Causes of World War I (School help)

[silver 2039]

I need to write a paragraph on the causes for World WAr I. I'm not quite finished but what do you think of this? Its not exactly a paragraph.... but I know so much about WWI...

Understanding the Causes of World War I

The causes of World War I are manifold and complex. It is clear however that the assassination of the Archduke Fran Ferdinand heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was not solely responsible for World War I. It can be said that the stage from World War I was set back during the Congress of Vienna when the world order was drawn up by the triumphant powers.

The world order was set as France, Britain, Austria, and Russia being the Great Powers of Europe and the world. However by 1914 this designated world order that had kept peace for many years had changed drastically. No longer was Austria (now Austria-Hungary), Russia, or France a Great Power in the true sense of the word. The Austrian Empire was decadent and in decline as was Russia, France had fallen from a Great Power to a regional power. The Congress also failed to predict the powerful unifying and destroying force of nationalism. As a result the balance of power was further disrupted by the rise of Prussia (now Germany) as a Great Power that unified the other German states and the collapse of Ottoman power in the Balkans.

Nationalism was one of the most significant causes of World War I. On one hand it unified Germany, Italy and allowed the Balkan states to through off the Ottoman yoke. On the other hand it pulled the multi-ethnic empires of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans apart. Nationalism caused the Serb nationalists of the Black Hand to assassinate Franz Ferdinand. The powerful transcendent force of nationalism was one of the major causes of World War I. It was not only Serbia that had nationalists; they were present in Turkey, Germany, Britain, France and just about every country in the world. They felt that their country was greater than others and pursued aggressive agenda’s. For instance an Austro-Hungarian nationalist Franz Conrad demanded war with Serbian twenty-one times during 1913. Austria-Hungary’s response of war to the assassination was due to its fears of losing its status as a Great Power. In the words of Franz Conrad Chief of the General Staff “An old monarchy and glorious army must not perish without glory” Thus Austria-Hungary acted to protect its power.

Nationalism was not the sole cause. It was compounded by imperialism. All the major powers of Europe were at the time imperialist, desiring annexation of territory and founding of new colonies for resources to feed their markets. As a result they were often in conflict with each other over colonies and foreign interests such as the Morocco Crisis between Germany and France in 1911. The imperialist desires then fed militarism the building up of armed forces, which caused the naval arms race between Germany and Britain as each nation tried to outdo each other with bigger and better ships.

Militarism drove the European nations to seek protection through an interlocking web of alliances. The Triple Entente was formed between Britain, France, and Russia, while the Triple Alliance formed between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. In addition to these formal alliances were secret alliances such as the one made between Germany and Rumania. When war broke out between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in July 1914 it spread as a result of these alliances. Russia mobilized against Austria-Hungary; meanwhile Germany moved to support its ally. Thus the war, which had started off as a contained regional crisis in the Balkans, turned into a general European war and then a World War with the fighting spreading to the colonies in Africa and Asia-Pacific. (to be continued)

So what do you think? Too much? Too little? Anything wrong?

 

[Reno]

One could (throught statistics) argue that in the long run without World War I, Tsarist Russia would've improved economically. But that's just a "what if".

Also, you could mention that the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was quite modernistic and anti-war. (Unlike Emperor Franz Josef and most of the cabinet) And that the fact that Russia, Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary were weakened was partially also due to lack of reforms.

Also (This is just a nitpick), you could add the year dates for the forming of the Alliances.

 

[Adler17]

Varykalkas wrote an excellent article about that here. Look at it.

Adler

 

[Ukas]

I think it's a bit long for a paragraph. Anyway, if it's for the school, they just might like it if it's a bit too long.

One could (throught statistics) argue that in the long run without World War I, Tsarist Russia would've improved economically. But that's just a "what if".

That's a major what if. Nikolai II had ruled 23 years before the revolution, and for the worse. He was 50, so he could've had another 23 years of reign in him.

 

[Gangor]

You might want to mention the naval arms race between Britain and Germany? That alone made war kinda inevitable. Edit: ooh, never mind. Although perhaps it deserves more attention.

 

[Nobody]

Just to note, What year level are you doing this at. I mean that seems like a small essay not a paragraph requested. Although it is hard to summurise the causes of the great war in just 3 sentences.

 

[AxiomUk]

I would say that at it's most basic level, the causes for the Great War would be centred around the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the tensions between countries in a still somewhat imperialist Europe had resulted in alliances to secure individual European countries, whilst simultaneously balancing Europe off into 'sides'.

 

[Verbose]

About the status an power race:

You make it sound as if problems here were caused only by the relative failure of some nations to compete?
I think it's rather a question of upsets cause by the relative success of in particular Germany, and to some extent the US and Japan.

German industrial, demographic and financial strength was a massive headache for all involved. Their failure was mostly relative only to the German success.

Austria, shut out of Germany proper by the unification looking towards the Balkans instead, letting it's good relations with Russia slip and generally floundering, not least because of internal nationalist tensions (the Hungarians extorting Vienna).

Russia loosing to a Japan on the rise in 1905, almost eliminated as a naval power but still immense, if only industrialisation would kick in properly, and after all perhaps the most serious continental competitor to Imperial Germany. Not exactly on the wane, rather looking big and menacing with lots of potential but still many inherent weaknesses.

France gobbling up geography and population in Africa to compensate but scared sh!tless by it's demographic weakness at home compared to Germany.

The UK, still the empire on which the sun never sets, but the RN stretched so thin the French had to take over the protection of shipping lanes in the Western Med. Clearly no longer in posession of the industrial muscle necessary to defend it's empire against rising nations like Germany, Japan, the US (and possibly Russia). They were a waning great power too, just with further too fall.

 

[El Justo]

hmm...it's very coincidental that this topic has arisen as i am in the process of reading Niall Ferguson's Pity of War and he has dealt w/ this exact question:

Ferguson adds another twist in addition to the 'nationalism' and 'militarism' themes:
he claims that Germany went to war to preserve her economic standing. by this he meant that while Germany at this time was clearly a massive industrial power, she was also lagging behind in economic growth when compared to the British Empire, France and Russia.

in simpler terms, Ferguson states that on the eve of war, the German economic sectors were not set up to endure for a long continental war and that the Kaiser felt the need to 'strike while the iron is hot'.

Ferguson also lists further causes such as the German bond market lagging behind that of England's, France, and even Russia. methods of taxation were also discussed and how Germany's method of "indirect taxation" further complicated the economic picture for the Kaiser.

needless to say, Ferguson's take is very interesting to say the least...

 

[Reno]

Niall Ferguson's Pity of War

That's a good book, i've read it myself a few years back. Really worth reading.

Ferguson also has quite one intresting claim; If Germany had not broken the neutrality of Belgium in 1914, the United Kingdom would have done it themselves.

 

[Reno]

That's a major what if. Nikolai II had ruled 23 years before the revolution, and for the worse. He was 50, so he could've had another 23 years of reign in him.

Considering that Catherine the Great was the longest lived Romanov (68 years, i think), i doubt that Nikolai II would have been able to rule for that long as another 23 years. But then again that's another; "What If".

 

[El Justo]

That's a good book, i've read it myself a few years back. Really worth reading.

Ferguson also has quite one intresting claim; If Germany had not broken the neutrality of Belgium in 1914, the United Kingdom would have done it themselves.

yes Reno. i agree

and yes again, you're right! the UK, as it appears, was not ready to participate in a war on the continent for the sake of upholding their 'honour' (ie - coming to the aide of France) as was the case during the Boer War.

i've learned a great deal from that book.

Ferguson has another good read: Colossus

 

[Odin2006]

The causes of WW1 were Nationalism, Imperialilism, and the European states becoming grouped into two blocks, hopping it would have a MAD-like effect. Germany was itching to grap some overseas colonies form the other powers and A-H was itching to expand futher into the balkans, raising the ire of russia, ther "traditional" protector of other Slavs. Europeans had also gotten complacent, there hadn't been a continent-scale war since Napoleon. Connflict was inevitable. If the Archduke hadn't been assasinated something else would of come allong an triggered the decent into madness.

 

[Greek Stud]

I was under the impression that Archduke Franz Ferdinand even though was allied with German, did not get along with its Kaisers. And the Ferdinand did not want war, but the Germany wanted war against the Serbs. That when Ferdinand and the Kaiser who visited before Ferdinand's assassination were only theatrically acting as friends, but were in disagreement about the thought of war.

The Great War led to the evacuation of Serbs from their homes and trying to escape south through the rough mountains until they could reach the Mediterranean. They were given a safe-haven on the island of Corfu (never Turkish).

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Varykalkas wrote an excellent article about that here. Look at it.

Adler

This one.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I would say that at it's most basic level, the causes for the Great War would be centred around the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the tensions between countries in a still somewhat imperialist Europe had resulted in alliances to secure individual European countries, whilst simultaneously balancing Europe off into 'sides'.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was probably more of an excuse to go to war. I don't think Europe was mad enough to kill 9 000 000 troops over it.

 

[DAv2003]

You're wrong I'm afraid. The war started because a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry