by Gomez Gomez

Created on: February 10, 2010

             The late 19th century revival of German militarism did not cause World War One. Kaiser Wilhelm’s aggressive ‘weltpolitik’ policies did contribute to numerous international crises that polarised Europe, eventually spawning the two armed camps that clashed in World War One. However, because militarism, referring to a situation where the military and its utilisation were of paramount importance to the state, was so widespread at the time, other nations also contributed to these crises, absolving Germany of blame for them. Germany could also arguably be implicated in the short-term escalation of the war, due to its unequivocal support for Austria-Hungary's aggression and seemingly unprovoked attacks on Belgium and France. However this contention is also invalid, since the conflict instead escalated due to pivotal miscalculations by the belligerents.

          Germany and its antecedent, the Prussian Empire, both had strong militaristic traditions and historic inclinations towards provoking armed conflict. One British intellectual, for instance, was astonished by contemporary German society's inherent fascination with war, noting that there were “nearly seven hundred books" dealing with the subject published annually there, compared to “twenty” in Britain. [3]

       

              However, Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor between 1871-1890, pursued Germany’s foreign policy aims diplomatically, using an intricate system of alliances to restrain his enemies and supporters from lapsing into war. [7] Realpolitik’s success negated the requirement for Germany to fulfill its goals, like restraining France, militarily. A continuation of `realpolitik’ might therefore have postponed or even averted the war, given Germany's central role in it, but in 1890 the brash new Kaiser, Wilhelm, dismissed Bismarck, ushering in a period of militaristic German brinkmanship.

                Forceful German foreign policy continued under Wilhelm, but the military superseded diplomacy as its means of implementation. While Bismarck had relied primarily on intricate diplomatic maneuvering, his successor Kaiser Wilhelm recklessly invoked military

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>