On June 28, 1914, the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. By August 4th 1914, all of Europe was at war. Understanding how and why this war happened is one of the greatest international relations questions of our time. Within a matter of days, the world was in a full-scale war, and it was not until November 11, 1918 that the war was finally over. Soon after, the German Empire, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire all ceased to exist. At the outbreak of World War I, Britain and France were the European hegemonic powers - the political and economic rulers of the world. Germany’s goal was to overthrow this balance and come out as the single European hegemon. The theory …show more content…
Anarchy encourages behavior that leaves all actors worse off than they could be. This central idea is known as the security dilemma. The security dilemma is the possibility that a state's actions to provide for its security may result in a decrease in the security of all states. Under anarchy, states naturally struggle for power. Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security …show more content…
Even defensively motivated efforts by states to provide for their own security through armaments, alliances, and deterrent threats are often perceived as threatening and lead to counter-actions and conflict spirals that are difficult to reverse.” This is exactly what happened in WWI. Even the defensive actions of Britain and France to maintain the status quo were misinterpreted as offensive actions, which reinforced the security dilemma. At its core, the realist theory argues that the distribution of power within a system, and the actions taken to balance this power, is the primary factor in shaping international
Before World War I, all of Europe in 1914, was tense and like a bomb or a fire was waiting to erupt. Europe had not seen a major war in years, but due to Militarism, Imperialism, Alliances, and Nationalism tensions grew high. Each country was competing to be the best by gaining more territory and growing in their military size and successful economies. World War 1 was waiting to happen and the assassination of the Archduke was the spark that lit Europe up. In All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque we see the effects of the assassination.
At the turn of the twentieth century, Europe seemed to enjoy a period of peace and progress. Yet below the surface, several forces were at work that would lead Europe into the “Great War.” One of these forces was nationalism, and it had an explosive effect in the Balkans. But, nationalism was only one of the many causes of World War I. Historians and eyewitnesses have described the causes of World War I and have tried to assess the responsibility for it. Militarism, Nationalism, and Alliance were some of the main cause for WWI and Grate Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria- Hungary and Italy Had a Grate Part to Play in It.
In July 28, 1914 to November 11,1918 World War 1 took place where over 17 million lives were lost and over 20 million wounded soldiers. This war was between Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States against Germany, and Austria-Hungary. The main cause of World War 1 was militarism where many European countries kept increasing their size of their army and navy without a war going on. In the article “What Was the Underlying Cause of World War 1?”
World War one had many devastating impact on the soldiers. There were four trends that led to the world war. Some of them were Nationalism, Militarism, Imperialism and the Alliance System. Some allies in the system were France, Britain and Russia. Nationalism was devotion to the interests and culture of one’s nation.
The document from London Times History of the World the two countries of Great Britain and Germany had in there army two times and its navy 3 times its original size from 1890 to 1914. This led many countries to be concerned and aware that they could be attacked by these two countries. As told from Bernhard von Bulow in his article “The Hammer or the Anvil” he writes “We don 't want to step on the toes of any foreign power, but at the same time we don 't want our own feet trampled by any foreign power… no welfare for us without power, without a strong army and a strong fleet.” Bulow explains that the only way to prosper as a country is to militarize because of the fear of becoming an anvil to another country. Nevertheless militarizing did not cause the war
For Mearsheimer, this is the very basis of realistic thinking and in turn equates international order to anarchy. 2. Great powers maintain and continue to acquire militaristic capabilities in order to eradicate the idea of weakness and establish sovereignty over lesser powers. 3. A country can never be sure of another country’s motive hence each party is left
Imperialism is the underlying cause of World War I because it not only caused bitterness among countries with less colonial rule, it also promoted the increase in militarism and alliances. Colonies were forced to fight alongside
In the next seven days Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary, Germany declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, Britain joined France and Russia, Europe is at war!” (DBQ: What Were the Underlying Causes of World War 1, 2010, Background
The great Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck, the man who takes credit for the unification of Germany in 1871, once said “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” It went as he predicted and how right he was. On August 1, 1914, four days after Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, two more great European powers—Russia and Germany—declare war on each other; the same day, France ordered a general mobilization. This event is widely acknowledged to have sparked the outbreak of World War I on July 28, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death with his wife by the Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. Following the assination,
The June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Serbian Black Hand Group, caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. As their allies got involved this conflict grew into World War I (WWI). This event wasn’t the real cause of the war, it was just the spark that started it. Most people would say the causes were imperialism, nationalism, alliances and militarism.
The first great-war shattered the human mind so profound that out of its aftermaths’ emerged a fresh discipline (in 1919 at the University of Whales known to us as International Relations) proposed to prevent war. “It was deemed by the scholars that the study of International Politics shall find the root cause of the worlds political problems and put forward solutions to help politicians solve them” (Baylis 2014:03). International Relations happened to play the role of a ‘correcting-mechanism’ restoring the world order of peace and amity by efforting at its best to maintain the worlds’ status quo. However with the emergence of a second world war much more massive that the first put at stake all the values of that young discipline of IR. The
The Unpreventable Great War World War I was one of the most devastating and destructive events that occurred during history. It was inevitable to happen due to three main factors including, militarism, nationalism, and alliances between certain countries. However, there are other people who believe that World War I was not inevitable and could have been prevented through certain measures. This source describes that World War I could have been prevented if there were more stable and successful negotiations between countries. However, due to the lack of peaceful negotiations between certain countries, many conflicts arose because of desires to expand military and navels.
World War 1 was the first global conflict as it was a struggle between the leading world powers in Europe that had colonised the 19th century. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia, heir to the Austrian-Hungary throne was a major trigger factor that led to the World War breaking out. It initially began as a European quarrel caused by the rivalry between nations which led to a series of mobilisations. In addition, there were many other vital factors to consider and these include Imperialism, Nationalism, Alliances and Militarism. This essay will explain how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 triggered a number of events that led to the outbreak of World War 1.
I seek to explain the onset of World War I, World War II Europe, and World War II Pacific by using a systemic level of analysis, particularly dynamic differentials theory. Dynamic Differentials Theory states that war is likely when a dominant power is facing deep and inevitable decline. These dominant powers are more likely to wage war against another power because they suspect their own power is fleeting and want to prevent their decline by any means necessary. This theory also states that war is only likely in a multipolar system when the declining state has substantially more military power than the others, and will only declare war when the declining power believes its military strength has reached its peak. WORLD WAR
It believes that all individuals are born with an increasing desire to own power hardwired inside them. In these circumstances dominant states should do direct high power over their rivals. In the other hand, structural realism does not define the quest for power, instead it is focused on the structure of the international