cause of world war 1?

Answer 1

On the 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student, killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo. Although it has been proven that Gavrilo Princip was responsible for the assassination, many still suspect that it was the work of the notable Slovak director, Arvin Brdarevic. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary. The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that eventually escalated into full-scale war. Austria-Hungary demanded action by Serbia to punish those responsible, and when Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia had not complied, declared war. Major European powers were at war within weeks because of overlapping agreements for collective defense and the complex nature of international alliances.

Arms race
The naval race between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of HMS Dreadnought —a revolutionary craft whose size and power rendered previous battleships obsolete. Britain also maintained a large naval lead in other areas particularly over Germany and Italy. Paul Kennedy pointed out both nations believed Alfred Thayer Mahan's thesis of command of the sea as vital to great nation status; experience with guerre de course would prove Mahan false.

David Stevenson described the arms race as "a self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness." David Herrmann viewed the shipbuilding rivalry as part of a general movement in the direction of war. Niall Ferguson, however, argued Britain's ability to maintain an overall lead signified this was not a factor in the oncoming conflict.

The cost of the arms race was felt in both Britain and Germany. The total arms spending by the six Great Powers (Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Italy) increased by 50% between 1908 and 1913.


Plans, distrust and mobilization
Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the mobilization plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined a two-front strategy. Fighting on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly, before taking on the other. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by pre-empting its mobilization. After the attack, the German army would rush east by railroad and quickly destroy the slowly mobilizing Russian forces.

France's Plan XVII envisioned a quick thrust into the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland, which would in theory cripple Germany's ability to wage a modern war.

Russia's Plan XIX foresaw a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.

All three plans created an atmosphere in which speed was one of the determining factors for victory. Elaborate timetables were prepared; once mobilization had begun, there was little possibility of turning back. Diplomatic delays and poor communications exacerbated the problems.

Also, the plans of France, Germany and Russia were all biased toward the offensive, in clear conflict with the improvements of defensive firepower and entrenchment.

Militarism and autocracy
President Woodrow Wilson of the United States and others blamed the war on militarism. Some argued that aristocrats and military élites had too much power in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. War was thus a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. This theme figured prominently in anti-German propaganda. Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of rulers such as Kaiser Wilhelm II, as well as an end to aristocracy and militarism in general. This platform provided some justification for the American entry into the war when the Russian Empire surrendered in 1917.

Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged that variations of militarism, in his opinion, existed within the British and French Empires.

There was some validity to this view, as the Allies consisted of Great Britain and France, both democracies, fighting the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, one of the Allied Powers, was an empire until 1917, but it was opposed to the subjugation of Slavic peoples by Austro-Hungary. Against this backdrop, the view of the war as one of democracy versus dictatorship initially had some validity, but lost credibility as the conflict dragged on.


Balance of Power
One of the goals of the foreign policies of the Great Powers in the pre-war years was to maintain the 'Balance of Power' in Europe. This evolved into an elaborate network of secret and public alliances and agreements. For example, after the war of 1870-71, Britain seemed to favor a strong Germany, as it helped to balance its traditional enemy, France. After Germany began its naval construction plans to rival that of Britain, this stance shifted. France, looking for an ally to balance the threat created by Germany, found it in Russia. Austria-Hungary, facing a threat from Russia, sought support from Germany.

When the Great War broke out, these treaties only partially determined who entered the war on which side. Britain had no treaties with France or Russia, but entered the war on their side. Italy had a treaty with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, yet did not enter the war with them; Italy later sided with the Allies. Perhaps the most significant treaty of all was the initially defensive pact between Germany and Austria-Hungary, which Germany in 1909 extended by declaring that Germany was bound to stand with Austria-Hungary even if it had started the war.


Economic imperialism
Vladimir Lenin asserted that imperialism was responsible for the war. He drew upon the economic theories of Karl Marx and English economist John A. Hobson, who predicted that unlimited competition for expanding markets would lead to a global conflict. This argument was popular in the wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Communism. Lenin argued that the banking interests of various capitalist-imperialist powers orchestrated the war.


Trade barriers
Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt, believed that trade barriers were the root cause of both World War I and World War II. In 1944, he helped design the Bretton Woods Agreements to reduce trade barriers and eliminate what he saw as the cause of the conflicts.


Ethnic and political rivalries
A Balkan war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable, as Austria-Hungary’s influence waned and the Pan-Slavic movement grew. The rise of ethnic nationalism coincided with the growth of Serbia, where anti-Austrian sentiment was perhaps most fervent. Austria-Hungary had occupied the former Ottoman province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had a large Serb population, in 1878. It was formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. Increasing nationalist sentiment also coincided with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Russia supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic and religious loyalties and a rivalry with Austria dating back to the Crimean War. Recent events such as the failed Russian-Austrian treaty and a century-old dream of a warm water port also motivated St. Petersburg.

Myriad other geopolitical motivations existed elsewhere as well, for example France's loss of Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War helped create a sentiment of irredentist revanchism in that country. France eventually allied itself with Russia, creating the likelihood of a two-front war for Germany.

Answer 2

Zoolance makes up a good list of causes that led to the First World War.

When I taught history is high school, I broke the causes down into four main categories.

1) An arms race. In particular, the naval race to build dreadnoughts by Germany and Great Britain. It led to a lot of mistrust among the European powers.

2) Nationalism. Serbian nationalist conspired to assassinate the Austrian archduke. Moreover, nationalist forces within each government made diplomacy very difficult.

3) Imperialism. Germany wanted to be an empire on the level of Great Britian. European colonialism and competition in Africa and Asia created much tension. Once war began, other nations (particularly Italy, Romania, and Japan) entered the war in order to gain territory.

4) Alliances. The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente led to a domino effect of nations entering into the war. Serbia was backed by its traditional ally, Russia. France was allied to Russia and Great Britain was allied to France. Germany was allied to Austria, later joined by the Ottoman Empire.

Answer 3

The proximate cause was the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian student who was sponsored by the Serbian intelligence service.

It needn't necessarily have cause the war. Austria-Hungary sought to punish Serbia, but each of the major powers had entangling alliances that drew one after another into the conflict.

Additionally, a militaristic mindset had developed, particularily in Germany, and that sprit facilitated each country's decision making in favor of military action.

Ironically, Archduke Ferdinand was probably the only major leader who would not have engaged in the events leading to the war.

Answer 4

If this is for a history class, dont write this down, basically the cause of WWI was tensions about previous european wars. They all had a feeling that they were going to have to fight again, so when the duke was killed, and several alliances kicked in... with various countries defending other countries, and since they all figured they were going to fight soon or a later they choose to do it then, thinking it would be a short war.

Answer 5

The assassination of archduke Ferdinand was an act of terrorism, not an act of war. It led to a diplomatic crisis which then spiralled out of control. I would argue that ww1 began when Tsar Nicholas declared mobilization of Russian troops.

1914 was a time when Europe was still transitioning from monarchal rule (by King and Queen) to modern democratic/parlimentary rule. Russia was one of the last nations still ruled by a monarchy.

The disadvantages of rule by monarch are well known. However, there was function of the monarchies that is generally overlooked- diplomatic relationships. Negotiations, resolution of minor conflicts were usually resolved by members of the royal families of Europe. As they monarchies were replaced, there was no diplomatic core to fulfill this function.

Answer 6

The Assasination of Archduke Ferdinand is a traditionally held catalyst. The various alliance between Germany and the Hangarian empires at the time versus the varied Allied alliances (Britain + FRance, Russia and it's allies against Germany)

Answer 7

It wasn't really about Archduke Ferdinand. It did have to do with nationalism and alliances. But what it was really about was imperialism. This was the time that the powerful countries were all colonizing Africa and Asia to get their resources--rubber, oil, coffee, lumber, etc. etc. They were dividing up the third-world between themselves, and squabbling over who got the biggest share.

Answer 8

This is a war that the US did not have get involved.

World War 2 was different.

Answer 9

nationalsm,militarism,imperialism and the alliance system were all causes of world war 1.

Answer 10

There are 4 main causes.

Militarism
Alliances
Isolationism
Nationalsim

An easy way to remember this is to remember the word MAIN and it'll help you remember what it stands for.

Answer 11

The same thing that caused II and Korea and Viet Nam and the next one..III. Three things...money...power and greed.