Introduction
The Great war, which is commonly referred to as WWI, is among the conflicts that characterize Europe’s long and varied history. The war caused enormous havoc in Europe as a result of new technology and the absolute continental forces’ mobilization and imperial stances. Accordingly, this naive dedication and buildup of militaries is the reason why World War I, like all earlier wars, persisted for a long time. This makes many ponder after the war whether there was any point to a struggle that had resulted in so much killing and ruin. Against the background, the aim of this essay is to describe the inevitability of the Great War by looking at whether or not it could have been avoided. Examining the devastating loss of lives and ruin associated with the Great War, it could be argued that the entangling alliances, rapacious imperialism, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination were the underlying causes of the war, which made it inevitable.
The Great War
Alliances between countries as they went at odds against each other in need of power for self-defense aided the inevitability of the great war. Hence, the need for states to protect their territories resulted in alliances coming into play; governments could pursue refuge from others by forging agreements with close allies (Merriman 874). In most aspects, having a truce proved advantageous since it gave the impression of being a larger force and afforded an additional source of help in the wake of a debilitating incident. However, the alliances exacerbated tensions between the nations, which only worsened. For instance, none of Europe’s territorial conflicts was as threatening as the one between Austria-Hungary and Russia, which was centered in the Balkans (Merriman 874). In the process, Russia stoked the fires of Pan-Slavism as part of its longer-term objective of expanding its dominance in the Balkans. On the other end, South Slavic citizens turned to Russia as the guardian of all Slavs, exerting pressure on the Habsburg Empire. The alliances’ formation was prompted by the need to defend states and their associates, and this was a trigger for the inevitability of the conflict. “Germany and Austria-Hungary became firm allies, with their alliance directed, above all, against Russia,” Merriman writes (874). The quotation demonstrates that the alliance structure and global powers’ armed buildup had a significant influence in laying the environment for conflict escalation. Furthermore, in 1882, Italy formed the Triple Alliance with the two Central European nations. By 1905, increasing economic and army rivalry between Britain and Germany had pressed Britain and France, Europe’s oldest opponents, closer as the UK, France, and Russia founded the Triple Entente. The aftermath was that the major European powers were now split into two warring factions as a result of this network of entangled alliances. Due to this new alliance arrangement, any conflict between two competitors risked engulfing all of Europe’s powers in the war.
The emerging imperialism, characterized by Europe’s drive for stability and dominance during an era marked by militant nationalism and severe global conflicts, also played a role in the WWI inevitability. With imperialism, states were always at odds with one another over influence and territory (Merriman 828). This just added to the already high animosity levels between the countries. For instance, by 1914, the global political situation had been dictated by the acute aggravation of the major imperialist paradoxes: Russian-German, Russian-Austrian, Anglo-German, French-German, and others. Merriman notes, “aggressive nationalism shaped the contours of the new European imperialism from the early 1880s to 1914″(867). This suggests that global rivalry was the primary motivation for imperialism. Even in Great Britain’s case, the imperialist country with the highest economic investment in territories. Not only did Britain extend its dominance into new colonies in quest of growing markets, but it also did so to prevent the French, Russians, and Germans from building colonies and bases that may pose a danger to British dominance (Merriman 864). The pursuit of Britain’s ambitions in Egypt, which kickstarted the African land invasion, was motivated by fear of rivalry from competitors rather than financial concerns. Between 1871-and 1900, the British Empire reached sixty-six million individuals and stretched 3.5 million miles square, while the French Territory grew to 3.5 million miles square and Italy, Belgium, and Germany each grew to roughly a million miles square (Merriman 866). In the aggressive colonialism era, France and Britain drew 40% of all global borders that exist today, while Spain’s rulers established new territories in the Western Sahara and Morocco (Merriman 866). Imperialism heightened superpower conflicts while fortifying global alliances. Following the 1898 Fashoda Affair, France and Britain approached the war due to rival colonial ambitions. The scale of succeeding crises grew significantly larger. These problems would resist negotiated settlement because they were imbued with a similar conflict mood that appeared to overwhelm Europe. Tensions between the states existed even before WWI, and they were only going to worsen, making the war inevitable.
Because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was opposed to the European conflict, WWI became inevitable, thereby thrusting the globe into the war. Merriman writes, “the catastrophic conflagration was set off by a spark—the assassination of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist on June 28, 1914” (874). Thus, Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s killing by Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip in late June 1914 kicked off a chain of war pronouncements across Europe, thrusting the globe into one of the bloodiest conflicts (Merriman 890). In less than a month after the assassination, the decades-old entangled alliances’ system that intertwined their fates led to overwhelming wars among the European power. Whereas these associations did not create an inevitable general European war—the circumstances in Europe appeared even more fragile in 1905 and 1911 than it was in 1914 before the assassination. As a result, the majority of national leaders, military strategists, and diplomats predicted a big conflict in their lifetimes. The adamant opposition to war by Archduke Francis Ferdinand and the Hungarian leaders within Austria-Hungary, whose efforts had aided in defusing the crisis, would have assisted in averting the war. Their predictions were that war would not just be costly, but a win would have brought a significant South Slavic populace (from Serbia) to Hungary (Merriman 886). Moreover, despite diplomatic bravado, Russia was unprepared for combat over the Balkans, and its associate France was hesitant to venture into a conflict in which it had no interest. Thus, Russia backpedaled due to lacking British or French backing, compelling Serbia to acknowledge the Austro-Hungarian Herzegovina and Bosnia annexation. Additionally, Austria-Hungary compensated Turkey financially for conceding the Herzegovina and Bosnia loss as a result of German coercion (Merriman 886). Although the war was avoided, the European countries learned important lessons from the Bosnian Conflict. At the time of Archduke’s assassination, things appeared to be improving. During that moment, the Moroccan Crisis had been resolved, the Germans and French had reached a deal on the Rhine River, and there was a fiesta held by the German Navy, which hosted the British Navy at Kiel Week (Merriman 887). Also, there were structural factors at play, such as the emergence of Balkan nationalism, alliance structures, and the longer-term ground weaponry and a naval arms race. Whereas all of this was happening in the shadows, it did not seem that there was much concern about a worldwide war in 1914 summer. Even weeks after the killing, the British and French press dubbed it “the Balkan problem” and they did not anticipate this to be a global war. The Great War, on the other hand, did not commence until a month after Ferdinand’s killing, and while emotions ran high, the war was not inevitable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, examining the Great War, it could be argued that the alarming alliances, rapacious imperialism, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination were the underlying causes of the war that made it inevitable. All of these factors exacerbated the tensions between European states, ensuring that a conflict would erupt sooner or later. In particular, the alliances did not just aid in the war’s outset, but they also aided in the prolongation and expansion of the fight; serious political disagreements would undoubtedly result in a massive battle. Because different nations were war participants and all of them contributed to the circumstances preceding and following the war, whether deliberately or inadvertently, the guilt for WWI cannot be placed only on one nation.
Work Cited
Merriman, John M. A History of Modern Europe: From the French Revolution to the Present. 3rd ed., W W Norton & Company, 2010.