Assessing his role in the unification of the country, he said: "I was always happy if I managed to get at least three steps closer to the unity of Germany in any way." The victorious wars and the formation of the German Empire reconciled most of the oppositional German bourgeoisie with Wilhelm I and Bismarck. Forgetting about previous quarrels, she enthusiastically welcomed the conquest policy of the chancellor. And he, in turn, considered it possible to put at the service of his militant plans the most democratic principles, for example, universal suffrage.
Bismarck's ability to maintain relations with Russia played a significant role in the formation of the German Empire. Russia's benevolence towards the unifying efforts of Bismarck was explained primarily by his consistent calls for Prussia to observe neutrality during the Crimean War and his active opposition to the ideas of dividing Russia by Western countries. In response, Russia also maintained armed neutrality during the Franco-Prussian War. Moreover, when Austria set out to attack Prussia in support of France, Russia actively opposed it. Kaiser Wilhelm I wrote to Alexander II: “Prussia will never forget that it was only thanks to you that the war did not take on an extraordinary scope. Memories of your position towards me and my country will determine my policy towards Russia, no matter what happens.
However, when Prussia was ready to start a new war with France in 1871 and 1875, Russia firmly opposed. In such situations, Bismarck, being a far-sighted and vigilant politician, knew how to avoid defeat, playing on the contradictions between the states of Europe. Now he began to intrigue against Russia, trying to push her against England and Austria-Hungary. All three states had interests in the Balkan Peninsula. When, after the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. Russia gained an advantage in this region, Bismarck immediately began to support Austria-Hungary. Benefiting from the aggravation of the Anglo-French confrontation in the Middle East, Bismarck promised to help England in the event of a war in Egypt. This policy undermined the position of France.
France was a constant target of Bismarck's aggressive policies. Russia, however, remained a powerful power, and the balance of power in Europe largely depended on its position. The allied coalitions created by the chancellor included Russia and thus supported Germany in her opposition to France in the Balkans. Bismarck managed to conclude the so-called "Three Emperors Alliance" between Germany, Russia and Austria. The union collapsed due to friction between the last two states.
As the military and economic power of Germany increased, its interests began to spread to Africa, where it seized a number of colonies. Very soon, her colonial policy came into conflict with the English here, and relations between Germany and England became extremely aggravated. In order to secure a free hand in the event of a collision with one of the Western powers and to protect himself from the rear, Bismarck concluded with Russia in 1887 the so-called "Reinsurance Treaty". Both empires were to maintain mutual benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by a third power. Bismarck recognized Russia's interests in the Balkans, promising to "support them morally and diplomatically." On the other hand, the treaty ensured the security of the eastern borders of Germany, if France decided to take revenge for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871.
The chancellor's hesitations in pursuing Russian policy arose both under the influence of the political situation and because of difficult personal relations with Russian statesmen, in particular with Foreign Minister Gorchakov. Although there were influential figures in the ruling circles of Germany who were anti-Russian and from time to time called for war against Russia under the pretext of a threat from the East, Bismarck on the whole was always a supporter of friendly relations with a strong neighbor. “It is unlikely,” he wrote, “that a war between Germany and Russia could ever become necessary, unless liberal stupidities or dynastic blunders change the situation.” Bismarck's views were also shared by Wilhelm I. On this occasion, the English historian Carr noted: "This maxim was neglected by Wilhelm II in 1914 and Adolf Hitler in 1941, which in both cases had disastrous consequences for Germany."
Bismarck retired in 1890. He left Berlin, noisily greeted by the crowd, who had forgotten the cruelty of this man and remembered only his extraordinary services to Germany. In his book Thoughts and Memories, he talks about his life, about the motives that guided him in his difficult career. For all the ambiguity of his activities, Otto von Bismarck is one of the brightest figures in German history.
The First World War (1914-1918) is one of the longest, bloodiest and most significant in terms of consequences in the history of mankind. It went on for over four years. It was attended by 33 countries out of 59 that had state sovereignty at that time. The population of the warring countries was over 1.5 billion people, i.e. about 87% of all inhabitants of the Earth. A total of 73.5 million people were put under arms. Over 10 million were killed and 20 million injured. Casualties among the civilian population affected by epidemics, famine, cold and other wartime disasters also numbered in the tens of millions.
The causes of the World War are manifold. It was an attempt to cut the knot of the most acute contradictions that had accumulated by the beginning of the 20th century. and more than once made themselves felt by territorial disputes, national conflicts, the struggle for military superiority on land and at sea, trade wars, rivalry for the possession of colonies, and finally, outbursts of tension in relations between social classes and political parties in individual countries.
There was no inevitability that these contradictions would escalate into war. Proof of this are about 40 years of peace, which, despite all the dangers, has reigned in Europe since the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. and the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The main prerequisite for maintaining peace was broad international cooperation in all areas of life: economics, politics, culture. A dense network of railways connected the most remote corners of Europe and for the first time really brought them together. State borders have become more transparent than ever. All this facilitated the circulation of capital, goods, people, information.
Before the big powers and small countries at the beginning of the 20th century. prospects of unprecedented prosperity opened up. This made it meaningless to use military force to resolve conflicts between them. There were also political and legal guarantees against the outbreak of wars. At the domestic level, this was expressed in strengthening parliamentarism, expanding the freedoms and rights of citizens, strengthening their control over the government, and at the level of international relations - in concluding agreements between countries. Of great importance were the conventions signed in The Hague in 1899 and 1907, which determined the legal mechanisms for resolving international conflicts, in particular by referring them to a special court. It seemed to many at that time that the time was not far off when legal norms would finally triumph over brute force as a decisive argument in disputes not only between people, but also between countries.
If the world war nevertheless began, it is not because the mechanisms for reaching compromises turned out to be ineffective. At a critical moment, the powers themselves, on whom the preservation of peace depended in the first place, did not want to use them. It is difficult to see in this a misunderstanding or an accident. That was a deliberate step, dictated by the goals pursued by their governments and which were obviously unattainable by peaceful means, since they conflicted with the international legal order itself and infringed on the legitimate interests of other countries and peoples.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the World War was a continuation of the policy of territorial conquest pursued by the major powers. Such a policy has long been called imperialist, because it led to the formation of multinational and colonial empires. By the beginning of the XX century. the world was largely divided between them. In the vastness of Central and Eastern Europe, inhabited by dozens of multilingual peoples, three monarchies dominated: German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian. The possessions of the latter extended to the eastern tip of the Asian continent. Almost all of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, lands in other parts of the world became the prey of the colonialists of Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy and other European countries. But such vast possessions by no means tempered their appetite.
At the beginning of the XX century. they hatched plans for new conquests, often citing the need to protect fellow tribesmen or co-religionists from oppression, gaining “natural borders” or “living space” as justification. Thus, Germany sought to create from the German-speaking and neighboring countries, which she referred to the sphere of her interests, a close economic and political union - Central Europe. Austria-Hungary hoped to extend its influence to the independent states of the Balkan Peninsula, which it saw as a threat to its security. Russia, on the other hand, was strengthening its positions in the Balkans under the pretext of protecting the “Slav brothers”. Based on its strategic interests, it also sought control over the Black Sea straits - the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. France dreamed not only of the return of Alsace and Lorraine, taken by Germany in 1871 as a result of the Franco-Prussian war, but also of the annexation of the entire German left bank of the Rhine River, which was to become its "natural" border in the east. Italy kept an eye on the adjacent French and Austrian lands, considering them to be its ancestral territories.
https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/pageRedirect.aspx?RedirectedURL=https://all-andorra.com/fr/saumur/
All these aggressive plans could be explained only by great-power ambitions or national egoism, if economic interests were not visible behind them. At the beginning of the XX century. no one needed to be convinced that the main source of commercial and military power of states is large-scale industry. The governments of that time also understood this. Therefore, in their foreign and domestic policy, they were largely guided by the encouragement of national industry.
The task is more than commendable. But the way to solve it turned out to be unsuitable and turned into disastrous consequences for the world. To make this clear, let us recall the elementary truths of political economy. Large-scale industry is closely within national boundaries. For a full-fledged development, it needs foreign markets for the sale of products, sources of raw materials, semi-finished products, equipment, and labor. The big industry of any country can, in principle, acquire them only in two mutually exclusive ways: either by winning an open and equal competition for them with the industry of other countries, or by securing the preferential right to use them on behalf of the state to which they are controlled. The first way means the regime of free competition of producers. This is also a war, but an economic one; bloodless, in which the winners count their profits, and the losers and victims count their losses. The second way is the regime of state monopoly, when commerce is elevated to the rank of state policy, which sooner or later leads to rivalry between the Powers for spheres of influence, economic and territorial division of the world. This means war in the most direct sense, a war in which losses are calculated not only in rubles, dollars and other monetary units, but also in millions of lost human lives. Alas, the leading powers chose the second way to protect and support their industry.
The efforts of many governments have concentrated on combating foreign competition, which has been declared almost a disaster for national industry. At the end of the XIX century. it has become an obsession with politicians and businessmen who can only recognize short-term gains. Indeed, domestic producers suffered severely from foreign competition. But was there a need to stifle it, if it is known that in the long run it brings invaluable benefits as an incentive to increase labor productivity? However, in the last third of the XIX century. governments of a number of countries began to raise customs duties on imported goods. "Economic nationalism" led to a sharp aggravation of international contradictions. The relations of even such old partners and allies as Russia and Germany have deteriorated. Powers began to limit competition in international markets, began to divide them, thereby pushing the world to a military catastrophe. This was evidenced by those who became more frequent from the end of the 19th century. international crises (Pamir 1895, Fashoda 1898, Panama 1901, two Moroccan - 1905-1906 and 1911 and Bosnian 1908-1909) and local wars - so far on the periphery of Europe (Japanese-Chinese 1894-1895, Spanish-American 1898, Anglo-Boer 1899-1902, Russian-Japanese 1904-1905, Italian-Turkish 1911-1912 and two Balkans - 1912-1913).
In an environment of increasing military danger, Europe split into two groups of opposing powers. The backbone of one of them was the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, concluded in 1879 against France and Russia. In opposition to it, a Franco-Russian alliance arose, formalized by a number of treaties in 1891-1893. Other powers in Europe, as well as the United States and Japan, for a long time could not decide which of the groups to join. Finally, in 1904, Great Britain resolved by compromise disputes over the delimitation of colonies and spheres of influence with France, and in 1907 with Russia. This is how the Entente (Consent) arose - a coalition of Great Britain, France and Russia.
By chance, the signal for war sounded shots, which on June 28, 1914 in the city of Sarajevo in Bosnia killed the nephew and heir of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Neither side planned the start of this war on any specific date. But the level of their military confrontation was so high, the plans for the mobilization and deployment of armies were so carefully thought out, and most importantly, the psychological readiness for war was so great that any serious incident could lead to similar consequences. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. In response, Russia took a threatening position, starting a general mobilization. Germany did not waste time and on August 1 declared war on Russia, and on August 3 on France. On August 4, Great Britain came out against Germany. Finally, on August 6, Austria-Hungary declared a state of war with Russia.
From the very beginning, the war acquired not only a pan-European, but also a global character. Against their will, neutral Belgium and Luxembourg were drawn into it. On August 5, Montenegro declared war on Austria-Hungary. Together with Great Britain, its dominions came out on the side of the Entente: Canada, the Union of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. On August 23, Japan declared war on Germany.
From the point of view of military potential, the Entente had clear advantages. However, its territorial disunity, the remoteness of important sources of supply and replenishment of armies from the main theaters of military operations, prevented the realization of this advantage. For Germany and Austria-Hungary, the chance for success made it possible to quickly concentrate forces in the direction of the decisive blow. The strategic plan of the German General Staff, developed long before the war under the leadership of General Schlieffen, also proceeded from this premise: first, deliver a lightning strike on France and finish it in 6-8 weeks, and then throw all forces against Russia.
