The decade following the proclamation of the German Empire was marked by German diplomatic hegemony on the European continent. This is visible, for example, in the fact that the two major congresses of the period 1871-1914 took place in Berlin: that of 1878 to settle the crisis in the East and that of 1884-1885, which enacted the rules for the colonial partition of Africa between European countries. London certainly welcomed the one who settled the first Balkan war (1912-1913), but it was only of secondary importance. However, it is not this German diplomatic domination in Europe that explains the German-British rivalry. The most commonly put forward explanation lies in the economic competition between the two countries and in their colonial rivalry. However, a more objective view of things tends to show that the real importance of these two factors has been overestimated, and that the heart of the problem lay above all in the threat represented by the rise of German military potential.
In fact, the rise of Germany in the last quarter of the 19th century can be seen in a whole set of macroeconomic data. In thirty years (1870-1900), its GNP grew at an average annual rate of 4.5%, with a peak of 5.5% between 1880 and 1890, against 1.9% for Great Britain.
The heart of the antagonism between the two countries lay in the rise of Germany's military power, and, more particularly, the implementation of the naval program that William II and von Tirpitz, his admiral-in-chief, considered the indispensable tool of “world politics” (Weltpolitik) that the Kaiser assigned to his country.
Was the main cause of the First World War due to the Anglo-German rivalry?
Actually, no. That is confusing cause and effect. The real most fundamental cause of World War I was pithily summed up by the American former Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger. To wit, "The cause of World War I was that Germany was too weak to rule the world but too strong to fit securely in Europe."
Germany, located as it was - and is - in the Europe, felt perpetually insecure. It also being a fact that for much of European history since the Reformation, the Germanic states had been the playthings of bigger powers. Indeed, the 30 Years War had cost Germania (i. e. the Germanic states) about 1/3 of its population.
This left Germany feeling perpetually insecure and seeking always to dominate the continent. Against this, the other states of Europe were also seeking to secure their positions. For France, domination of the Germanic states assured its status as a great power. For Russia, a divided Germany extended Russia's buffer against France. For Italy, the game was to balance Germany and France and so free up Rome's positon on its northern border and leave it free to dominate the Mediterranean. For the UK, as an island nation, the key was to prevent a single dominant power on the continent as such power would be free to move against Britain.
Germany, set against this matrix of great power rivalries, sought to acquire colonies, in part out of prestige and in part to secure raw materials and foodstuffs from non-European sources. It then built a navy to secure its access to its (and expand its control of) an overseas empire. The name of the game still being to make Germany predominant on the continent.
The fundamental cause of the war was the Franco-Russian-German (and to a lesser extent Italian) rivalry. The British tilt to France and Russia to offset Germany, and Germany's search for colonies and a naval capacity to offset the British tilt, if what cause World War I. (Well, that and a lot of immediate miscalculations related to Germany's need to back the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Russia.)
In short, the Anglo-German rivalry was an effect of the larger strategic picture in Europe. Indeed, it is likely that if the post-Napoleonic alliance between Russia, the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had not broken down - gran that alliance had its own mass of contradictions - there would have been no Anglo-German rivalry as Berlin would not have begun looking outside Europe to secure its European position.
Of course, that is a counterfactual that there is no way to prove. However, given it was the German pursuit of a dominant position on the continent that caused Berlin to seek an overseas colonial empire and build a "blue water navy" to secure it, that led to the Anglo-German rivalry. That said, in any case, that rivalry was an effect and not a cause.
Around 1900, the various empires of Europe rivaled each other for control of Europe as well as overseas colonies. The British would tolerate Germany as the greatest land power, but when Germany tried to make itself the greatest sea power as well, it made the British very uncomfortable, and they allied themselves with France, which had a clear dislike of Germany anyway. It also didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II was an impulsive braggart, who would say and do things that alarmed the British. Wilhelm called himself the 'ruler of the Atlantic'. Someone once said that Wilhelm ruled Germany as if Germany was a huge battleship, and he was cruising this battleship at full speed all over the Atlantic. The Atlantic was a very big ocean, but one day, Wilhelm will run into something, and when he hits it, he'll hit it VERY hard.
The European countries had been drafting soldiers, forming alliances, and building their weaponry for decades, so it was just a matter of time before some spark would light the whole place up.
1
0 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
0
Opinion
10
Opinion
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I tend to think that there is more something in the German psyche for military conquest and war as a causus belli rather than macroeconomic reasons. Germany, and Prussia before that has a very long and rich military tradition. They make fantastic soldiers. They have an affinity for discipline and orderliness and approach things from a very methodical manner—especially war. Before men like Rommel and Erich Hartmaan there were men such as von Moltke and Richthofen, and before that men like Frederick the Great. And waaay before that Frederick Barbarossa. God don’t even get me started on the historical crazy fencing/dueling clubs in German colleges where they used real swords.
They just are a people who like a “good” war and they are very good at it. These are all stereotypes of course, I’m well aware, but I tend to think there is truth in stereotypes. Besides, their country’s history speaks for itself.
Yes, but getting pummeled by Napoleon and other powers around them did not help either. To say nothing of the Reformation and the resulting wars that ravaged the German peoples. Perhaps they became militaristic as a defensive reaction? History is more tragedy than it is melodrama.
Read the book "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War". It's fascinating and well documented. A tiny handful of Anglocentric British elites, including Cecil Rhodes (and funded by Nathaniel Rothschild), were 100% responsible for the 20 million deaths and 20 million casualties, merely because they saw Germany as a rising competitor to British dominance in trade.
Yah, and did they have a point? Bismarck understood that Germany was a land power predominantly in Europe, and Britain was content with that as it could then focus upon its overseas Empire, which it was even willing to some extent to share and make deals with France, Japan, the USA, and even Germany (see Tanganyika) . Nightdrot stated it better than I could, but Willy II should have understood Bismarck's astute Realpolitik and left well enough alone. We might still live in a saner and less fragmented world today had Willy done so.
@Curmudgeon. If you're interested in actual history, read the book. A handful of British aristocrats conspired to start the war. The facts have been concealed. Germany had done absolutely nothing to instigate the conflict and was clueless about the plot.
There is a movie called 37 days. I actually have a copy. In all honesty, the causes are many. I do think the "trigger" was an act of terrorism that was used as an excuse to deploy troops.
Well, @Julie4 seems to be the age to be making a dissertation. I wish her the best in her future as a history prof, I know we need real ones and not ones driven by discredited ideologies.
@Curmudgeon Thank you very much sir. In reality I stopped my studies quite young, but I am passionate about history and politics therefore I have a lot of books on these subjects, we formed as we can.
