The Causes of World War One Essay Example

international anarchy fosters varied state interests, limited resources, and a lack of overarching authority to impose restrictions. Consequently, states will resort to force to achieve their objectives after assessing the likelihood of success. This prioritization of objectives over peace is evident from the state's perspective. The occurrence of World War I can be attributed to faulty alliance structures, economic forces, and imperialistic attitudes (Chadefaux, 2011).

Some liberalists believe that imperialism is the fundamental cause of war. Karl Marx, in his analysis on the "core analysis of the world," argued that economic progress was the driving force behind history. He suggested that class conflict between the Bourgeoisie (owners of means of production) and the Proletariat (working class) arose from tension caused by economic development (Chadefaux, 2011). According to Marx, this conflict would eventually lead to a revolutionary movement rejecting capitalism and establishing socialism, ultimately resulting in pure communism without a state. The accumulation of economic power and competition among colonies played a significant role in triggering wars.

Germany's rise as a dominant economic force in Europe sparked tensions with France, Russia, and Great Britain. Lenin expanded upon Marx's theories by asserting that while capitalism progressed, monopoly capitalism remained its most advanced stage of development (Chadefaux, 2011). According to Lenin, imperialism transitions into capitalism when global capitalist monopolies divide the world and allocate territories among the wealthiest capitalists. The primary responsibility for instigating the war lies with undemocratic leaders.

Doyle (1989) suggests that the democratic peace theory builds upon Kant's idea of perpetual peace by claiming that only democratic states have the ability to achieve and sustain peace. This implies that peace is limited to countries with liberal and representative

governance, in contrast to those without these qualities. Doyle argues that it is autocratic regimes that provoke wars. Exploring whether the outbreak of World War I was solely caused by the leaders of Russia and Germany, who were bound by their less democratic structures and legal practices, the answer is yes. Both Russia and Germany are accountable for initiating the war. The conflict originated from a collusion between the German imperial government and Austria-Hungary, with an anticipation that Britain would remain neutral.

Both political and military decisions led to the outbreak of World War I. Germany's decision to support Austria-Hungary in its attack on Serbia caused Russia, who backed Serbia, to mobilize its armies. This occurred before any attempts at peace could be made (Lieber, 2007). Furthermore, it is important to examine the causes of WWI, including alliance dynamics, military leaders, inflexible war planning and execution (compared to more hesitant civilian leaders), as they all contributed to the conflict.

The militaries of major powers may have aligned more closely against each other and exerted undue pressure on reluctant civilian leaders to join the war. In 1938, British civilians exaggerated Germany's air power to appease Germany, potentially falsely motivating German participation in the war. In East Germany, church leaders preached holy war, aiding military planning for an attack on Russia. Throughout World War I, civilian leaders actively participated in the fight due to fear of execution, which significantly contributed to the war's escalation. Alliances are agreements between nations that share political, military, and economic goals (Chadefaux, 2011). While different states have varied goals and interests, some align their goals and interests with others.

The outbreak of World War I

was significantly influenced by alliances between nations. These alliances were based on military agreements, where signatory states provided financial support, supplied weapons and materials, and assisted with mobilization and the declaration of war. Although not solely responsible for causing the war, it is known that Germany unconditionally agreed to support Austria-Hungary after Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination. Kaiser Wilhelm II made this decision, which could not be changed despite attempts because the war had already escalated (Tempest, 2014). Military leaders played vital roles in expanding World War I as they were viewed as major forces in European nations during the conflict.

During the war, Generals and Admirals effectively served as government ministers, offering guidance to political leaders and exerting influence over domestic policy. They advocated for increased spending on arms and defense, which had a significant impact on culture, public opinion, and the media. The press glorified military leaders as heroes and depicted rival nations engaging in "war talk" as aggressors.

The military leadership's failure to engage in diplomacy resulted in the creation of a war-torn environment instead of resolving disputes between rival nations (Chadefaux, 2011). Following Clausewitz's argument that war was a means of advancing a nation's economic and political interests, leaders utilized the military to achieve their goals (Clausewitz, 2011). Additionally, Gilpin and vanEvera argue that the rise of German power disrupted the established state system in Europe and globally (Gilpin & vanEvera, Year of publication).

The fundamental realist cause of war, which asserts that significant shifts in relative power can lead to conflict, holds true. The question arises whether the other great powers could have more readily accommodated German power. Did Germany show willingness to accept

such accommodations or was it determined to use war as a means to advance its position? Comparing the guilt of Germany versus the other powers in initiating the war is also a matter of debate. The declining countries, however, do not find relief in rising states reducing their expected future authority. Instead, they often fear initiating preemptive attacks and seek the creation of demilitarized zones or desert from war programs to prevent avoidable conflicts. The frequent cause of war is the change in relative power. Industrialization and economic development result in a rapid redistribution of power, disrupting the existing international order and creating tensions (Chadefaux, 2011). The quick shift in German power caused fear among neighboring states as they were uncertain about resource allocation after the change.

Lack of mature negotiation over power shifts can lead to war among rival nations (Tempest, 2014). The question of whether German power could have been more easily accommodated by other great powers has a negative answer. Rapid changes in relative power create tension, which can ultimately result in war. This is due to the fact that during periods of power shifts, greater powers may become concerned about the rising nations' potential to exploit and increase their strength in the future. As a result, other great nations were unable to accommodate Germany's power and may have preferred to engage in conflict to avoid future negotiations when they were in a weaker position (Chadefaux, 2011).

Germany was determined to pursue war in order to enhance its position and further its interests, rather than making accommodations. Its objective was to maintain the status of its military and improve its armed forces (Tempest, 2014).

In terms of initiating the war, Germany is more culpable than other nations. It bears responsibility for the losses and damages caused by its troops during their invasions.

According to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (war guilt clause), it is customary for the losing party in a war to be compelled to pay reparations to the victor. Germany's acts of aggression against France in 1871 and Russia in 1918 meant that they would have had to bear the financial burden for the damages caused had they lost World War I (Tempest, 2014).

Conclusion

According to liberal belief, the causes of World War I can be attributed to oppressive regimes, imperialism, capitalism, and flawed systems. An authoritarian government, such as an anarchic system, tends to generate insecurity and suspicion among neighboring states, making them more prone to conflict. The denial of certain rights to citizens by an autocratic regime can also lead to war. In contrast, liberal nations tend to be more peaceful than non-liberal ones.

The initiation of World War I can be attributed to Russia and Germany, as they were the ones responsible for starting it. When nations with similar political, military, and economic ideologies form alliances or divisions, it can create hostility towards nations that do not share the same ideas. This hostility can potentially lead to war. Instead of seeking diplomatic resolutions for conflicts between involved states, military leadership played a significant role in setting the stage for the war.

The text includes a list of references with the following sources:

1) Chadefaux's article titled "Bargaining over power: when do shifts in power lead to war?" published in International Theory in 2011.
2)

Clausewitz's book "On victory and defeat: A Princeton Shorts selection from On War" published by Princeton University Press in 2011.
3) Doyle's article titled "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs" published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1989.
4) Lieber's article titled "The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory" published in International Security, volume 2, issue 32, in 2007.
5) Stevenson's work from 2004 is mentioned without further details.

Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy, New York: Basic Books. Temple, S. (2014). Why Did the Treaty of Versailles Target Germany as the Sole Responsible for Starting World War 1?

View the source here. Retrieved on March 15, 2016.