The Roads to World War I: Crash Course European History #32

Summary

In this episode of Crash Course European History, John Green explores the complex causes leading to World War I. Initially attributed to political factors like alliances, nationalism, and militarization, modern historians now emphasize broader social and cultural shifts. The episode examines the impact of scientific advances, changing family structures, ethnic tensions, and colonial violence. It highlights the fragility of European peace, the rise of militarism, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as the spark that ignited the conflict. Ultimately, it was many interconnected decisions, not a single event, that led Europe into war.

Takeaways

• ⚔️ The causes of World War I are complex, including alliances, militarization, and social and cultural changes in Europe.
• 💥 Europe was already experiencing tensions and violence before 1914, including strikes, assassinations, and ethnic violence.
• 🇫🇷 The Dreyfus Affair highlighted growing anti-Semitism and social divisions within France.
• 🌍 Colonial conflicts, such as the Herero genocide and the Boer War, also contributed to global tensions.
• 🛡️ Alliances like the Dual Alliance, Triple Alliance, and Triple Entente were designed to prevent war but instead created rival blocs.
• 🚢 Militarization, especially the naval arms race with Dreadnought battleships, increased tensions and pressure for war.
• 📖 Nationalism in the Balkans fueled local wars and rebellions against Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule.
• 🔫 Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a key trigger, but assassination was not uncommon in this era.
• 🌍 European empires were constantly at war or involved in violent conflicts, both in Europe and in their colonies.
• 🧠 The path to war involved many decisions by multiple actors, including misinformation, nationalism, and militarization, rather than a single cause.

Q & A

What were the traditional causes of World War I according to older historical perspectives?

The traditional causes of World War I included the alliance system, arms build-up, secret treaties, nationalism, and imperialism, which were decisions made by political leaders.

How have modern historians changed the narrative of the causes of World War I?

Modern historians focus on social and cultural changes at the turn of the century, emphasizing how shifting family structures, scientific advancements, gender role disruptions, economic changes, and broader social tensions contributed to unrest and paved the way for war.

How did the Dreyfus Affair contribute to tensions in Europe before World War I?

The Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jewish officer in the French army was wrongfully convicted of espionage, intensified anti-Semitism and led to deep divisions within French society. Despite evidence of his innocence, the case fueled public anger, family quarrels, and violence.

Why were various ethnic and colonial uprisings significant in pre-World War I Europe?

Uprisings such as those in South Africa, Vietnam, and the Boxer Rebellion in China indicated growing resentment toward imperial powers. These rebellions highlighted the broader context of global instability, which mirrored the tensions within Europe itself.

What was Otto von Bismarck’s approach to maintaining peace in Europe?

Bismarck sought to maintain peace through a complex alliance system. He formed the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria in 1879, added Italy to create the Triple Alliance in 1882, and signed a Reinsurance Treaty with Russia to prevent war.

How did Kaiser Wilhelm II’s policies differ from Bismarck’s, and what were the consequences?

Kaiser Wilhelm II abandoned Bismarck’s cautious diplomacy, canceled the treaty with Russia, and sought global expansion for Germany. His erratic leadership, militaristic ambitions, and focus on public image led to increased tensions with other powers, including Russia and Britain.

Why did the Balkan Wars contribute to the lead-up to World War I?

The Balkan Wars (1912-1913) saw Balkan states fighting the Ottoman Empire and later each other over territory. Serbia's gains alarmed Austria-Hungary, fearing the rise of Slavic nationalism, while Germany spread anti-Slavic propaganda, heightening regional tensions.

Who was Gavrilo Princip, and why was his assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand significant?

Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian nationalist who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo in 1914. This assassination set off a chain reaction of diplomatic and military actions that led to the outbreak of World War I.

How did militarization and arms build-up contribute to the inevitability of World War I?

European powers were building massive standing armies and stockpiling weapons, including the costly Dreadnought battleships. The competition for military supremacy, fueled by propaganda and public pressure, made war seem inevitable and imminent.

What role did misinformation and propaganda play in increasing tensions before World War I?

Misinformation and propaganda, such as exaggerated stories about the threat posed by Slavic nations or calls for more battleships, created an atmosphere of fear and polarization, contributing to a climate that made conflict more likely.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 The Complex Causes Leading to World War I

The introduction discusses how World War I was once explained through a set of specific causes such as alliances, arms build-up, and nationalism. However, modern historians see a more complex path, one shaped by social and cultural changes at the turn of the century. Issues like family structure shifts, paradigm changes in science, evolving gender roles, and economic advances created widespread tensions, fear, and disorientation, echoing the turmoil seen in contemporary times. The period before the war was already violent, with strikes, assassinations, and ethnic tensions becoming common.

05:03

⚔️ A World Already at War

The script describes how Europe was already experiencing significant conflict before 1914. Strikes and assassinations were frequent, with ethnic and national tensions running high. The infamous Dreyfus Affair in France amplified antisemitism, while other regions like Ireland were on the brink of civil war. Colonial atrocities were widespread, such as the German massacre of the Herero people in Africa. Rebellions in places like South Africa, South Asia, and China further contributed to global unrest, leading many to believe the world was already at war before World War I officially began.

10:07

🌐 The Fragile Web of Alliances in Europe

The section focuses on the development of alliances in Europe, initially aimed at preventing wars. Otto von Bismarck created a complex system of treaties to secure peace, but this changed when Kaiser Wilhelm II took power in Germany. Wilhelm dismantled many of Bismarck's alliances, driving Russia into an alliance with France and intensifying Germany’s desire for global power. The arms race also escalated with the creation of Dreadnought battleships. Wilhelm's erratic behavior, driven by a desire to outshine other nations, particularly Britain, further destabilized the already fragile political environment.

⚖️ Revolution, Nationalism, and Balkan Wars

This paragraph discusses the growing unrest within Europe itself, with revolution and nationalism fueling conflict. Russia’s defeat by Japan in 1905 led to internal uprisings, while the Balkans became a hotbed of resistance against Ottoman and Habsburg rule. Secret societies in the Balkans organized armed resistance, and the Young Turks in the Ottoman Empire pushed for Turkish nationalism. Austria-Hungary took advantage of the situation by annexing Bosnia, angering the Serbs and leading to a series of Balkan Wars. These conflicts contributed to the already volatile atmosphere in Europe.

💥 Rising Tensions and Franz Ferdinand's Assassination

This section highlights the increasing tensions across Europe, particularly concerning Slavic nationalism and misinformation spreading fear. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Gavrilo Princip in 1914 is detailed, an event that ultimately triggered World War I. Although assassinations were common, the tensions between nations and the complex alliance systems pushed Europe closer to war. Despite the assassination, many expected diplomacy to prevail, but a combination of military planning, social unrest, and cultural changes made conflict almost inevitable.

Keywords

💡Alliance System

The alliance system refers to the network of military and political agreements between European powers prior to World War I. It played a key role in the war's outbreak, with countries like Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy forming the Triple Alliance, while France, Russia, and Britain created the Triple Entente. These alliances were meant to prevent conflict but instead contributed to escalating tensions, as described when Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm dismantled Bismarck's alliance strategies, pushing Europe closer to war.

💡Nationalism

Nationalism is the strong identification with and support for one's nation, often placing its interests above those of other countries. In pre-World War I Europe, nationalism fueled tensions as ethnic groups sought independence, such as the Slavic movements in the Balkans. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the nationalist Gavrilo Princip, who wished for a 'Greater Serbia,' exemplifies how nationalism contributed to the road to war.

💡Imperialism

Imperialism refers to the expansion of a country's power through colonization or military force. European powers like Britain, France, and Germany aggressively expanded their empires, which caused global tensions and contributed to the militarization of European nations. The script mentions the German massacre of the Herero people in southwest Africa as an example of imperial aggression that prefigured the brutality of World War I.

💡Militarization

Militarization is the process of building up armed forces and preparing for war. In the years before World War I, European powers massively increased their military capabilities, including the production of advanced battleships like Britain's 'Dreadnoughts.' This arms race, encouraged by public pressure and the military-industrial complex, contributed to the atmosphere of inevitable conflict as described in the video.

💡Dreyfus Affair

The Dreyfus Affair was a political scandal in France that centered on the wrongful conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer, for espionage. The event exposed widespread antisemitism in French society, with public opinion divided over his innocence. The affair, highlighted in the video with Emile Zola’s 'J’accuse' article, underscores the social and ethnic tensions that were present across Europe before the war.

💡Balkan Wars

The Balkan Wars (1912-1913) were a series of conflicts involving the Balkan states and the Ottoman Empire. These wars contributed to rising tensions in Europe, particularly between Serbia, backed by Russia, and Austria-Hungary. The outcome of these wars worried Austria-Hungary and Germany, as it bolstered Serbia's territorial gains, which threatened the stability of the multi-ethnic Habsburg Empire.

💡Franz Ferdinand

Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne whose assassination in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip in 1914 sparked World War I. His death became the immediate trigger for the conflict, as it set off a chain reaction of diplomatic failures and military mobilizations. His conservative vision of restoring absolutism further illustrates the political tensions that predated the war.

💡Young Turks

The Young Turks were a group of nationalist officers in the Ottoman Empire who aimed to modernize and centralize the empire, promoting Turkish ethnic identity. Their 1908 revolution ousted the sultan, but their repression of ethnic minorities in the Balkans contributed to regional unrest and the eventual outbreak of the Balkan Wars. The video points to this group's role in stirring nationalistic conflicts that fed into the larger European tensions.

💡Kaiser Wilhelm II

Kaiser Wilhelm II was the last German Emperor, whose aggressive foreign policy and dismantling of Bismarck's alliance system destabilized Europe. He pursued a militaristic and imperial agenda, seeking to expand Germany’s power, which alienated Russia and Britain, leading them to align with France. His erratic leadership, including relying on media coverage for policy direction, contributed to the growing sense of instability that led to World War I.

💡Gavrilo Princip

Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb nationalist and member of a secret society advocating for the unification of Slavic peoples under Serbia. His assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on June 28, 1914, was the immediate catalyst for World War I. The script notes that Princip was motivated by nationalist ideals and the annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary, symbolizing the broader ethnic and national conflicts fueling the war.

Highlights

Historians now view the causes of World War I as complex, involving social and cultural changes beyond traditional factors like nationalism and imperialism.

Pre-war Europe experienced tensions from changing family structures, scientific paradigm shifts, disrupted gender roles, and increased political participation.

Strikes and violent uprisings were widespread in Europe before World War I, reflecting deeper social unrest.

The Dreyfus Affair in France exemplified growing divisions, antisemitism, and the role of fabricated evidence in heightening tensions.

Ethnic and colonial violence were rampant, including massacres in Africa, the Boxer Rebellion in China, and rebellions in South Asia and South Africa.

Otto von Bismarck’s alliance system aimed to prevent wars, but was dismantled by Kaiser Wilhelm II, driving Europe closer to conflict.

The buildup of militaries and the creation of battleships like Dreadnoughts fueled arms races and stoked fears of unemployment and revolution.

European powers were entangled in webs of alliances, with the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, Italy) and the Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia).

Local wars, revolutions, and assassinations, such as in the Balkans and Russia, were becoming increasingly common and destabilizing the continent.

The Balkan Wars (1912-1913) intensified nationalist tensions, particularly between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, pushing Europe further toward war.

Misinformation and press manipulation played a significant role in inflaming nationalist and ethnic hostilities before World War I.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip, a nationalist inspired by anti-Habsburg sentiment, was a turning point.

Despite the assassination, many believed diplomacy would resolve the tensions, underscoring the gradual and unrecognized drift toward war.

The intense militarization and competition for empire made war seem inevitable by many of Europe's political and military leaders.

The buildup to World War I was the result of many small decisions, actions, and social changes that cumulatively created an environment ripe for conflict.

Transcripts

Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course European History, and things are indeed on

course to crash, because World War I is coming.

Decades ago, when I studied European history in high school, I learned there were precise

causes of the war: the alliance system, arms build-up, secret treaties, nationalism, and

imperialism.

That set of causes, launched from above by political leaders, eventually led to war.

But more recently, historians have started to lay out a more complex road to war: namely,

a road that passed through social and cultural change at the turn of the century.

And those changes, which were experienced by tens of thousands if not millions of people,

caused tensions across a broad swath of Europe.

People’s lives were affected by changing family structures, by paradigm shifts in science,

disruption of traditional gender roles, achievement of the vote by working men, and ongoing economic

advances, and the result was disorientation, dislocation, deep resentments, and widespread

fear--which, of course, is not too dissimilar from how an array of changes are affecting

people today.

[Intro] Some might even say that pre-war Europe a

battlefield before World War I started.

Strikes, which at times grew violent, abounded across Europe—whether at the oil fields

of Baku, the farms of Hungary, or the factories of Italy.

Assassinations were common--as was everyday violence against Jewish people and other oppressed

ethnic minorities.

In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was tried for espionage,

convicted and imprisoned on Devil’s Island.

The evidence against Dreyfus turned out to be fabricated, complete with forged signatures.

Further evidence of his innocence was that the espionage continued, even after his exile.

Passions exploded over the case, and anti-Semitism flourished, families quarreled, and assaults

took place around questions of whether Dreyfus had committed these crimes.

Newspapers took both sides as violence grew.

Then in 1898 famed novelist Emile Zola’s article “J’accuse,” exposed trumped

up evidence against Dreyfus and helped build support for him.

Dreyfus was eventually pardoned in 1899, but facts were not enough to stop the growing

hatred and antisemitism.

Intense divisions within and between communities were growing elsewhere, too.

Ireland, for one, was on the brink of civil war, with both those opposing British rule

and those favoring it establishing independent armies.

The distant colonial world was increasingly tense too.

Between 1904 and 1908 the German army massacred between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero people,

who refused to surrender their lands in southwest Africa.

Those who weren’t massacred were driven into distant territory to starve.

Some say that slaughter was a training ground for European soldiers who would soon engage

in further war.

Around the same time, the French closed the University of Hanoi and arrested or killed

prominent teachers and intellectuals. and open rebellion escalated.

As one opponent said of the French: “Look at those men with blue eyes and yellow beards.

They are not our fathers, nor are they our brothers.

How can they squat here, defecating on our heads?”

and the Boers--that is, farmers with Dutch heritage-- of South Africa likewise rebelled

against the British as the 20th century opened.

They were only defeated after many civilians, confined to concentration camps, died of disease

or starvation.

South Asians demanded reform too.

They became more militantly anti-British and launched boycotts of British goods.

In 1900, a conglomerate of colonial nations massacred Chinese civilians involved in the

Boxer rebellion.

Boxer activists had themselves assassinated European and Chinese Christians in an attempt

to take back their empire from white invaders.

All these events suggest that the world was already at war before 1914, although if you’ve

been following this series, or our other series in history, you’ll know that war was often

happening-- if anything, peace, to whatever extent humans have experienced it, is very

much a historical exception.

And that’s important to remember when thinking about the ultimately disastrous system of

allegiances Europe had developed.

That system was created by politicians to try to prevent wars, or at least to manage

any on the continent.

Foremost among these politicians was our old friend Otto von Bismarck, who’d had no qualms

about starting wars to help Germany build its empire but then declared Germany a “satisfied”

nation.

Oh, the adjectives that haunt us.

Bismarck wanted peace in Europe and so organized an alliance system to that end, binding Germany

and Austria in the Dual Alliance of 1879, then adding Italy to a Triple Alliance in

1882.

He also allied Germany with Russia in the Reinsurance Treaty, another attempt to build

coalitions so formidable that large wars would become impossible.

But all of this was about to change when William II, aka Kaiser Wilhelm, came to power in Germany

in 1890.

He rattled the sword, and called Bismarck’s alliances the work of an outmoded old man.

Under William II, the treaty with Russia was canceled, which drove Russia to sign an alliance

with France in 1894.

William also called for Germany to gain power around the world, expanding into tropical

colonies to create a German “place in the sun.”

Which if you wanna do, you could just try to take Southern France.

Oh, right, you will.

Try to take Southern France.

Meanwhile, the French and British secretly built another alliance--the “entente cordiale”

And I’ll remind you, I’ve had three years of high school French.

It was based on military cooperation and even shared military plans.

The entente became a triple entente when Russia and Britain settled their colonial differences

in 1907, uniting three very different powers.

But as they were entente-ing, Europe’s powers were also growing their militaries.

Standing armies grew to hundreds of thousands of troops.

General staffs demanded larger stockpiles of weapons and got what they wanted.

Most costly were the “Dreadnoughts” or massive battleships with unprecedented firepower.

Britain launched the first of these in 1905; others followed.

The construction of battleships in these years employed tens of thousands of workers.

So through their staffs of public relations experts, military hawks threatened that cutting

the production of Dreadnoughts would lead to mass unemployment and revolution.

“We want eight and we won’t wait” was a popular British chant for more ships.

So, yeah, America didn’t invent the military-industrial complex.

But we did perfect it.

So, William II also wanted Dreadnoughts, because he hoped to win the British over to an alliance

of Teutonic peoples, including especially Germans, that could defeat the “Latins”

or “Gauls” of southern Europe whom he considered inferior.

William was the grandson of Queen Victoria and a staunch anglophile, much to the dismay

of his generals.

But rather than taking advice from experts in his government, William used another strategy.

He avidly followed press coverage of himself and his regime, using that as a monitor of

successful policy.

He had tantrums and even months of nervous collapse when he was criticized in the press

and elsewhere, creating an atmosphere of turmoil in German policy through erratic militarism.

So, despite all these attempts to control war through alliances, the early decades of

the century were also deadly because of revolution and local wars in Europe itself.

In 1905, the people of Russia rose up against the tsarist regime.

They were hard pressed in their daily lives due to a conflict between Russia and Japan

over competing claims in East Asia.

And the Japanese, who’d been developing a modern army and an industrial economy, attacked

and crushed the Russian fleet in 1905.

Ordinary people paid the price for these losses and rebelled, but then Tsarist promises of

reform, combined with armed force, eventually restored calm and preserved the Romanov grip

on power--for another decade or so.

The Balkans also heated up, due to secret societies of Balkan peoples that collected

arms and organized themselves against the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, and also had

amazing facial hair.

Everything about that photograph is phenomenal, but the best part is that it vaguely resembles

a cheerleading pyramid...

Within these secret societies, people moved from safe house to safe house as they built

networks of militiamen ready to sabotage, assassinate, and fight the imperial powers

in order to gain independence.

In the face of such resistance, Turkish nationalists demanded a strengthening of military and administrative

institutions in the Ottoman Empire.

Finally, in 1908 a group of officers called the Young Turks rebelled in the name of promoting

Turkish ethnicity.

They ultimately pushed aside the sultan and replaced him with a pliable brother who was

more submissive to the Young Turks, albeit guided by a constitution and parliament.

The Young Turks responded to other people’s nationalist dreams by squashing demands for

self-rule from Balkan ethnic groups.

Even as the Young Turks inspired many groups both in Europe and around the world, Austria-Hungary

used their revolt as distraction during which it scooped up Bosnia.

That caused outrage among Serbs as they had wanted to add Bosnia to a “greater Serbia”

while all Balkan people’s anger against the Young Turks boiled over.

Building on this anger, the Balkan governments of Montenegro, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece

unleashed the First Balkan War in 1912 against the Ottoman Empire.

They quickly won, only blocked when they tried to march on Constantinople.

But there was jealousy among the victors over the splitting up the territorial gains, as

there so often is, so in spring 1913 the Second Balkan War erupted.

The main issue this time was the territory awarded to Bulgaria in the settlement.

Serbia, which was backed by Russia, gained territory from this second war, making Austria-Hungary

and Germany anxious, not least because the Habsburgs were nervous that Austria-Hungary’s

Slavic population might want to be part of this exciting new Greater Serbia.

German public relations people swung into action, planting hysterical stories on the

growing and lethal threat from Slavs.

So if you’re wondering if misinformation can contribute to a global sense of dis-ease,

confusion, and polarization: Yes.

Yes, it can.

The heir to the Habsburg imperial throne, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, had a solution

for all these problems: restore absolutism as it had existed before the revolutions of

1848 and the general liberalization of politics.

“The parliamentary form of government has outlived its usefulness,” an advisor to

Franz Ferdinand had written as early as 1898.

“The so-called individual freedoms must be curtailed.”

Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble 1.

In June 1914, a nineteen-year-old Bosnian bookworm named Gavrilo Princip

2. became one of history’s more famous teenagers.

3.

Princip thrived on reading Sherlock Holmes mysteries

4. and Sir Walter Scott’s heart-pounding stories of heroic medieval knights.

5.

And he dreamed of his beloved homeland joining Serbia,

6. and the Habsburgs had blocked that dream by annexing Bosnia in 1908.

7.

Princip, along with several friends, decided something had to be done,

8. and when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie came to Sarajevo on June 28th,

1914, the conspirators saw their chance.

9.

The Archduke and his wife were traveling unprotected in a convertible

10.

--a perfect assassination opportunity.

11.

Some of Princip’s co-conspirators were too afraid when the moment arrived to actually

try to kill the Archduke;

12.

another had a gun malfunction.

13.

One co-conspirator did manage to throw a grenade at the Archduke’s car,

14.

but he missed.

15.

Later in the day, Princip mourning the failure of his crew’s plan over lunch.

16.

The Archduke and Sophie were on their way to visit victims of the grenade attack in

the hospital

17. when their driver took a wrong turn

18. and happened to drive past, of all people, Gavrilo Princip,

19. who proceeded to shoot dead both Franz Ferdinand and his wife.

Thanks Thought Bubble.

Some people celebrated the death of the opinionated, radical heir to the Habsburg throne and others

were not surprised at the murder, given that assassination was an occupational hazard of

leadership in these decades.

After the assassination, heads of state and high officials still went on planned vacations,

because everyone expected a diplomatic solution.

Again, assassination was pretty common, and diplomatic solutions always followed.

People were gripped not by the assassination but by a scandal in France--the trial for

murder of Madame Caillaux who had shot a newspaper publisher for exposing her husband’s extra-marital

affairs.

Seems like the wrong guy to shoot.

And yet the European powers moved almost imperceptibly toward war.

General staffs and some officials had been planning for it, as we have seen, while competition

for empire and the conduct of empire itself were warlike, and overall social and cultural

change had made people tense and even violent toward one another.

Moreover, wasn’t Europe—from Ireland to Russia—simply a violent place where individuals

and governments alike were always primed for war?

As the chief of the German General Staff put it in 1912, given Europe’s track record,

“I consider a war to be inevitable.

And the sooner the better.”

We can wonder what might’ve happened if the Archduke’s driver hadn’t taken that

wrong turn.

Or we can wonder what might’ve happened without Europe’s particular configuration

of alliances, or if militarization hadn’t made war seem unavoidable.

As Margaret Atwood writes in The Testaments, “Very little in history is inevitable.”

But the lead up to the war was marked not by one cause, or even by a few politicians

making a few decisions, but by many people making many decisions--from spreading fake

news stories to pressing for more battleships--that altogether contributed to an environment that

made war progressively more likely.

In short, it wasn’t only the Archduke’s driver who made a wrong turn.

Thanks for watching.

I’ll see you next time.