliances to prevent a war in Europe, the Dual Alliance was a military alliance agreed between Germany and Austria-Hungary, in 1879.

Despite their common language and similar culture, the alliance was not necessarily seen as an obvious one at the time, and was primarily brought about due to their mutual concerns over Russia’s growing influence in the Balkans.

The terms of the treaty required each nation to support the other if one of them was attacked by Russia, but both signatories also promised benevolent neutrality to the other nation, if either was attacked by any other of the European powers.

The Triple Alliance (1882)

Having lost out to the French in its attempts to establish a colony in Northern Africa, Italy sought to secure support against France in the future. They found this support in the Triple Alliance—a formal military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.

Under the terms of the alliance, Germany and Austria-Hungary were obliged to assist Italy if attacked by France without provocation, while Italy would come to Germany’s assistance in the case where France attacked the Germans. Meanwhile, Italy promised to remain neutral if Austria-Hungary and Russia went to war.

At the time, the newly formed nation of Italy was very much seen as the weak link in this military alliance, while public opinion in Italy showed that they were not particularly happy about their alignment with Austria-Hungary, who in the recent past had been against Italian unification.

The Franco-Russian Alliance (1894)

What started out as an economic and political alliance in 1891, the Franco-Russian Alliance (also known as the Dual Alliance), became a military alliance in 1894.

France in particular pushed for a military alliance between the two countries, having felt more and more isolated following the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, agreed in the decade before.

The close of the century now saw two opposing military alliances facing off in mainland Europe.

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902)

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a military alliance between Great Britain and Japan, signed in 1902.

The terms of the agreement included a declaration of neutrality if either signatory became involved in a war related to their interests in China or Korea, as well as a promise of support if either of the signatories became involved in a war with more than one nation.

The wording of the alliance was such that although it acknowledged Japanese interests in Korea, Britain was not necessarily obliged to help Japan should a Russo-Japanese conflict arise.

The alliance was also significant in so much that it ended Britain’s splendid isolation policy, which it had largely maintained since the 1822 Congress of Verona.

Political Alliances Prior to WW1

Although strictly speaking not military alliances, the following ententes involving Great Britain were also very important in how the alliance system contributed to World War One.

The Entente Cordiale (1904)

The signing of the Entente Cordiale, between Great Britain and France, in 1904, was significant in that it marked the end of intermittent conflict between the two countries, which had hitherto taken place for the best part of a millennia.

Although considered more of a friendly agreement than a military alliance, the Entente Cordiale was still a significant departure from the modus vivendi Anglo-French relations had tentatively “enjoyed” up until then, following the defeat of Napoleon in 1815.

The Entente Cordiale was also widely seen as the first step towards an Anglo-French military alliance and it almost certainly played an important part in Britain’s thinking during the July Crisis of 1914.

The Anglo-Russian Convention (1907)

The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 (also known as the Anglo-Russian Entente) was a non-military alliance, which effectively ended the longstanding rivalry between the two countries in Central Asia.

Having spent much of the nineteenth century as enemies, the Anglo-Russian Convention went a long way to ease tensions between Britain and Russia, but was also seen as a starting point to quell Germany’s aspirations in the Middle East.

Although the Anglo-Russian Convention was not a military alliance, it was extremely important politically from an imperial standpoint, and took Germany totally off guard. Russia and France were now no longer Britain’s biggest imperial rivals abroad—that mantle now belonged to Germany.

The Triple Entente (1907)

The Triple Entente (or Triple Friendship) of 1907 was an informal agreement between France, Russia and Great Britain, and was seen as a counterweight to the Triple Alliance (between Germany, Austria-Hungry and Italy).

Unlike the Triple Alliance, or the Franco-Russian Alliance for that matter, the Triple Entente, was not actually a military alliance. However, it was still extremely significant in that Great Britain had finally abandoned its policy of neutrality on the continent and had effectively chosen a side.

It is worth noting that despite not being a formal military alliance, all three members of the Triple Entente entered the war as the Allied Powers and later agreed to only negotiate any future peace terms together as one.

How Did Alliances Lead to WW1?

We have established the web of alliances that had been created amongst the major powers in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, but how did the alliance system directly contribute towards starting the First World War?

Secret Clauses in Alliances

Although we are now aware of all the clauses, changes and renewals for each of the aforementioned alliances and ententes, that was not the case at the time, where much of the alliance system, in the half century before the war, took place in secrecy.

Many of the secret clauses only came to light following the war itself. One such clause was the clause added to the Dual Alliance, in 1910, which required Germany to directly intervene if Austro-Hungary was attacked by Russia.

And it wasn’t just clauses that were kept secret—sometimes entire treaties were hushed up. For example, the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887, which took place between Germany and Russia, was obviously a highly secret treaty, as Bismarck would not have wanted their closest ally, Austria-Hungary, knowing about it; and certainly not their most dangerous enemy, France.

The Role Alliances Played in the July Crisis

There is always the simplistic way of looking at how the alliance system led Europe to war, where Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, so Russia attacked Austria-Hungry, which led to Germany attacking Russia and then France attacking Germany, but in reality that is not quite how events unravelled during the summer of 1914.

That said, there are some key events in the July Crisis, which can justifiably be attributed to the alliance system, especially when it comes to the practicalities of mobilising armies.

One key event was when Russia only wanted to partially mobilise her army to threaten Austria-Hungary, but due to the practicalities of war, had to fully mobilise towards both Austria-Hungary and Germany. If the Dual Alliance and/or the Triple Alliance had not existed, then perhaps Russia would have risked partially mobilising, as the Tsar had initially intended.

Another key event was the fact that any mobilisation of Germany towards France was automatically an act of war, because of the Schlieffen Plan, which required the invasion of Belgium. If the Franco-Russian Alliance had not existed, then perhaps Germany would have risked partially mobilising her army to square up to Russia, which may in turn have eventually led to a cooling down through further negotiations.

Finally, it might be argued if that fateful scrap of paper had not existed and had not held Britain to honour Belgium’s neutrality, then perhaps the British might have stayed out of the war. Although, in reality, it is probably the Entente Cordiale that held more sway for Britain than the much older Treaty of London. After all, Britain did not want the possibility of a post-war Europe without any friends.

There is no doubt that the alliance system played its part in the road to war, but it is important that its role as one of the four causes of WW1 is not over exaggerated. After all, the whole point of an alliance system is to prevent war and maintain the balance of power, not to start one.

It is important to also remember that there were plenty of opportunities during the July Crisis for each of the major powers to take a step back and let peace prevail. So perhaps the alliance system was used more as an excuse to legitimise war for some of the nations involved, rather than being its major cause.

Why not check out the 4 M.A.I.N. Causes of WWI – Alliances Power Point Lesson with Speaker Notes

Test Your Knowledge with our FREE WebQuest

Now it’s time to test your knowledge of Alliances as well as the other M.A.I.N. Causes of WW1.

4 M.A.I.N. Causes of WW1

The 4 M.A.I.N. Causes of WW1 WebQuest (Student Version) – This 5 page teaching resource consists of a webquest that covers the four main longterm causes of World War One.

The webquest comprises of 5 worksheets, which contain 24 questions, as well as 4 jigsaw puzzles (with secret watermarks) and an online quiz (requiring a pass of 70% to reveal a secret phrase).

• The Main Causes of WW1

World War One  (also known as the First World War or the Great War) was arguably the most significant event of the 20th century, leading to geopolitical maps being redrawn, new nations emerging, and  communism  and  fascism  rising across  Europe . However, the causes are as important as the results, as they reveal key details about the conflict and its place in history. Therefore, investigating the contributing factors that led to the First World War is a worthwhile endeavor.

The Assassination Of The Archduke Franz Ferdinand

In 1878, following the end of the Russo-Turkish War, the Austro-Hungarian Empire occupied the previously  Ottoman -controlled  Bosnia-Herzegovina . The Empire then formally annexed Bosnia in 1908, prompting anger from the numerous different ethnic groups in the region. Serbian nationalists were particularly incensed by this incursion. Thus, with the Archduke of Austria-Hungary Franz Ferdinand scheduled to visit the capital of Sarajevo in June 1914, Young Bosnia, a particularly militant Serbian nationalist group, planned an assassination.

On June 28, at about 10:00 a.m. Nedeljko Čabrinović threw a grenade at the Archduke's motorcade, damaging the vehicles and injuring the politician. About an hour later, Gavrilo Princip, after getting lost and seemingly missing his opportunity to carry out the assassination, stumbled across the motorcade. Princip proceeded to shoot Ferdinand and his wife, killing them both and setting off a chain reaction that  resulted in Europe going to war.  

Understanding the event that started the Great War is crucial. But, comprehending  why  it was the spark plug is even more important. In other words, how did a conflict that began in the Balkans escalate into a global affair? Analyzing some longer-term factors explains why this occurred.

In 1882, motivated by anti-Russian and anti-French sentiments,  Germany , Austria-Hungary, and  Italy  formed the Triple Alliance. This alliance was made so that if one of them was attacked, the other two needed to provide military support. The French and Russians followed this with their own agreement in 1894, evolving into the Triple Entente by 1907--a three-way military alliance between the  United Kingdom ,  France , and  Russia .

Despite emerging out of a desire for stability, these alliances contributed to the exact opposite. Indeed, following the assassination of the Archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on  Serbia . Russia, a Serbian ally, then declared war on Austria-Hungary. Being part of the Triple Alliance, Germany was obligated to go to war with Russia, which then brought in the United Kingdom and France. In short, alliances were largely responsible for a regional conflict snowballing into a general European war, as they made military involvement obligatory if one's ally was attacked.

Militarism 

The late 1800s also saw increased militarism. Perhaps the most obvious example of this was the Anglo-German naval arms race. By the 1870s, Britain had the largest navy in Europe. Feeling threatened,  Kaiser Wilhelm II  began to build up Germany's maritime force. This prompted even more naval investments by the UK, leading to the creation of the Dreadnought--a new ship that far outclassed any others in Europe. It soon became clear that no matter what Germany did, its navy could not match that of the British. Nonetheless, tensions caused by such militarism undeniably contributed to the general fear of a prospective European war. Moreover, these improvements in military technologies ensured that any future conflict would be enormously destructive. 

Imperialism/Colonialism

At the 1884 Berlin Conference,  Africa  was divided between the major European powers, the most notable of which were Britain, France, and  Belgium . Despite this diplomacy, difficulties arose. For instance, Germany, not having a particularly strong foothold in Africa, wanted to weaken France's position on the continent. Therefore, on March 31, 1905, Kaiser Wilhelm II visited French-controlled  Morocco , touring the city of Tangier and declaring his support for Moroccan independence. Shortly afterward, the Moroccan Sultan rejected a series of French policies. This became known as the First Moroccan Crisis. While Germany did agree to stop interfering in French colonial business following the Algeciras Conference, the crisis resulted in a deepening of alliances, with Austria-Hungary coming to Germany's defense and Britain supporting France. In short, these imperial and colonial affairs increased divisions between the Entente and the Central Powers, contributing to a geopolitical atmosphere that made war possible.

Nationalism

In 1871, Germany and Italy unified, signifying the rise of  nationalism  across Europe. This change contributed to the perception of politics as a battle between people or races rather than political leaders, posing an existential threat to multiethnic empires like the Austria-Hungary Empire comprising Germans,  Hungarians ,  Czechs ,  Serbians ,  Croatians ,  Poles , Ruthenians, and  Romanians . Furthermore, no one group in this Empire made up the majority of the population. All this meant that the Empire was a powder keg, with different nationalities vying for power. As demonstrated by Serbian nationalists assassinating Franz Ferdinand, these often violent sentiments directly led to World War One.

The Great War occurred due to a multitude of factors. The most direct cause was the assassination of Austria-Hungary's Archduke on June 28, 1914. However, the deeper roots can be traced to alliances, militarism, imperialism, and nationalism. These elements thus culminated in one of the deadliest conflicts in world history. 

More in History

10 Deadliest Bridge Collapses In History

Emu War: Australia's Crusade Against Birds

The War of Alexander's Successors

What Killed Alexander the Great?

Where is Cleopatra's Tomb?

The Destruction Of The 7 Wonders Of The Ancient World

Best UK Destinations for Medieval Landmarks

What Was The Crisis Of The Third Century?

Home — Essay Samples — History — Imperialism — Main Causes of World War 1: Discussion

Main Causes of World War 1: Discussion

• Categories: Imperialism Nationalism

About this sample

Words: 645 |

Updated: 16 November, 2023

Words: 645 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

The essay explores the causes of World War 1, which took place from 1914 to 1918. It begins with a brief overview of the war's timeline and the major countries involved, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Japan, the United States of America, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. The essay then delves into the four main causes of the war: Militarism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Alliances.

Militarism is discussed as the policy of maintaining a strong military force and a readiness to use it aggressively for defense. The significant arms buildup and military spending by various countries, including Germany, are highlighted as contributing factors to the outbreak of the war.

Nationalism is described as the strong attachment to one's own nation and culture. It is explained how nationalism led to conflicts, including the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which triggered Austria's desire for revenge.

Imperialism, the expansion of a nation's power by dominating other countries, is presented as a factor due to the competition among European powers over control of African resources and territories.

Lastly, the essay discusses the role of Alliances, where countries formed partnerships to defend each other, often resulting in a domino effect of declarations of war.

Table of contents

• Causes of World War 1

Video Version

Causes o f world war 1, nationalism and imperialism.

A Good Hook Examples for WWI Essay

• A Glimpse into the Trenches: Step back in time and experience the chilling reality of life in the trenches of World War I. In this essay, we’ll immerse ourselves in the harrowing tales of soldiers who faced the horrors of the Great War.
• The War to End All Wars: Explore the monumental impact of World War I on global history. In this essay, we’ll dissect the events that led to the war, the key players, and the lasting consequences that continue to shape our world today.
• The Poetry of Conflict: World War I inspired a generation of poets to capture the raw emotions of battle. Join us as we analyze the powerful verses and poignant imagery that emerged from the trenches.
• Lessons from the Great War: As we commemorate the centennial of World War I, it’s crucial to reflect on the lessons learned from this catastrophic conflict. This essay delves into the war’s impact on diplomacy, technology, and the human spirit.
• Unsung Heroes of WWI: Beyond the famous generals and political leaders, there were countless unsung heroes in the Great War. In this essay, we’ll shine a light on the remarkable stories of bravery and sacrifice from the trenches to the home front.
• Strachan, H. (2014). The First World War: To Arms. Oxford University Press.
• MacMillan, M. (2013). The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. Random House.
• Fay, S. B. (1928). The Origins of the World War (Vol. 1). The Macmillan Company.
• Gildea, R. (2003). Children of the Revolution: The French, 1799-1914. Harvard University Press.
• Kennedy, P. M. (1980). The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914. Allen & Unwin.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: History Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 605 words

4 pages / 1595 words

1 pages / 405 words

2 pages / 1063 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Imperialism

Imperialism is defined as one country’s domination of the political, economic, and social life of another country. In the late 1800s, Europeans colonized countries, traded slaves, gold, and many other various resources. One of [...]

American imperialism, the expansion of the United States' influence and territory beyond its continental borders, has been a defining feature of the nation's history. From the late 19th century to the present day, the United [...]

American imperialism has had a profound impact on global affairs, shaping the course of international politics, economics, and culture. As the United States expanded its influence beyond its borders, it became a central player [...]

American imperialism, a historical phenomenon, has evolved and adapted to the changing dynamics of the modern world. In contemporary times, the United States continues to exert its influence globally, albeit through different [...]

Imperialism in Africa has had a long-lasting and devastating impact on the continent and its people. The negative effects of imperialism in Africa are far-reaching and continue to be felt to this day. From the economic [...]

Colonization in Nigeria and the Congo is one of the greatest atrocities committed by humankind. The system imposed by European powers, at its very own core, fomented all kind of abuses and violations, through policies that were [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free