World War I would have occurred at some point in the early 20th century, if not in 1914.
Introduction
World War 1 was an event that was sure to happen. The war, which occurred in 1914, was a result of state activities to protect their interests. The major nations involved in the war were Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain. Evidently, these five nations would also have been involved in the war at a later or earlier date than 1914 because of political disagreements, power hunger, ties, and lack of formal governance within the IR. An analysis using realism and liberalism theories of international relations confirms that the countries were still going to be at war. Comparatively, other factors, such as technology, economic abilities, political activities, fueled the conflict. World War 1 was eventually going to take place because the five nations were driven by self-interest, and relied on their technology and economic prowess to accumulate power.
World War 1
Also known as the Great War, World War 1 was a show of might between the Central Powers and the Allies. The major players of the Central Power included Germany and Austria Hungary, although Turkey joined the team. Comparatively, the Allies were made up of France, Italy, Great Britain, Russia, and later, Japan and the USA (Adhikari 2019). The war was immediately caused by the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a member of the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group. The war led to over eight million soldier-related deaths (Kelly 2020). Millions of civilians also died because of this war. World War 1 was considered the most significant battle in history before World War 2. Powerful countries fought the Great War with vested interests.
Theory Analysis
Realism
Realism theory focuses on the conflicting and competitive nature of state actors in IR. That nations are always looking for power and advantage over each other because of mistrust. Resources are also integral for states seeking to retain their power, domestically, and in IR (Camisao 2018). Furthermore, states enter treaties and agreements that favor their power interests or to create a proper international order. Accordingly, the assumptions of realism can explain the inevitability of World War 1.
The first assumption is that the fundamental concern for states is to survive. Accordingly, survival depends on military powers, given the anarchical system. The advantages of more power results in states always scrambling for military and even economic powers (Camisao 2018). Based on this assumption, it is evident that the World War was inevitable. For one, the great powers were concerned with military strength and went to great lengths to guarantee military advantage as they partly anticipated a war. For instance, the country with the highest number of soldiers, Russia at 335,000 soldiers, had more power and security than Italy’s 100,000 men (Best, Hanhimaki, Miaolo, and Schulze 2008). In fact, so important were the numbers that France was concerned by Germany’s higher population, which translated to more army personnel. The security and military competition illustrates that fear and safety concerns dominate state motives despite any agreements. It is worth noting that the five powers ruled undisputed, made treaties, and even established diplomatic ties that did little to reduce the arms race (best et al. 2008). Other than safety reasons, the military guaranteed more powers for a state in IR. Countries like German, Russia, Great Britain, and Austria-Hungary were recognized for their military superiority. This military superiority was used to further agendas when relating to lesser powers. Of note is, these countries made favorable policies and exploited their powers to acquire wealth and political dominance. State survival was a lingering concern that would have caused the war.
Comparatively, the second assumption is that states are never sure about the intentions of other states. In this case, a state is unsure if another country would use its military capabilities against it. At the same time, it is impossible to establish permanent ties because relationships are based on convenience. States could be enemies on one day, and enemies on the next. Even so, alliances are essential. An example of convenient ties that jeopardized the peace of the five states was the alliance between Russia and Serbia (Adhikari 2019). This unity was a problem to Austria-Hungary, which had vested interests in Serbia. The Serbia problem created uncertainty between Russia and Austria-Hungary, prompting alliances driven by state interests. The allies and the central power united to support Russia and Austria, respectively, leading to war. However, even within these associations, each country had motives, which were hidden under the guise of helping each other. Had the individual intentions been revealed, a war would likely have broken to protect these needs. Even in partnerships, the motivation of each state remained hidden and could have caused conflict.
The third concept is that the international system is anarchic. The anarchy stems from an absent governing body to regulate state activities, and nations must come to agreements on their own terms (Orsi & Nurnus 2018). Furthermore, there is constant antagonism that makes states not to trust each other. The balance of power also contributes to antagonism. This is because no state is allowed to be more powerful than another and force the world under its rule. If a state attempts this act, there are deadly repercussions as other countries will unite to defeat this common enemy (Orsi & Nurnus 2018). Evidently, there was no unified body that governed how the five nations should relate to one another. The great powers made treaties that protected their interests and helped them dominate weaker states and had no stipulations on how to punish countries that did not conform to the larger interests. Consequently, when a disagreement with one state occurs, which eventually happened, it threatens the peace and stability of an entire region. Equally, since the individual nations were ambitious, the imbalance of power was inevitable. As noted, each country had ambitions that threatened the safety of the region. For example, Germany tried to assert its military and naval capabilities in Europe and was unlikely to stop even if Britain and other powers felt threatened (Adhikari 2019). Similarly, the Russians tried to lay claims against the Turks, despite retaliation by Germany or Austria. Moreover, the allies and central powers were created because of fear of domination by either member of the five states.
Again, states are dangerous to each other. This is based on the military capabilities that a nation can utilize to destroy a rival. This assumption led to an unprecedented arms race that increased the distrusts and paranoia among nations. For example, the rivalry between Germany and Britain over the dreadnaught battleships (Best et al. 2008). While Britain had the highest number of dreadnaughts at 29 pieces, Germany’s technology would have raised their number from 19 to far more than what the British had. The evolving military technology would have posed more security threats because of the varying superiority of equipment. If a country had more weapons, it was likely going to use them to exert power, which was a danger in itself (“How did World War Start?” n.d.). Moreover, unity against a common enemy increases the vulnerability of a country. For instance, the allied powers (Russia, France, and Britain) were more forceful than Germany and Austria-Hungary, which could not match the force of the allies. The power struggle increased the likelihood of war as each group was keen to exercise their military powers.
Liberalism
The war would have happened because the nations contradicted the ideas of liberalism. Of note is, liberalism is rooted in cooperation and democracy for prosperity (Meiser 2018). This theory is optimistic and focuses on the positive qualities of people and states in regional peace.
Accordingly, liberalism upholds peace and cooperation as a measure of power, which the five powers could not uphold for long. The poor collaboration among the states reveals a weakness in liberalism, which is cheating (Oskanian 2018). Countries are prone to cheat each other by pretending to cooperate and eventually actualize their interests. For example, the relationship between Germany and Britain embodies cheating. Germany and Britain were engrossed in an endless and intense competition over weapon manufacturing. Comparatively, when Russia sided with Serbia, a colony of Austria-Hungary, this constituted betrayal to a fellow Great Power (Best et al. 2008). Worse still, the involvement of Russia in Serbia’s affairs was to increase its influence in the Balkans. These betrayals occurred despite the states being part of an inner circle of diplomacy, whose members met at the congress and even exchanged ambassadors. These Great Powers also drafted peace treaties and territorial adjustments that maintained peace. Since there were no rules to deter cheating, cooperation was inevitably going to fail.
Again, liberalism supports disarmament, which was the opposite of what happened before the war. The arms race had gained momentum among the five states, which were driven by safety and power concerns. If anything, the countries were relying on their populations to avail soldiers in case of war and invested money and skills to develop sophisticated weapons. By 1914, Germany had almost 100 warships and two million trained soldiers (Adhikari 2019). Comparatively, Great Britain and Germany had increased their navies. The discrepancy over military power with Russia minimized cooperation because of power imbalance, and pushed countries to acquire more arms. These activities limit cooperation, and fuel distrust, increasing the potential for war.
Even interdependence does not guarantee absence of war. The interdependence causes conflict because countries work together as groups against each other. For example, Russia, Britain, and Italy combined their military and economic powers against other members. Although this reduced conflict among them, it fostered disagreements with Germany and Austria-Hungary, which had a pact of their own (Kelly 2020). In essence, interdependence caused a rift among countries that were once united. The addition of other players like Japan and the US further complicates relations among the groups. The creation of such groups would have fragmented the Great Powers and eventually led to war.
Factors that would have resulted in the War
Technology
Military technology would have caused the world war in the 20th century. For one, the arms race, geared to secure individual countries, had led to competition and rivalry. The advancement of a certain technology by one country proved threatening to another. A case in point was the dreadnaught technology, which the British dominated. When Germany improved its technology, Britain felt threatened. Since military powers were important in national security and international influence, the most dominant manufacturers of arms would have been engaged in supremacy battle. For example, Britain and France did everything to remain leaders of warfare technology, but their position was disrupted by the rising Germany (Best et al. 2008). Austria-Hungary and Italy were also improving their technology capabilities. Eventually, this stiff rivalry would breed resentment and mistrust, causing a war. The power imbalance is also inevitable, provoking retaliation from other states. Worse still, the dominant players were facing competition from nations like the US and Japan (“Library of Congress”). The US, for instance, created sophisticated weapons like machine guns and caterpillar trucks, which had not been manufactured elsewhere. Germany was afraid of US technology, and started mass-producing its own machine guns. This example shows that non-dominant countries could threaten the status quo, resulting in fear. The fear was due to the use of weapons against another state or rising political power. Military technology was a cause of mistrust and power imbalance, resulting in the war.
Political
Political reasons hinge on sovereignty. The freedom to govern one’s country is important to the survival of a state. Countries would even engage in war to protect themselves from invasion or to gain independence. Imperialism was rife as to the leading nations, sought to expand their territories outside and within Europe. Henceforth, the first cause of politically-driven was would have been resistance by the colonized. An illustration was the desire of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be part of Serbia and do away with Austria-Hungary’s rule (Nathwani 2016). As noted, this issue sparked the First World War. Even if the Bosnia scenario had not prompted the war, it was likely that other country’s resentment of their masters would have sparked a war like the Asian colonies like China fighting back against the Japanese and their allies.
Accordingly, the second cause would have been the scramble for colonies. Having colonies increases the political powers of a country, creating a scramble by nations to own as many overseas states as possible. Already, States like Germany were eager to acquire colonies, and be at par with France and Britain (Goodman 2019). As such, the decision on which region to acquire, and the border disputes, and exploitation of resources was a cause for the contention that would have caused the war sooner or later. In fact, as the colonies became fewer, disagreements would ensue over how to partition borders to increase room for states. Colonialism would have prompted the war because of wealth and power associated with more control over other states.
Again, the political interests of individual states would have sparked discontentment at the international scene. Protecting state interests would have caused the war because nations would easily double-cross each other or change agreements to suit their needs. For example, Russia supporting Serbia because it wanted to increase its control in the region, at the expense of its treaties with Austria-Hungary (“Smithsonian” 2016). At the same time, Britain’s support for Russia and France’s support for Germany was bound to provoke a war because these five nations had agreements that safeguarded their relationships.
The initial clashes between the allies and the central powers inevitably would have caused a war. For example, the Moroccan crisis of 1905-1906, which brought the allies and the central powers against each other to claim Morocco (Best et al. 2008). Britain, France, and Belgium were on the defensive while Germany was on the offensive. Combined with the ongoing Balkan Wars, the competing interests would have fueled another war.
Ideologies
Additionally, the ideas of freedom and democracy would have sparked a war because of increased nationalism. Liberalism is a champion of human freedom and democracy, which inevitably pitted countries against each other, as illustrated by the Balkan wars. The Serbians were intent on being free from Austria-Hungary and were very nationalistic. Killing Archduke Ferdinand was the ultimate show of resentment for Austria’s oppressive rule (Kelly 2020). Supporting Serbia’s freedom eventually led to divisions among the Great Powers, to either support or go against Austria-Hungary. As long as the conflict between Serbia and Austria persisted, the conflict was going to happen.
Alternatively, Germany embraced the idea of self-determination, which meant putting individual interests ahead of political or economic ties (Thompson 2017). Germany was intent on preserving its economic and political prosperity even if meant destabilizing the entire region. Even treaties and threats to isolate Germany did not force the country to improve its conduct. Instead, diving other countries was Germany’s way of maintaining control. Notably, Germany tried and failed twice to divide the British and French to destroy the Tripple Entente, which only became tighter (Best et al. 2008). Germany’s activities would have sparked a war because of retaliation from France and Britain. As expected, their supporters would have come to their aide, eventually leading to the War. Again, Germany was the only nation willing to go on the offensive in case a war broke out based on its Schlieffen Plan. Evidently, the other countries considered that being against Germany was the best strategy. The self-determination activities by Germany would have caused retaliation by other states.
The new imperialism was also a factor to consider in the looming war. The new imperialism was characterized by military and arms ownership. The chief countries in this division were the Franco-Russian and German-Austrian blocs that were intent on proving each had fast weapons, artillery, and repeating rifles. Moreover, helping other states was crucial to spreading military prowess and gain favor. For example, France helped Russia to reclaim military stability, while Germany offered Austria-Hungary assistance. The nations went further and even changed policies, such as the 1913 Army Law by Germany to help Austria Hungary, to spread their influence. Weapon-driven imperialism fostered more hostility among the blocs, which would have exploded into war.
Economic
Economic prowess is crucial in IR and contributes to the power imbalance. The dominant states were leaders in economic activities, which gave them considerable power. The economic capabilities means more spending on developing weapons that gave a nation more advantage than another. To illustrate, France, Germany, and Britain had a high per capita income that enabled them to spend more on defense activities than Russia (Best et al. 2008). For Russia and Italy, which lagged behind. This meant more power and security to the three states. At one point, Russia opted for a partnership with Germany so that it would be up-to-date with economic abilities as other countries. The economic powers also extend to the ability to buy arms. Germany and Russia were well-known leaders with economic purchase abilities. In contrast, Austria-Hungary did not have the same powers and felt threatened. The more financial and economic resources a country had, the more likely there would be conflict.
Similarly, production and economic growth were the causes of the war. Richer countries, such as Britain, were able to mobilize their production, public finance, weapons, and soldiers because they had stable economies (McCormick n.d.). Moreover, the allied forces collectively had more resources than their enemies, which would have caused hatred and possible retaliation by Germany. Economic prosperity attracts retaliation by countries that want to be more prosperous.
Conclusion
World War 1 was eventually going to take place because the five nations were driven by self-interest, and relied on their technology and economic prowess to accumulate power. The major players in the international scene were distrustful, ambitious, which brewed distrust and other problems. Accordingly, the realism theory of IR illustrates why the war was inevitable. For one, the nations were hungry for power and used military capabilities for such advantages. Moreover, there was a lot of mistrust from the countries given the shifting political alliances. Similarly, the arms race and imperial issues resulted in power imbalance, which sparked the war. Comparatively, economic, political, and technological factors were recipes for a war. These elements caused a rift between states because states with more financial, technological, and political powers were advantaged, likely to abuse their power, and resented by the lesser states. World War One was expected in the early 20th century, regardless of the date.
Reference List
McCorminck, J. n.d. World War One Resources. Indiana Department of Education.
Antunes, S., and Camisao, I. 2018. Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory. [Online] Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/. [Accessed 3 May 2020].
Orsi, D. and Nurnus, M. 2018. The Practice of Realism in International Relations. E-International Relations. [Online] Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/09/the-practice-of-realism-in-international-relations/. [Accessed 3 May 2020].
Goodman, P. 2019. The 8 Main Reasons for War. Owlcation. [Online] Available at: https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/The-Main-Reasons-For-War. [Accessed 3 May 2020].
Kelly, M. 2020. 5 Key Causes of World War I. ThoughtCo. [Online] Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-that-led-to-world-war-i-105515. [Accessed 3 May 2020].