Counterfactual Examination of the Causes of World War 1

Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins World War 1 is an archetypal case of multilevel failures in the realm of international relations. The individual level of analysis rested upon the familial connections between the descendants of the House of Habsburg, who ended up intertwined in the monarchies making up the sides of the Great War. The leaders, most of whom were connected through intermarriage or bloodline, could have resolved many of the causes prior to the outbreak of hostilities though obviously that did not happen. At the national level, international relations theory holds that realist ideology1 foresaw an imbalance of power resulting from the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Europe. Based on this principle a force from the international community to correct that potential imbalance might have stopped World War 1 from happening in the first place. Again, that did not happen, and the war almost permanently destroyed the European continent. From a systems perspective, the international community failed to unify to a sufficient extent to prevent the actions of the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Germany. Wilson’s League of Nations represents the greatest potential for this on the part of the global community. Essentially the League of Nations extended the concept of globalization from purely economic systems into the political economy of the world. Had the league served its intended purpose the political power of each individual actor2 is available to the international organization, which can serve as a de facto governing body above the nation-state level. If the league, or any other organization with sufficient power above the level of an individual country, had been able to mobilize the combined Realist theory holds that any nation will seek to correct an imbalance of power among the international community that places them at a comparative disadvantage. Realism requires a balance of power among the international community, and explains the actions of countries through the concept of balancing those power dynamics. Finally, within realist ideology accumulation of power is an end in and of itself (Morgenthau 2015). 2 Within international relations theory at the systems level, each nation in the international community is an actor. 1 1 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins power of each member country against things like major international conflict, then perhaps the conflict would not have broken out in the first place. This paper will examine the causes of World War I from realist, neorealist, liberal, and constructivist perspectives. Within each of these, this paper will utilize all of the applicable levels of analysis to establish a counterfactual scenario for preventing international warfare. I hypothesize that an increase in economic interconnectedness between the major powers could have prevented the willingness on the part of those same powers to go to war with one another. Further, it was the failing of globalization to constrain the powers from the use of military force that actually led to the First World War rather than preventing it. The rise to power of realist, or neorealist3, leaders at the beginning of the twentieth centuries decreased the likelihood that any given nation would act toward increased international harmony. The interaction between the Westphalian states of Western Europe and the imperial powers of Eastern Europe and northern Asia could explain the First World War. The basic objective of an empire is to continue to exist, and that most often necessitates the expansion of the empire’s geographic territory (Bassford 2015). The objective of any nation state is to maintain both its territory and its sovereignty against outside threats. The nature of both of these entities puts them in direct conflict with one another. As the empire seeks to expand its territory it must begin absorbing and overtaking smaller, weaker nation states. These Neorealism invokes the security dilemma among nations as justification for consolidation of power. The security dilemma indicates that nations will act in response to a perceived imbalance of power for the purposes of their own security. Within neorealist ideology the purpose of accumulating power, rather than to conquer the world one’s own country, is to ensure one’s own security through maintaining the balance of power. 3 2 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins nation states seek to remain in existence, and therefore must attempt to push the imperial force out of their homeland4. Economic expansion coupled with political realism increased the intensity and frequency of confrontation between the powers on both sides of the Caucus Mountains. As colonial powers sought to increase their level of power following the industrial revolution, they realized that the means to accumulate the most power in the coming century would be through economics. The law of infinite accumulation in international economics meant that whoever controlled the largest portion of the means of production would control the world’s economy, and thus the world itself (Piketty 2014, 15). However, the continental5 powers had already realized the depth of their available natural resources and had begun to exploit them. The answer to the question of how to continue to accumulate industrial wealth came in the form of the colonial holdings belonging to those same European powers. The European powers began to compete for territory and resources in Africa and Asia, and as that competition got more severe so did the level of confrontation between the major powers (Kelly 2015). At this point, the realist tendencies in the monarchs of Europe began to come to the forefront. In a globalized liberal society, the powers would have economically negotiated with one another in order to acquire whatever resources were not available within their sovereign territory (Rowe 2005, 410). However, the rulers in Europe were more concerned with The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is an example of this conflict in the real world. The assassin was a Serbian nationalist who had previously belonged to several anarchist organizations Europe. The Archduke was a representative of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and he died in the interest of the sovereignty of Serbia. At the dawn of the 20th century, the Austro-Hungarians dominated Serbia and many of its neighbors (Clare 2014). The assassination could be seen as an example of a nation state seeking to hold its ground against the empire. 5 The Russian Empire had an idea of their available natural resources, but had not even begun to exploit those natural resources fully. 4 3 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins becoming dependent on other nations than they were about making economic progress. These rulers found the concept of economic interdependence unacceptable since it created an imbalance of power between the nations, and so in accordance with their neorealist ideology they began taking steps to correct this imbalance. This led to armed conflict between the nations’ forces abroad, and that conflict found its way back to the continent in the form of World War 1. If the governments of Europe and the Russian Empire had followed a true liberal philosophy, then they would have viewed resource competition in the colonial holdings as an economic opportunity (Rowe 2005, 408). Through an effective barter or purchase system the industrial base of any given country in Europe could have accessed the resources in their competitor’s colonies without the cost of open conflict – or for that matter the cost of extracting and processing those resources themselves. The crux of liberal ideology is that the constraint on use of military force comes from the level of dependence on the potential opponent through trade. Liberal ideology makes the cost of going to war so unintentionally high that the belligerents cannot absorb the economic fallout from going to war against one another. David Rowe’s argument that liberalism actually caused the First World War falls short when the clearly realist actions of the powers in Europe are considered. While the movement to seize territory in resource-rich locales was a demonstration of globalization during the second half of the 19th century, realism better explains the intensity of competition between the ruling powers leading up to the First World War. While the movement of capital from Europe into Africa and Asia 4 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins adheres to capital movement theory6, the unwillingness to rely on another nation for industrial necessities breaks from the liberal modus operandi. If the Austro-Hungarian Empire had begun doing business more closely with the British South Africa Company for precious metal and minerals, then perhaps the two powers would not have ended up on opposite sides during the war. If the cost of losing the resources the empire needed from the British for production was too high, or if the income lost from not having the Austro-Hungarians as customers was too high, then neither power would have entered into the first world war. The individual leaders during World War I were well known as political realists. The hereditary monarchies in Europe bred a population of leaders seeking power for the sake of increasing their own influence over the globe. Nicholas II (Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias) was known throughout his reign for brutally opposing all perceived threats to his sovereignty. He was responsible for putting down the initial socialist attempt at revolution in 1905 in an incident known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. While Russia had become embroiled in a war with Japan, rebel leaders such as the famous Vladimir Lenin staged an uprising in Saint Petersburg in an incident that would foreshadow the October revolution of 1917 (History Channel 2015). Nicholas II reacted in the fashion of any totalitarian autocrat and crushed the rebellion as thoroughly as the forces still in Saint Petersburg could manage. When the dust settled the death toll was over 100 Capital movement theory is an essential part of liberal globalization. The theory itself states that once either the labor, or the resource market in a developed country has reached its potential it will become cost prohibitive to continue to do business within those markets in that location. Capital will then begin moving to other lessdeveloped countries where labor and resources are less expensive, and thus the industry’s cost to revenue ratio will stabilize and the industry can retain profits. This cycle will continue as the emerging economy grows and develops, and so different countries will enter the developed world and cause capital to migrate away from the growing expense. 6 5 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins unarmed protestors killed by Russian forces, which set off a wave of strikes and riots throughout the country (Britannica 2015). Nicholas II also entered into a war with Japan over Russian territory in Manchuria, which resulted in the destruction of the Russian navy7. Realist explanations for Britain’s role in the war hold that because Britain had previously been the global hegemon, the British failed to prevent World War I than they actively caused World War I8 (Foresberg 2015). Through realist ideology, Britain had previously held the imbalance of power in their own favor, but as their imperial power degraded and dissolved a power gap appeared where the hegemon had once been (Foresberg 2015). In the rush to pick up the power Britain was both losing and vacating no new hegemon arose. From a neorealist perspective, every nation on the European continent saw the power vacuum as a threat to both their security and their sovereignty. Germany, under Otto Von Bismarck until 1894 and then under Kaiser Wilhelm II, saw itself as the next hegemon now that Britain had begun to fall away. Germany also feared that Russia – one of the empires previously mentioned that needed to expand its territory to maintain the obligations of ruling an empire – would become the new hegemon and move to curtail Germany’s rise to global power (Foresberg 2015). Bismarck himself was a well-known proponent of the German Realpolitik, a school of political thought that works toward the needs of the country rather than any moral right or wrong (Dictionary.com 2015). The Austro-Hungarian Emperor Francis Joseph fell into Interestingly enough the destruction of the Russian Navy would delay the empire’s entrance into World War I and would ensure that the German army attacked France first. Because the Germans were aware of how long it would take the Russian forces to improve equipment and muster to enter into the conflict, the Schlieffen Plan (German General Staff plan for war) called for crushing the French before the Russians could attack from the East (Hardcastle 2005). 8 British hegemony had waned in the beginning of the 20th century. New York became the international banking and finance center, and Britain had begun losing the few colonial holdings it still held. 7 6 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins the vein of realism just like any emperor throughout history. He sought to consolidate as much power as possible within the term of his reign, and his political alliance to the Germans necessitated the empire’s entry into the war (Foresberg 2015). If one or more of these leaders had been a liberal rather than a realist, or even more interested in economic realism than political realism, the course of events would have been significantly different. What Britain failed to seize upon as they began giving up their colonial holdings was the potential for economic domination of the globe. Had King George V or the Prime Ministers Asquith or David Lloyd George realized how much they could have gained by pulling back from political and geographic domination and concentrating on enhancing their role as an economic power they could have held sway over the both sides of the conflict. If the British had consolidated their power into the few colonial holdings they could actually maintain and the financial power they had always possessed, then each power involved in the conflict would have been in a position of needing something from them. Germany was beginning to grow economically largely because of their strong industrial base and famous work ethic. What the Germans did not have in abundance were exploitable natural resources, though they did have plenty of revenue with which to purchase those. If the British had established themselves as a guarantor of international business deals, or a place from which to secure the funding for the same, then they would have held sway over the Germans and the people from whom the Germans were acquiring resources. If Bismarck, prior to his departure from office, had focused on the economic needs of his country rather than its politics then the political landscape prior to the Archduke’s 7 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins assassination would have looked significantly different9. If Germany had economically interconnected itself with the other powers of the day, then there would have been significantly more incentive to negotiate and communicate with the Russians after Franz Ferdinand died. Similarly, if their revenue stream were intertwined with the Germans the Russians would have a much larger incentive not to destroy their ability to make money. Above the nation state level, the global environment exists in a state of perpetual anarchy. There is no world government, and in either a realist or liberal world, it is in the interest of those who rule to maintain this form of international order. The Westphalian state system is predicated upon the idea that no individual ruler, or even governing body, rules above the nation state level. If the purpose of a state is to continue to exist, and the needs of an empire dictate that the empire continue to increase its power and territory, then it is diametrically opposed to those interests for a governing body to exist that can override their decisions and sanction their actions. Wilson’s League of Nations was the initial attempt in the 20th century to establish a governing body above the nation state level (Herring 2008, 437). However, the League failed to concentrate the kind of power its architect envisioned. Rather, the global environment remained in anarchy and the Westphalian state system came into direct conflict with the imperial powers still ruling territory within Europe. As Germany improved its position within the global economic environment, it posed a threat to the Russian Empire’s sovereignty. It also represented very enticing territory for the Russians since it had a strong industrial base, a growing economy, and a motivated workforce. Russia had failed largely to improve its Dan Carlin proposes that it was actually the desire of Kaiser Wilhelm II to prove himself to his extended family as a wise ruler and brilliant leader that led him to seek Germany’s entry into World War I (Carlin 2013). 9 8 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins industrial processes10, which made Germany even more tempting for an empire looking to expand its territory. This drove the Germans deeper into an alliance with the AustroHungarian Empire in order to solidify their position opposite the Russian Empire. If the international system had involved the interconnection between major powers worldwide under a multinational governing body such as the League of Nations then there would have been a possibility for stopping the war before it started. The concept behind the league and other organizations like it is that it can bring the combined power of all the member nations to bear against any threat to one nation. This can also involve any international actor (which as previously mentioned includes any nation on the global stage) that acts outside the acceptable limits established by the international community. In this case, if a country like Russia or Germany had made aggressive moves toward other – weaker – states, then the international community could bring their combined power to bear against that country. Perhaps it would involve refusing to deal with the belligerent nations, thus crippling their economies and forcing them to cease their activities. Perhaps it could involve a joint military incursion against one or both of the warring countries, but the key is that in any of these scenarios is that the combined power of every other country comes crashing down on the international actor that has gone outside the limits of acceptable. The unifying force within such an international governing body would likely be economic interconnectedness between the member nations. Only economics could link various international actors together tightly enough to accept the costs involved in supporting the multinational effort against the This actually delayed Russian entry into the war, since the Tsar needed to update his production facilities for military hardware before he could muster his troops for war (Herring 2008, 548). 10 9 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins belligerents in a potential major conflict. Forming and maintaining such organizations represents the constructivist solution to problems such as the First World War. Realism and Neorealism best explain how the assassination of a minor aristocrat touched off the largest war in modern history, a conflict that claimed over 37 million lives before its conclusion. If competing ideologies, the desire for economic prosperity, or even just a coherent international system had been present to act against the realist spiral that brought about the conflict it might not have happened. Even within the framework of realism, a focus on economics rather than political power would have postponed the outbreak of hostilities among the major powers. The insistence on keeping the entire means of production from resource extraction to marketing products under the control of a single nation led to the conflict. Once the boundaries in the undeveloped world had been established, the mercantilist tendencies among the European powers caused tension to break into hostilities between those same powers. The focus on political power ultimately caused the conflict to turn into World War I. If a more economically focused – and flexible – ideology had gained control of the international community, then the war would likely not have started in the first place let alone claimed millions of lives on both sides. 10 Origins of Conflict and War Kimmins References Arrighi, Giovanni. 1967. The Political Economy of South Africa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bassford, Christopher. 2015. Clausewitz.com. 01 01. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://www.clausewitz.com/Courses/6902-Empires/index.htm. Britannica. 2015. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69966/Bloody-Sunday. Carlin, Dan. 2013. Blueprint for Armageddon part 1. Performed by Dan Carlin. Hardcore History Podcast, Eugene, OR. 10 29. Clare, John D. 2014. Johndclare.com. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://www.johndclare.net/causes_WWI4_AustriaandSerbia.htm. Dictionary.com. 2015. www.dictionary.com. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realpolitik. Foresberg, Ole J. 2015. "Courses.kvasaheim.com." Introduction to International Relations. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://courses.kvasaheim.com/pol365/docs/notes03.pdf. Hardcastle, Nicholas. 2005. Dhahran British Grammar School. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://www.dhahranbritish.com/history/B4_Schliefen.htm. Herring, George C. 2008. From Colony to Superpower US Foreign Relations Since 1776. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. History Channel. 2015. History.com. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://www.history.com/this-day-inhistory/bloody-sunday-massacre-in-russia. Kelly, Martin. 2015. American History. Accessed 04 06, 2015. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwari/tp/causes-of-world-war-1.htm. Morgenthau, Hans. 2015. Mount Holyoke College. Accessed 04 05, 2015. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty First Century. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. Rowe, David M. 2005. "The Tragedy of Liberalism: How Globalization Caused the First World War." Security Studies 407-447. 11