World War I was a conflict that claimed over 10 million peoples’ lives, ravaged all of Europe and engineered modern warfare, as it is know today. The Great War has been scrutinized and examined through many complex theories in order to understand how such a conflict escalated to one of the most epic wars in history. This essay, like many works before it, looks to examine WWI and determine its causes through two distinct levels of analysis, individual and systemic. The individual level of analysis locates the cause of conflicts in individual leaders or decision makers within a particular country, focusing on the characteristics of human decision-making. The systemic level of analysis explains the causation of a conflict from a system wide level that includes all states, taking in to account the distribution of power and the interaction of states in the international system. I am looking to examine WWI from each level of analysis using a theory to explain actors’ decision-making. I argue that through the individual level of analysis WWI was caused primarily through psychological explanations. Decision making actors from each state made errors when processing information and events, this forced leaders to develop biases and beliefs that pointed towards war. While, through the systemic level of analysis WWI was caused by the cult of the offensive. Each state believed that their offensive advantages were so great that a defending force would have no hope of repelling an attack, only opting for offensive military strategies. Through this examination I hope to explain why WWI escalated to the conflict it became and potentially how it could have been avoided. Lastly, I also seek to analyze this conflict from a modern perspective. Answer... ... middle of paper ... ...egain/gain land/properties. The system only needed a minor spark to light the wick. That spark was the Balkan region. The Sarajevo assignation of Austria-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand was all that was needed to plunge the European nations in to war. The assassination lead to powerful nations drawing lines in the sand and provide unwavering support of their allies in the event of conflict. German support if Austria-Hungary provides a strong example of offensive minded states that is using the situation to instigate a clash between its enemies. The evidence that no nation made significant attempts to diplomatically solve the problem and that militaries were mobilizing before war had even been declared, proves that offensive minded strategy was being implemented. The period before the July crisis is exemplary of how states were undoubtedly preparing for war.
All causes of the Great War calling and bickering to be the main cause yet it was the combination of the main causes that made the war even possible; the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand with it’s nationalistic origins, then the alliances that created a larger web of support, and lastly imperialism that had created the passion of revenge, militarism, and nationalism. Though looking back many may not believe that the four years of trench warfare was not the most brilliant war in history, but they do have to agree that the causes are the most important aspects of the war in its entirety. For if people see why terrible events happen then they can prevent the future from new world wars that could’ve been solved without the need of war.
2. Germany encouraged Austria-Hungary to start a war with Serbia, and continued to do so, even when it seemed clear that such a war could not be localized.
It may seem like wars start abruptly, with little cause, but usually there is a bigger story. New policies, lack of equality, military influence, and too much government involvement usually stir up the peace initially. These turn the country or area into a ‘powder keg’, ready to explode into war at the smallest spark. Although the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand was the spark of World War I, policies at the time like nationalism and militarism were the underlying causes of the war.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
World War One was greatly influenced by many factors, and in many ways. National interest ignited the mistrust and insecurities within nations, which in turn led to the creation of strong alliances and immense military forces. The growing suspicion Britain had of Germany only heightened the wariness and uncertainty of nations. The means, by which individual nations dealt with the issues within themselves, and outside of their boundaries, in the years preceding World War One, were irrational and improperly thought through. Nations fell into a strong ultra nationalistic point of view, and acted in a way which expressed interest in themselves only.
So when asking the question what the causes of World War One are its important to remember that the rivalries between European states were intensified by the imperialism of the 19th century. Which lead to tension which became fear of invasion that in turn resulted in an intricate system of alliances “ensured what might have been an isolated crisis in the Balkans became a general war”. Whilst the effects of imperialism may not be the single cause of the war, it was undoubtedly a contributing
Balkan nationalism was a major factor in the outbreak of the WWI .It is one of the long-term causes which caused European powers to declare war to each other. Even if the war between Austria and Serbia was expected to be a short one it culminated into a worldwide conflict that lasted four years. The idea of Pan-Slavism was the result of Serbian’s nationalism and Serbia refused to be oppressed by Austria-Hungary. Serbs demanded for rights of self-governance and unified state. However their neighbor Austria-Hungary wanted to become imperial power and she implied territorial expansion. Historians have different opinions about this subject and because of its complexity it is not possible to say that none of them is completely right. Balkan countries were a big threat for her foreign policy and this led to the culmination of their conflict and the outbreak of the war. Although nationalism is important in understanding the outbreak of WWI, there are many underlying causes that together culminated into a worldwide conflict. It is hard to reach the final answer on the question which relates to the extent of the importance of Balkan nationalism in the outbreak of the war because there are many different perspectives in understanding this question. For example Ruth Henig’s opinion is that Balkan nationalism was extremely important for the war and sees the guilt of Austria-Hungary for its outbreak. On the other hand John Leslie says that the responsible is Germany :“Austria-Hungary can be held responsible for planning a local Austro-Serb conflict, which was linked to its fears about Balkan nationalism, but Germany, which was not interested in this quarrel, quite deliberately used it as an opportunity to launch the European war which Austria-...
Hence the blank cheque to Austria. Austria-Hungry looked for no other possibility but war to solve the problem because of their short sighted plan to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist movement Conclusion: § Conclude that three long term factors contributed to war, failure of triple entente to accommodate Germany as a dominant power, instead allowing them to feel threatened, hence the naval and arms race progressed. Austria Hungary and Russia could not resolve Balkan conflict peacefully; Germany's backing of this making a small local war a world war. Attitude in the time, Nationalism, no country backing down, notably Germany. Austria Hungary looked for no other possibility but war to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist Movement.
The stronger country would attack weaker countries and in the end the weaker would usually lose. This caused a lot of tension just like militarism. The last of the ideas, was the idea of jingoes. These were people who lived for war. All they wanted was to go to war. Jingoes where very aggresive talkers and they caused a lot of friction between many countries. These ideas where some of the main reasons Europe was pushed to the brink of war.
During the early 1900s a new era of warfare emerged as governments began to employ all economic, technological and psychological resources available to defeat their enemies. This concept of Total War altered the direction of humanity and governments understanding in their allocation of resources. This essay will examine the relationship between propaganda used during World War I, its effect on the masses and the absolutely essential need for the success of such campaigns in obtaining military victory. While leaflet propaganda used during the war will be the main focus, considerations will be given to other forms to illuminate the necessity of understanding and utilizing the tools of this very powerful weapon.
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
...race. Germany had known that it was losing so it decided the best way to combat losing the arms race was to declare war.
The Second World War was caused by Germany’s desire to revoke the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and Hitler’s relentless quest for empire. This was considered a valid response to why the war began in 1939, until 1961 when A. J. P Taylor...
Europe has seen many wars over its vast and broad history, some of which being quite immense and destructive. One such war would undoubtedly be World War One. A war powered by the brainwashing ways of militarism and the stubborn pride of nationalism. Once engaged in a war a country’s militarism will produce fine soldier ready to drop like dominos on the battlefield, while the nationalism works as fuel providing the naive determination to fight the war. This naïve determination and soldier production is why World War One, like every other war, continued with such persistency. But what started World War One? Was it militarism that trained young men since they were kids to become soldiers, nationalism propelling a nations pride forward or was it neither? While both of those aspects could be potential reasons their still not the main pillars of cause. The true reason’s that made World War One inevitable were the intimidating alliances, avaricious imperialism, and tedious tensions.
After years of hostility and aggression between the European superpowers and large states, the balance of power began to be challenged. The Serbians in 1914 assassinated the Arch-duke, Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. The country counteracted and “issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which would bring the assassins to justice. And with that action Serbia’s sovereignty was nullified” (Duffy Michael, 2009). Since Serbia did not succumb to the harsh demands of Austria-Hungary, “preventative” war was declared on Serbia on July 28,...