Was Pride and Honour Responsible for the Outbreak of the First World War?

During this current academic year I’ve started completing a part-time MA in History. It’s been great being able to learn new things again, whilst also attempting to write essays; although, I’ve struggled at times juggling the course along with work and other commitments. My current module focuses on German history from 1870 to 1945, and I’ve really intrigued to read and explore into it further, especially considering that I teach the 1918 to 1945 period to A-level students.

We have recently covered the reasons behind the outbreak of the First World War, which made me reflect on an essay I wrote almost two decades ago back when I completed my original degree (it was posted here on the blog back in 2019, which you can read here). Having read further into this debate over the past few years – about what caused the outbreak of war – I was really interested in looking into a fresh angle. And this I found in an article printed back in the 1990s by Avner Offer titled ‘Going to War in 1914: A Matter of Honor?’

So, my primary position hadn’t changed much in the past two decades: that German insistence on war was the key reason for its outbreak. But I was also mindful of the wider long term developments, such as the development of rival alliances within Europe which increased tension that ultimately concluded with the outbreak of war.

Offer’s article takes a different route. Within it, it is stated how ‘the causes of war are not the same as the decision for war’, and it places more focus on ‘human agency’. Offer outlines the mindset of duelling within Wilhelmine Germany, and states that honour/reputation is key to understanding the outbreak of WW1, writing: 

‘War, then, was not a rational pursuit of political goals, but a gesture of defiance, taken, like the duel, against the odds’.

Furthermore, it was not just Germany defending its honour, with Offer mentioning other nations – such as Britain – as well Belgium and Serbia. They were fighting, primarily, for pride. Offer concludes by writing:

‘The commencement of the First World War was a chain of insults that no leader in a position of public visibility could afford to ignore’.

I really like Offer’s arguments, particularly because it shifts more of the responsibility on war back to actual people. Maybe it was years of reading about the long-term structural issues which led to the outbreak of war that had dulled my approach, but I find the aspect of ‘human agency’ really intriguing. 

So, if Germany was responsible, it seems as if the ‘tiny group of men’ – as Rohl has commented previously – were key in pushing it further into war. This group appear to be the likes of the Kaiser, as well as Moltke and others – who saw war as a means to satisfy their honour whilst also having a reckoning with the other powers. However, it seems insane to think that they gambled with everything to simply satisfy honour; although, as Offer notes, those who demanded satisfaction in duels also gambled with their life.

But surely the other powers would have been aware of Germany’s demand for honour? They seem to have underestimated their fire in going to war; and maybe, this was due to Germany backing down from the prior crisis points leading up to 1914. It appears that the nations of Europe all misunderstood one another in 1914, which resulted in the escalation toward the war.

In summary, Offer’s article offers an interesting perspective into the causes of war. Pride and honour played a key role in providing the decision for war, but it does not remove the other factors that were important in leading to the outbreak of war.