The early 20th century witnessed rising nationalism, militarism, and crises that destabilised Europe and laid the groundwork for conflict among the Great Powers.
Balkan Nationalism and the Threat to Empires
The Growth of Balkan Nationalism
Balkan nationalism emerged as a potent force threatening the stability of empires controlling the region, especially Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
Background: The Balkans were home to numerous Slavic peoples seeking independence from foreign rule.
Key Nationalist Groups: Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Romanians challenged Ottoman authority and inspired separatist movements.
Role of Serbia: Serbia, having gained independence in the 19th century, positioned itself as the leader of Slavic nationalism, supporting Slavic minorities in neighbouring empires.
Threat to Austria-Hungary
Ethnic Diversity: Austria-Hungary contained large Slavic populations, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Galicia.
Destabilising Factor: Slavic nationalism encouraged internal dissent and separatist aspirations, weakening imperial cohesion.
Serbian Influence: Serbia’s support for pan-Slavic ambitions intensified the threat, fuelling Austria-Hungary’s fears of losing territory and prestige.
Impact on the Ottoman Empire
Declining Control: The Ottomans struggled to maintain authority over Balkan provinces, facing revolts and wars of independence.
Loss of Territories: By the early 20th century, the Ottoman grip on the Balkans had significantly weakened, encouraging local nationalist uprisings.
International Repercussions: The power vacuum created opportunities for Great Power intervention, further complicating regional stability.
German Militarism and the Military Elite
The German Military Elite in the Second Reich
The Second Reich (German Empire, 1871–1918) was notable for the profound influence of its military elite on domestic and foreign policy.
Prussian Legacy: Germany’s military culture stemmed from Prussian traditions, glorifying discipline, hierarchy, and obedience.
Dominance in Government: Senior military leaders such as the Kaiser, generals, and the General Staff wielded immense power, often overshadowing civilian authorities.
Role of the General Staff: The German General Staff was a professional, highly influential body responsible for strategic planning and military readiness.
Militarism and Its Political Impact
Social Status: The officer corps enjoyed high social status, reinforcing militarism as an ideal in society.
Policy Influence: Military priorities often dictated foreign policy decisions, encouraging aggressive stances and arms expansion.
Public Sentiment: Propaganda and national pride cultivated widespread public support for military strength and preparedness.
The Arms Race and Naval Competition
The Land Arms Race
The turn of the century saw a competitive build-up of military forces among European powers.
Expansion: Germany and France significantly increased the size of their standing armies.
Technological Advances: New artillery, rifles, and transport infrastructure enhanced the capacity for rapid mobilisation.
Conscription: Universal conscription systems ensured vast reserves of trained soldiers.
The Naval Race: Britain vs Germany
Naval power became a crucial element of national security and prestige, leading to intense rivalry, especially between Britain and Germany.
Britain’s Naval Supremacy: The Royal Navy adhered to the ‘Two-Power Standard’ — maintaining a fleet larger than the next two navies combined.
Germany’s Naval Ambitions: Under Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany embarked on a naval expansion programme to challenge British dominance.
Dreadnought Revolution: The launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 revolutionised battleship design, prompting an arms race for similar advanced ships.
Escalation: By 1911, Germany had built several dreadnoughts, but Britain remained ahead due to superior shipbuilding capacity and public support.
Political Consequences
Strained Relations: The naval race heightened Anglo-German tensions and fostered mutual distrust.
Financial Burden: Massive spending on fleets placed strains on national budgets and fuelled public debate about priorities.
Alliance Dynamics: Britain’s rivalry with Germany encouraged closer ties with France and Russia, deepening divisions in Europe.
Key Military Plans
The Schlieffen Plan (Germany)
Origin: Devised by Count Alfred von Schlieffen, Chief of the German General Staff (1891–1906).
Objective: Avoid fighting a prolonged two-front war against France and Russia by swiftly defeating France before turning east.
Strategy: A massive right-wing sweep through neutral Belgium into northern France, encircling Paris and forcing surrender.
Flaws: Underestimated Belgian resistance, British intervention, and logistical challenges.
Plan XVII (France)
Developed by: French General Staff in the early 20th century.
Purpose: Regain lost provinces of Alsace-Lorraine, boost morale, and counter German offensives.
Assumptions: Relied on French offensive spirit (élan vital) and rapid advances into German-held territory.
Weaknesses: Neglected defensive contingencies and underestimated German strength and strategy.
Russian Mobilisation Plans
Dual Threat: Russia prepared for conflicts against both Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Scale: Given Russia’s vast territory and underdeveloped railways, mobilisation required substantial time.
Reorganisation: Early 20th-century reforms aimed to modernise the army and accelerate troop deployments.
Risks: Partial mobilisation could provoke full-scale conflict; full mobilisation was hard to reverse, escalating crises quickly.
Influence of Military Leadership in Politics
Rise of the ‘Militarised State’
As European powers modernised their armies and navies, military leaders gained increasing sway over political decisions.
Policy Advice: Generals and admirals often advised monarchs and prime ministers, shaping diplomatic strategies.
Public Prestige: Successful military leaders commanded public admiration, translating to political leverage.
Crisis Management: In times of international tension, governments frequently deferred to military expertise, marginalising civilian oversight.
Germany’s Example
Kaiser Wilhelm II: Actively promoted militaristic values and deferred to military advisers like Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee and later Helmuth von Moltke the Younger.
Civil-Military Tensions: Civilian ministers sometimes clashed with generals over aggressive policies but rarely overruled them.
Austria-Hungary and Russia
Austria-Hungary: The Austro-Hungarian military leadership, notably Chief of Staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, pushed for pre-emptive strikes and harsh measures in the Balkans.
Russia: Russian generals exerted significant influence over foreign policy, advocating strong responses to Balkan crises and promoting mobilisation plans that risked wider war.
Broader European Pattern
Militarised Society: The glorification of military virtues permeated education and popular culture.
Impact on Crises: The dominance of military thinking made diplomatic compromise less likely during disputes, contributing to a climate of suspicion and brinkmanship.
Legacy: By 1911, the entrenchment of military influence within politics set the stage for decisions that would escalate regional tensions into global conflict.
These factors collectively illustrate how the interplay of nationalism, militarism, and strategic planning led to an unstable international system, prone to crises and ultimately war.
FAQ
The early 20th century saw the rapid growth of mass newspapers and an increasingly literate public eager for news about international affairs. Sensationalist journalism, often referred to as ‘yellow press’, played a major role in stoking nationalist sentiments and encouraging support for militaristic policies. For example, newspapers in Britain and Germany frequently published alarmist stories about the naval race, exaggerating threats and pressuring governments to outdo each other in shipbuilding. In the Balkans, local press outlets circulated nationalist propaganda that deepened ethnic divisions and emboldened separatist movements. Public rallies and political debates reflected this media influence, as leaders felt compelled to adopt firmer stances during crises to satisfy national pride and avoid appearing weak. This environment limited diplomatic flexibility, as backing down in a crisis could be portrayed as betrayal by an increasingly vocal press and electorate. Overall, the press amplified rivalries and made European politics more reactive and volatile during this period.
Large-scale military exercises became increasingly common among the European powers as they sought to test mobilisation systems and demonstrate strength to rivals. These manoeuvres often occurred near contested borders, making neighbours uneasy and prompting reciprocal shows of force. For instance, Germany held significant army drills near the French border, while Russia conducted expansive training near Austria-Hungary and German frontiers. Such displays reassured domestic audiences of military readiness but simultaneously alarmed other states, fuelling suspicions of premeditated aggression. These manoeuvres provided practical training for executing key military plans like the Schlieffen Plan and tested the logistics of rapid mobilisation. However, they also made accidental clashes or misunderstandings more likely, as intelligence networks reported enemy activities, sometimes inaccurately, escalating diplomatic tensions. Furthermore, the frequency of these exercises entrenched a mindset among military planners that war was inevitable and that any crisis could trigger immediate hostilities, encouraging pre-emptive strategies over diplomatic solutions.
Germany’s rapid industrialisation after 1871 created a powerful economy that supported significant investment in armaments and naval expansion. Heavy industries like steel and coal benefited from government contracts linked to rearmament programmes, fostering close ties between industrialists and the military elite. This military-industrial relationship strengthened lobbying for larger defence budgets and new weapons technologies. Socially, military service was a rite of passage for many young men, instilling national pride and reinforcing respect for authority. The aristocratic Junker class, dominant in the Prussian officer corps, wielded considerable influence in parliament, often outmanoeuvring liberal politicians who favoured civilian oversight. Economic prosperity also allowed the government to placate workers’ demands with social reforms while keeping nationalism high through patriotic campaigns and military parades. Popular militaristic youth organisations, such as cadet corps and sports clubs with military drills, ensured that pro-army sentiment permeated society. Altogether, these intertwined economic and social conditions solidified Germany’s culture of militarism before 1911.
Technological innovations fundamentally changed military thinking in the decades before the First World War. Rapid-firing artillery, machine guns, and more accurate rifles made traditional frontal assaults increasingly costly, yet offensive doctrines still dominated strategic thinking. Armies invested heavily in railway networks to enable swift troop deployment, a critical component of plans like Germany’s Schlieffen Plan and Russia’s mobilisation strategies. Innovations in communication, such as telegraphy, improved coordination but also demanded detailed pre-planning, making last-minute diplomatic solutions difficult once mobilisation began. Fortifications evolved to withstand modern siege weapons, prompting armies to develop powerful heavy artillery to break them. These advances fed an arms race not just in numbers but in sophistication, compelling rival states to match each other’s innovations or risk strategic inferiority. Consequently, military planners developed complex timetables that required precise execution, and the fear of being outpaced by an enemy’s mobilisation pushed European powers towards rigid, offensive-minded doctrines that made crises more prone to escalate into war.
Education systems across Europe increasingly emphasised patriotic and militaristic values in the decades leading to 1911. In Germany, school curricula highlighted the glory of the Prussian military tradition and framed national unity as safeguarded by armed strength. History lessons often celebrated past military victories, creating a narrative that war was honourable and sometimes necessary for national greatness. Textbooks reinforced loyalty to the Kaiser and the fatherland, discouraging dissent and promoting obedience. Outside formal education, youth organisations like Germany’s Kriegervereine (warrior clubs) and paramilitary scouting groups engaged boys in drills, rifle practice, and marches, preparing them mentally and physically for future military service. Public monuments, military parades, and veterans’ associations further celebrated martial values, embedding them in community life. Newspapers and patriotic literature romanticised soldiers and battles, shaping public expectations about glory and sacrifice. Together, these educational and cultural tools normalised the idea that militarism was a civic duty, ensuring that each generation internalised values that supported aggressive national policies and made societies more accepting of crisis politics.
Practice Questions
Explain how Balkan nationalism contributed to instability in Europe between 1900 and 1911.
Balkan nationalism threatened both the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary by encouraging separatist movements among Slavic populations. Serbia emerged as a vocal supporter of Slavic independence, promoting unrest within neighbouring territories, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina. This undermined Austria-Hungary’s internal stability and provoked its leadership to adopt a more aggressive stance. The power vacuum left by declining Ottoman control intensified rivalries between Great Powers vying for influence in the region. Consequently, Balkan crises created repeated diplomatic tensions, deepened mistrust among European states, and laid the groundwork for future conflicts, destabilising Europe in the years leading up to the First World War.
Assess the significance of militarism in shaping European diplomacy and politics before 1911.
Militarism deeply influenced European politics, especially in Germany where the military elite shaped national policy and foreign relations. The prestige of the army and navy created a political culture that prioritised military expansion and readiness for war. The arms race and naval competition between Britain and Germany exacerbated tensions and drove alliance formations. Military leaders often overshadowed civilian politicians, pushing aggressive plans like the Schlieffen Plan and encouraging confrontational diplomacy during crises. As a result, decisions were increasingly made with military considerations in mind, reducing the scope for peaceful negotiation and entrenching a climate of suspicion and hostility.
