The Great War: The Sidney Bradshaw Fay Thesis Personal Response

The selection Origins of The World War by Sidney Bradshaw Fay explains about the underlying causes of World War I as well as how Germany and its allies should not be the ones solely responsible for starting the war. Sidney rather insists that the war was not caused by a single power but was a collective blame between the Central and Entente Powers and that the major European Powers did not even want to start a war in the first place. While it can be agreed that Germany and its allies should not have been held solely responsible for starting the First World War, it is not true to say that the European Powers did not want to start or wanted to avoid a war in the first place. The selection on Sidneys thesis as well as the past history of tensions between the Great European Powers will further prove this. In the selection of Sidney Bradshaw Fays thesis, it claims that none of the Major Powers wanted a European conflict to arise and the politicians such as Nikola P. Pai, Count Leopold Berchtold, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, Sergei Dmitrievich Sazonov, Raymond Poincar, Marquis di San Giuliano and Sir Edward Grey were unable to foresee such a disaster from their results of failure and miscommunications between each other. Sidney goes on to explain that the achievement of various desired advantages for each country that could have been gained throughout the First World War were sporadically thought of on the very outbreak of the war and was not deliberately planned on by countries to bring about a war to secure these advantages. Through this example it is assumed to the reader that there were no tensions between countries before the events leading to World War I and that these desired advantages were never planned of beforehand. Because of this, Sidney claims that the countries adapted to the present situations into their favor even though they were trying to avoid a European war in the first place. Further into the thesis, it is explained that securing the advantages for countries like Austria and Serbia, could have been achieved without the need of a European War. It is claimed that Nikola P. Pai, prime minister of the Kingdom of Serbia, was aware of the fact that there would have been a better chance for Serbian national unity after strengthening Serbian gains in the Balkan Wars and after Russia had finished completing their military in 1917. It is also claimed that Count Leopold Berchtold, an Austro-Hungarian Imperial Foreign Minister, was at a better position in crushing the Serbian threat and increasing Austrias influence by avoiding Russian contact and a Great European War in general. Out of these opportunities, a war broke out nevertheless because of the actions of political and military leaders that led to the mobilizations and declaration of war as well as their own failure to do certain things to prevent such from happening. Through these actions, it is concluded that the accountability of the war was a divided responsibility among the respected European countries and the dictum that Germany and their allies were completely responsible for the war, as stated in the Treaty of Versailles, is an incomplete and false statement instigated under the influence of ignorance, hatred and propagandist misconceptions from the victors of the war. After that, Sidney goes on to make

key points of the mistakes made by each country as well as reflects upon the countrys point of view in the actions taken in response to the various situations imposed on them from other countries. Some of these key points included were of Serbias failure in warning Austria beforehand of the assassination plot as some members of the Serbian cabinet knew the plot in advance but did not prevent it from happening, therefore implying that Serbia was responsible in this part of poor communication. From this, Serbia tried to mobilize its army before even trying to appease Austrias demands. Another key point of failure mentioned was on Austrias part where Berchtold, fearing the downfall of its own country, deliberately designed the ultimatum to be immediately rejected by Serbia from its outlandish demands. Through this he hoped to have started a local war only, where it would end swiftly without the involvement of other European Powers. Berchtolds gamble failed drastically and eventually dragged the other European Powers into the war, thus accounting a failure on Austrias part. However this gamble was not done alone in vain but of the reassurance that Germany would fulfill Austrias request in the time of need as part of the alliance between them, even though Germany did not want to start a European War and even tried to make peaceful terms with the Entente Powers from Sidneys point of view. This alone forced Germany to share Austrias accountability of its failures, which theoretically refers to Germanys innocence and lack of interest in having a war. Other points in the thesis included Germans disadvantageous geological position between France and Russia, Russias responsibility in encouraging the Serbian people that their unity through nationalism would be achieved with assistance at Austrian expense, Russias secret military preparedness measures taken and general mobilization which alarmed Germany and Austria, French President Poincars failure to not attempt to contain Russias military actions, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Greys failure to confirm, before the German invasion of Belgium, their acceptance to aid France and Russia or remain neutral and finally Belgiums innocence throughout the war. All of these points made throughout the thesis thoroughly explain that the responsibility of the war was divided among the European powers in the first place from miscommunication as well as mistakes and was not only limited to the fault of Germany and its allies. Although it may prove their rightful innocence in relation to the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, it does not account for the fact that both the Entente and Central Powers were not going to end up having a war somehow. Even if there was no assassination, a war would likely still outbreak between these powers through other situations or sparks. Although Sidneys thesis was correct on the part of the shared responsibility of the war between the Entente and Central Powers, it is controversial or more so incorrect to think that the European countries were not wanting or going to start a war eventually. Past tensions between countries through nationalism, economic rivalry, the arms race and the alliance system as well as fear and suspicions among the nations will show that it has been implied that war was necessary in the twentieth century. Nationalism, an intense feeling of loyalty to a nation, was positive at first among the people living in a nation but as the twentieth century dawned, people were beginning to feel superiority over other nations and became more hostile towards them. The growing popularity of nationalism to the people was generally beginning to adopt the ideology

that war was necessary to test the strength and worth of one nations superiority. The French region of Alsace-Lorraine that was surrendered by the French in 1871 to the German people proved this ideology because there was often hatred surrounding the area from the French population as the Germans controlled the area. This in turn encouraged French nationalism and anti-German attitudes. Through this form of nationalism, France tried to recover its pride and prestige by joining the race on acquiring an empire through imperialistic methods. German nationalism was spawned by politics, economics as well as the desire to become an imperial power too from its growing competition in the markets. However they were too late in joining the quest for acquiring colonies as France and Britain and other European powers had already set distant empires in most desirable territories. In their point of view, Britain and France were working together to keep Germany from expanding, causing tensions to arise between these countries. In Austria-Hungary ethnic nationalism, a form of nationalism based on a particular religion, linguistic, or cultural identity, dominated the empire and was tearing it apart as it contained many nationalities such as the Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, Czechs and Poles. All of these nationalities created conflict and local wars in the Balkan regions in determining on which nationality was more dominant or superior. Russia took the opportunity to increase its influence over the people by encouraging the unification of the Slavic people in the Balkans and creating the movement of Pan-Slavism. Not only was Russia trying to increase its influence to the Balkan regions, but it was also ambitious in trying to gain access to the Dardanelles in order to help with the shipping of merchandise. Meanwhile in Britain, people there believed in a Pax Britannia, or British peace, in order to make the world a more proper place. As a very large world power the British people were very proud of their achievement and gained a sense of nobility through this, which is the reason why many young men enlisted in the army. However British leaders were suspicious of competition from other nations like Germany and Japan, as their expansion programs lead to a threat towards the status of the British Empire. Economic rivalry has also fueled tensions among the nations as Germanys growing economic strength had been competing against Britains current economic status at that time. Ever since Germanys unification and the gain of Alsace-Lorraine, the German people had been able to build up their economic structure quickly and gain a competitive status. By 1914, the German people were producing steel twice as much more than the British. On top of that, the German people had a great education system that relied heavily on science and technology. All of this caused Germanys economy to flourish while France and the British Empire lagged behind thereby causing more tensions through economic competition. The arms race has also been a major factor in causing past tensions to arise between the British Empire and Germany to the point where it made it an overwhelming possibility for war to occur when these two countries have been competing to have military superiority over each other through the sheer size of weaponry and military forces. Kaiser Wilhelm II, the new German monarch at the time, wanted to extend German influence as far as he can. Kaiser wanted to have an economic and military power comparable to that of Britain. Britain already fearing such a thing, embarked on large-scale armament programs such as expanding their heavily relied navy in the naval arms race against Germany. At that point in

time, it can be seen that Germany had become an increasingly posing threat to Britains struggle in maintaining their status quo and forced them to even make alliances with their former rivals like France and Russia in 1907. This led to the system of alliances where Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary and Italy known as the Triple Alliance and Russia, cast aside by Germany trailing off from the secret Reinsurance Treaty where both countries were agreed to remain neutral if the other was being attacked from another power, was allied with Great Britain and France known as the Triple Entente (Entente meaning an understanding between each country). From the events of nationalism leading to the events of the system of alliances, it is clearly shown that there was already a very large amount of past tensions created from the history of these events and that the possibility of having a war between these European Powers was highly likely even before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. His assassination was nothing but a spark in lighting the gunpowder to explode. As seen through the extensive amount of research made and explained in Sidney Bradshaw Fays Thesis, it can be clearly seen that the responsibility of the First World War was not of only Germany and its allies fault but was a collective share of blame between the Central and Entente Powers through their miscommunications between each other and mistakes. Although this may be agreed it cannot personally be agreed upon the opinion that the European Powers did not want a war to happen or could even avoid from the thought of war happening. The past tensions between these powers evidently shows that there was already a buildup of competition and superiority between these nations and therefore shows that it cannot be implied that nobody wanted or did not expect a war to happen. After all, why would the world commit such mass killings on the account of the death of only two people?