This argument proved persuasive in the immediate wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Marxism and Communism.
Lenin's 1917 pamphlet "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" made the argument that large banking interests in the various capitalist-imperialist powers had pulled the strings in the various governments and led them into the war.
Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of such rulers, the end of the aristocratic system, and the end of militarism—all of which justified American entry into the war once Czarist Russia dropped out of the Allied camp. He also acknowledged variations of militarism that, in his opinion, existed within the British and French political systems.
Wilson hoped the League of Nations and universal disarmament would secure a lasting peace, although he failed to secure U. Lenin famously asserted that the worldwide system of imperialism was responsible for the war.
Humanity should learn from the legacy of this war that war cannot end war—it can only lead to more violence.
The higher principle of peaceful resolution of differences attracted much interest after 1918 when the League of Nations was formed, but the nations of the world were unwilling to establish this as an effective body, being reluctant to give it any real power. did not join and league members tended to act in their own interest, rather than in that of all members.
Germany felt that it was entitled to an empire; Britain, France, and even Belgium possessed extensive overseas territory while Germany had just a few colonies.
The democratization process, though, was more advanced among the Allies than in Germany and her main ally, the Ottoman Empire.
(Ferguson, 1999) Many political scientists argue that the German, French, and Russian war plans automatically escalated the conflict.
Fritz Fischer (1908-1999) and his followers emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of Germany's Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia.