Theoretically Deducing Wordl War I: The Great War

Even though it is believed that World War I was initialized by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, others believe that there were a number of issues that played into the start of the war. There are said to be four areas that played into the cause of World War I, including the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the other three are imperialism, militarism, and nationalism. In this paper, we will discuss all of these areas to see how they played a part. We will also discuss what events drew the United States into World War I.

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

tensions and political rivalries that generated and were in turn fed by imperialist expansionism, one cannot begin to comprehend the causes and consequences of the Great War that began in 1914. That conflict determined the

When a nation gained more powerful arms, they were seen as a larger threat to the rest of the world, which was proven by post-war speeches from leaders of involved countries and statistics from the war. When Germany was blamed entirely for starting the war, German Versailles Treaty delegation leader Count Brockdorff-Rantzau argued that imperialism and the massive power put in the militaries across Europe had a larger impact on the war than Germany (Document 5). The mobilization of European armies and missed preventative steps to avoid war in almost every European country were both also cited by many historians for causing the Great War to occur (Document 6). The effects of military advancement and involvement in political discrepancies is clearly shown in statistics of money paid by each country involved in the war throughout time. When the war broke out, substantial increases in the investments made for weaponry are shown, especially by the main countries involved in the war, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany (Document 1). Military advancement overall had a large part in World War I’s breakout, due to its effects on the mindset of countries to create more weaponry for defense, and the power it gave to a nation’s

Many factors contributed to the start of World WarI also known as “The Great War”. Multiple Peer reviewed articles study five of the leading causes of the war. In no particular order, it analyses short term as well as long term factors. Five of the commonly discussed contributors include but are not limited to Militarism, Alliances, Nationalism, Imperialism and the defining short term factor Assassination.

In Van Evera definition, the “cult of the offensive” is militarized tendency to glorify the offensive and adopt the military strategies and accompanied the assumption of the elite civilians that have the advantage of warfare. The primary argument that Van Evera has to declare about “cult of the offensive” was the main principal cause of World War I. Van Evera states that because world power government made a wrong choice in foreign policy, it is the reason why World War I happened. He also concluded that the "cult of the offensive” played a huge role in tension buildup between the international power prior to the War. Van Evera also listed five things that relevant in the 1914 crisis: 1) State adopt more aggressive foreign policies both to abuse any of the new opportunities and created any new danger appears when any offense is getting stronger. 2) The size of the advantage accruing to the side mobilizing or striking first increases. 3) When there are any windows opportunities, it forces the diplomacy faster to risk any prevention from war. 4) States adopt competitive styles of diplomacy since the gains promised by such tactics can easily justify the risks they entail. 5) States enforce political and military secrecy stricter since the national security is threatened if the enemies get the information (Van Evera, 1984).

If there is a war to be more fated by time and history, those big masts and sail in the sea, then I can think of no better example, for no better example exists, than the First World War. Indeed, upon the outset of war, fate seemed to rear its most virtuous and peaceful hand, by picking up Gavrilo Princip and putting him directly in the path of the Archduke of Austria and his wife, who he loved so dearly. However, it is unlikely for the hand of fate to spark of the war with the murder of just one man. Instead the hand of fate positioned all the great and mighty, for assuredly they were, European powers into positions for a world war. The primary causes of such a fateful war would have to

The influence of various theories and concepts on the conduct World War I has generated a range of studies in an attempt to understand how and why World War I was fought. Specifically, Clausewitz’s theories on warfare have come under a considerable amount of scrutiny with regards to their influence on World War I. This scrutiny has led to the ascertation that the protracted and bloody stalemate of World War I was largely due to a stubborn reliance on Clausewitz’s theories. The question that this paper attempts to address is weather the cause of the bloody and protracted

Whether a regime was or was not democratic during the time that World War I, World War II, and the Cold War took place has no influence on being the exact cause of the war, because the determining factors of why the previously listed wars occurred lies among the many constraints; protecting alliances, attempts at deterrence, balancing power, acting on misinterpretation, rise in aggression, and difference of beliefs and ideologies in relation to those of people from other countries. It just so happens that the Countries that are not democratic are in a position where they have to deal with appealing to their allies in order to not be alone at war. When approaching World War I, through the use of textual evidence from “Why Nations Go to War” by John G. Stoessinger and information from Professor Roeder’s lecture course the reason for why the rise in aggression, protection of alliances, and acting on misinterpretation are the causes of this war and can be easily merged into one flowing argument by using the concept of what the “Blank Check” is and how it’s application in World War I resulted with Germany turning a small event into a global war. Moving into World War II, lecture will be the road map to providing the necessary factual information, being relative to what Hypernationalism is and its influence on Nazi Germany’ aggression, the difference of beliefs and ideologies in relation to people from other countries, what is to be accomplished with Nazi Germany acting out in

World War I saw the nations involved rallied into two major alliances in order to curb German’s increasing power. It is evident that German amassing too much power poses a threat to the security of its counterparts in an anarchic system. As a result, other countries were willing to use various means not only to mitigate the risks but also maintain their independence in the world’s political structure. The balance of power theory focuses on how countries can achieve a balance and international order. The causes of World War one can be attributed to the balance of power mechanisms used by the countries involved.

World War I occurred as a result of a number of political, social, and economic changes that were taking place at a rapid pace in the region. A prominent transformation was the onset of industrial revolution that accompanied these changes. Many countries were investing significantly in industrialization while undergoing transformation that was changing the face of society. To enhance patriotism and to achieve objectives that were otherwise impossible, political forces were utilizing notions like nationalism. In this scenario, the colonies of European nations became the cause of significant rivalry and disputes, settled only after the blood of millions was shed. The war had far-reaching consequences for all nations that were involved in the conflict such that the entire boundaries of many countries were remarked. This paper will discuss the impact of nationalism, industrialization, and colonialism on WWI and its occurrence.

The war that broke out in 1914 was one of the worst, if not the worst, wars in human history. It had left millions dead and a scar burned into European history forever. However, if we do not identify why war broke out in 1914, stopping others wars will be impossible. Clearly, we may never know the answer to this, but many sources give many interpretations. In this essay, I will try to recognise the key factors that led the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 and try to identify the most significant of these causes.

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

After the First World War (1914-1919), the world was faced with the questions - who was responsible and what was reason for the outbreak of the war. Ultimately it was agreed on the 28 June 1919 that “the Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage” from the First World War. However, there have been many other interpretations on whom and what was responsible for the war. On the one hand, some historians would agree with David Lloyd George’s notion of all “the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war”, however, on the contrary, others would agree with Fischer in arguing that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the First World War. Whether you agree with Lloyd George or Fischer, it is important to understand some of the other possible reasons for the outbreak of the First World War – including the growth of nationalism and imperialism, the alliances within Europe and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although this essay will argue that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, it will also illustrate why other historians have argued against that notion.