Welcome to Paper 3: The Origins of the First World War

Hello! This chapter is one of the most exciting—and challenging—topics in A Level History. You are studying Paper 3, which focuses heavily not just on what happened, but on how and why historians disagree about it.


Our goal here is to understand the complex mix of long-term problems and short-term crises that led to the devastating conflict of 1914. The key question for this entire topic, as set out in the syllabus, is: 'Who was to blame for the First World War?'


Don't worry if the number of factors seems huge at first. We will break them down into easy, memorable sections.


Section 1: The Deep Roots of Conflict (Long-Term Causes, c. 1890–1914)

Historians often use the mnemonic M.A.I.N. to remember the structural, underlying causes of the war. These factors created a volatile environment where a small spark could cause a huge explosion.


M: Militarism and the Arms Race

Militarism is the belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively. In the early 20th century, this meant a dangerous competition, especially between Britain and Germany.


  • The Naval Race: Britain had traditionally ruled the seas due to its huge empire. When Germany, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, started building a powerful fleet (led by Admiral Tirpitz), Britain saw this as an existential threat.
  • The key development was the British launch of the Dreadnought in 1906—a powerful new battleship that made all previous ships obsolete. This forced all powers to start the race from scratch, accelerating tensions.
  • Growth of Armies: France, Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary all massively increased the size of their standing armies and spent vast sums on weapons (the Arms Race).

Key Takeaway: Militarism meant that when the crisis came in 1914, leaders had massive, expensive weapons ready to use, making a peaceful outcome less appealing.


A: The Alliance System

Think of the alliance system as two giant, heavily-armed gangs facing each other. An attack on one member meant pulling everyone else into the fight.


  • Triple Alliance (Central Powers): Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (though Italy remained neutral in 1914). This alliance focused on mutual defense against attack.
  • Triple Entente (Allied Powers): France, Russia, and Great Britain. This was not a formal military alliance at first, but a 'friendly understanding' which became militarised through cooperation.

Why did this cause war? Because it guaranteed that a regional conflict (like one between Austria-Hungary and Serbia) would immediately become a world war, due to treaty obligations.


I: Imperialism and Great Power Tensions

Imperialism (the race to build empires, especially in Africa and Asia) created deep economic and political rivalry between the Great Powers.


  • Anglo-German Rivalry: Germany entered the colonial race late, demanding its "place in the sun" (Weltpolitik). This led to friction with established powers like Britain and France.
  • The Moroccan Crises (1905 and 1911): These were flashpoints where Germany tried to challenge French control of Morocco.
    The result: The crises pushed Britain and France even closer together, hardening the alliance structure and showing Germany was willing to risk conflict to gain colonial status.

Did you know? By 1914, most of the world had been carved up by imperial powers. Any further expansion could only happen by taking territory from another European power, making war likely.


N: Nationalism

Nationalism is extreme pride in one's country, often coupled with the desire for independence or dominance over others.


  • German Nationalism: Driven by the desire for great power status (Weltpolitik) and resentment of Britain's dominance.
  • French Nationalism: Focused on Revanche (revenge) against Germany for the humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) and the loss of the territories of Alsace and Lorraine.
  • Pan-Slavism (Eastern Europe): This was the idea that Russia, as the protector of the Slavic peoples, should support independent Slavic nations like Serbia. This directly threatened the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Section 2: The Spark and the Descent (Short-Term Factors)

Instability in the Balkans

The Balkans was known as the "powder keg of Europe." Why? The Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was crumbling (the "Sick Man of Europe"), leaving power vacuums that Russia and Austria-Hungary desperately wanted to fill.


  • Serbia: An independent Slavic nation that was extremely nationalistic and sought to unite all Slavs under a 'Greater Serbia.' This was a direct threat to Austria-Hungary, which had many Slav subjects.
  • Bosnia Crisis (1908): Austria-Hungary annexed (took over) Bosnia, a territory full of Slavs, infuriating Serbia and Russia. Russia was forced to back down, leading to a deep desire for revenge later.
  • Balkan Wars (1912–1913): A series of conflicts that saw the Balkan nations grow stronger, further increasing Serbian confidence and alarming Austria-Hungary.

Key Takeaway: The Balkans was the only place where the long-term rivalries (Nationalism, Imperialism, Alliances) overlapped directly and aggressively.


Sarajevo and the July Crisis (The Countdown to War)

The assassination was the spark, but the July Crisis was the chain reaction of decisions that turned a local incident into a global war.


Step 1: The Assassination (June 28, 1914)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand (heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne) and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist connected to the secret society The Black Hand.


Step 2: The Blank Cheque (July 5, 1914)

Austria-Hungary (AH) needed German support before taking action against Serbia. Germany promised its full backing, often called the Blank Cheque. This was a crucial mistake, interpreted by many historians as giving AH permission to act aggressively.


Step 3: The Ultimatum (July 23, 1914)

AH issued a harsh Ultimatum to Serbia, containing demands designed to be impossible to meet (e.g., allowing AH police to investigate the murder in Serbia). Serbia accepted almost all terms but rejected the impossible ones. AH declared Serbia's response unsatisfactory.


Step 4: Mobilisation and Escalation (Late July 1914)

AH declared war on Serbia (July 28). This triggered Russia, which, due to Pan-Slavism, started mobilising (preparing its large army) against Austria-Hungary. Since Russia's war plans required full mobilisation against *both* Germany and AH simultaneously, Germany viewed this as an act of war.


Step 5: Declarations of War (August 1914)
  • Germany declared war on Russia (August 1).
  • Germany declared war on France (August 3).
  • Germany invaded Belgium (August 4) to execute the Schlieffen Plan (see below).
  • Britain, honouring the 1839 Treaty of London guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, declared war on Germany (August 4).

Encouraging Phrase: The July Crisis is complex, but focusing on the five steps—Assassination, Cheque, Ultimatum, Mobilisation, Declarations—will help you structure your essay beautifully!


War Plans: Why Mobilisation Meant War

A key factor that turned the crisis into an inevitable war was the existence of rigid, pre-arranged war plans.


  • The Schlieffen Plan (Germany): This plan aimed to avoid fighting a two-front war (Russia and France) simultaneously. It required knocking out France quickly (by invading through neutral Belgium) before the slow-to-mobilise Russian army was ready.
    The Problem: The plan was rigid, relying on exact timing. Once Russia mobilised, Germany felt it had no option but to implement the Schlieffen Plan immediately. It eliminated diplomacy.
  • Plan XVII (France): France's counter-plan, relying on aggressive attacks and intense nationalism.

The war plans meant that mobilisation equaled war. Military commanders insisted that any delay would ruin their strategy, pressuring politicians to declare war instantly.


Section 3: The Interpretations Debate (Historiography for Paper 3)

Paper 3 is all about historical interpretation. The core debate is: Who was to blame?


Phase 1: The Initial Verdict (The War Guilt Clause)

The Treaty of Versailles, Article 231, stated that Germany and its allies were solely responsible for causing the war. This shaped the historical debate for decades.


  • Interpretation: Germany bears the primary guilt.

In the 1920s and 30s, historians in Britain and the USA challenged this idea (known as Revisionism), arguing for a 'shared responsibility' among all Great Powers.


Phase 2: The Fischer Thesis (A Major Turning Point)

In the 1960s, German historian Fritz Fischer revolutionised the debate, bringing the blame back strongly onto Germany.


The Fischer Interpretation:

Fischer argued that Germany deliberately planned an aggressive war to achieve world power (Weltpolitik). He used evidence like the September Programme (1914), a document detailing Germany’s annexation aims, to show the German elite’s motivation for expansion and war.


  • Fischer's Conclusion: Germany exploited the July Crisis, issuing the Blank Cheque to Austria-Hungary, seeing it as the perfect moment for a "calculated risk" that would lead to war. Germany was most to blame.
  • Reaction: The Fischer Thesis caused a major storm in Germany, as it shattered the national myth that Germany had fought a defensive war.

Phase 3: Modern Interpretations (Shared Responsibility and Contingency)

Since the 1970s, historians have moved beyond Fischer, though his evidence is still respected. Modern interpretations focus on two key areas:


1. Shared Responsibility (Moving Beyond Germany)

Many modern historians explore the responsibility of nations other than Germany, especially:

  • Austria-Hungary: For their aggressive ultimatum designed to punish Serbia and their insistence on a local war (they were fighting for survival).
  • Russia: For ordering general mobilisation quickly, knowing this would trigger Germany's war plans.
  • Serbia: For its destabilising nationalist activities (The Black Hand).

2. Contingency over Motive (The Importance of Decisions)

This approach argues that the war wasn't necessarily planned (motive), but rather a result of events spiralling out of control (contingency).


  • Key Individuals: Modern historians emphasize how poor decisions by key individuals (e.g., Kaiser Wilhelm II's rash decision to issue the Blank Cheque, or the inflexible advice of military generals) escalated the crisis.
  • Miscalculation: The Great Powers did not want a massive war, but they constantly miscalculated the reactions of their rivals. They all believed the war would be short.

Analogy: Instead of a carefully placed bomb (Fischer's view), the war was a multi-car pile-up caused by aggressive driving (nationalism, militarism) in terrible conditions (rigid alliances) where no one could hit the brakes (war plans).


Quick Review: The Long vs. Short Term

When answering exam questions, you must weigh the relative importance of long- and short-term factors.


Long-Term Factors (M.A.I.N.):

These created the preconditions for war. Without them, the conflict would likely have been localised. They explain *why* Europe was ready to fight.


Short-Term Factors (Balkans, July Crisis, War Plans):

These provided the trigger and the mechanism. They explain *when* and *how* the war actually started.


Conclusion for Paper 3: The most successful A Level students understand that while long-term issues made war possible, it was the catastrophic failure of diplomacy and the rash decisions of individuals during the July Crisis that made it inevitable.