Michael Parysz Instructor John Conybeare Introduction to International Relations September 15 2011 In the morning hours of June 28th

1914, Archduke of Austria Franz Ferdinand, arrived at the Bosnian town of Sarajevo via train. Little did the world know that it was about to plunge into the depths of a war between it's great powers. A war in which ten million people would die on the battlefield, and twenty million due to the disease and hunger that the war created. The first world war unlike the second is said by many scholars to have more than just a few underlying causes. Joseph S. Nye explains the causes of this war as a shift in the balance of power. After the Napoleonic wars ended in 1815, Europe was left without a great, dominating power. In the September of 1814 a conference of ambassadors from many European states gathered in Vienna, Austria. This conference was known as the Congress of Vienna and it set out to settle the many issues that arose from the ashes of the Napoleonic Wars, and the dissolving of the Holy Roman Empire. The members of the congress agreed on a set of rules and regulations for the countries to follow. This became known as the Concert of Europe, and the member nations would often meet and voice their concerns, settle disputes, and maintain a balance of power. This system was able to keep strong until 1822 when it was lead to disarray due to the rise of nationalism and revolutions of a democratic nature within the nations that

participated in the concert. There remained a concert albeit loose, until 1854. In 1853 the Russian Empire fought an alliance of the British, French and Ottoman Empires. The Tsar sent troops into the Balkans, and in an effort to maintain the balance of power Britain and France stepped in to defend the Ottoman Empire. There were many wars that raged until 1870, the most notable ones lead to the unification of Germany and Italy. In 1871 Otto Von Bismarck became the first Chancellor of the German Empire. By the 1890s the economic power of the German Empire had far surpassed that of Great Britain. Germany began to convert that economic power into military power, which included building a massive navy, which was set to be the second largest. The British decided that they could not let Germany dominate the continent of Europe, and allied themselves with France and later Russia, this became known as the Triple Entente. In return the Germans became more friendly with their neighbors Austria-Hungray as these alliances became more solidified the flexibility of diplomacy of the past was seemingly lost. With the rise of nationalism came a loss of moderation between nations, which lead to frustration every time they had to compromise. The Germans had their eyes set on world domination and increasing their influence They infuriated the British with the building of a large navy, the Russians with their views on the Balkans and Turkey, and France with the idea of a protectorate of Morocco. All of this caused the three antagonized countries into an alliance with each other. At the time in Germany there were many domestic issues which lead to many conflicts between the social classes of the countries. The German

government answered this with pushing nationalism and aggressive policy. There were many wars in the Balkans in the years immediately prior to the first world war. These factors coupled with the personality of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Nye argues lead to the first world war (Nye 76-77 86-89). Abramo Fimo Kenneth Organski argued that the first world war was caused by a transition of power. Organski claims that there was no balance of power during the nineteenth century, but rather that power and strength passed hands in-between France and Great Britain. The argument continues to state that due to the great victory Germany experienced in the Franco-Prussian War, Germany saw its power as greater than that of The Triple Entente. Germany had challenged Britain as the world dominant, due to it's great increase in power. War developed because Britain had lost firm control, that Germany was dissatisfied with the status-quo of the time, and that Germany was in a position to try and bring about change, but Britain wanted to keep the newcomer Germany in it's place, and themselves in their preferred place. Germany on the other hand were seeking to build themselves a bigger sphere of influence in the realm of world politics, which they felt they deserved. Due to Germany's rapid rise in power, and belief that the power they had obtained would continue to grow rapidly, were unwilling to take a non-dominat role that would not give them the interests and indulgences that they thought they deserved. Organski argues that such a rapid rise in the German economic power lead to domestic strains. These internal problems lead to aggressive German foreign policy in order to veer chiding away from the government and

the powerful groups that were residing in the nation. It is argued that one of the causes of the war was that Britain was inflexible with it's foreign policy. (Organski) Noted Historian Howard Zinn states that the first world war was a war of empire expansion and retention, between the more advanced European countries over their colonies, territorial expansion and retention, and to keep the working class of the nations in line. Zinn also states that this was a war to keep the working class of the countries that were engaged in this war. The war kept the citizens in line with the elites, who praised the progress and modernization of technology and the world. This can not be seen prior to the war, but during the war where the press of both sides can really only be seen as propaganda, there was almost nothing reported of the slaughter happening on the battlefields. The people of Britain and France were not told of the vast killing of their soldiers, and were in fact encouraged to keep positive about the war effort. British citizens were even fed propaganda. London Newspapers printed such writings as the following, as found in Paul Fussell's The Great War and Modern Memory: What Can I Do? How the Civilian May Help in this Crisis. Be Cheerful Write encouragingly to friends at the front... Don't repeat foolish gossip. Don't listen to idle rumors.

Don't think you know better than Haig.Most western states believed that Germany was a threat to their foreign investments and overseas markets, and being as it was realized that domestic markets would not suffice for economic development. This is seen by by quotes by the likes of Woodrow Wilson in 1907 "...the doors of nations which are closed must be battered down". Africa can be seen as a symbol of the ultimate goal. Africa had great riches of resources which the European empires desired. Zinn cites the article "The African Roots of War" by W.E.B Dubois which was published in the May 1915 issue of Atlantic Monthly. In It Dubois outlined; "the gold and diamonds of South Africa, the cocoa of Angola and Nigeria, the rubber and ivory of the Congo,the palm oil of the West Coast". It is easy to see the profit potential of Africa in the eyes of the rising power that was Germany and the will to retain the economic powerhouse that Africa was for the countries that had colonized the continent (Zinn 359-79). Nye offers a decent amount of evidence to support his claims, but refuses to acknowledge the any economic factors such as the Long Depression as a cause for war. Nye's theory that a power equilibrium, and nations trying to keep that power in check seems to make a great deal of sense. Organski focus mainly on Germany's rapid industrialization and internal problems. This seems like a very narrow viewpoint of the causes of the war. His statement that Germany over estimated it's power is absolutely correct. Zinn presents a view unlike many out there, it focuses on the economic factors

of the time and the profit motives of both sides. One can see the points of Zinn's argument that the war was based mostly on economic motives. Organski and Nye both agree that there was some sort of power equilibrium albeit on a face level. They both see that Britain was the dominant power in the world at the time, they differ in the fact that Nye states that the balance of power was mainly between France and Britain, whereas Organski sees the power as a shift, where power transfers from France to Britain. Zinn on the other hand comments only on the rise of industrialization and the elites keeping power, as the cause of the world plunging into war. Nye and Zinn both can see that expansion and retention of colonies were a major factor leading to the first world war. Nye, Organski, and Zinn could both agree that the rise of German economic power and the dissatisfaction of the people lead to the war. They could also agree that the aggressive foreign policy was due to internal strains and dissatisfaction of the German Empire. One can easily see Nye's theory of keeping the power equilibrium of European is correct. The sense that a majority of of his theory rests on the security dilemma and how that the German's arming of themselves represented a threat to their colonies and markets, is not strong as they already had the strongest navy the world had seen. Organski's view fails to recognize that the French and Russian had a vast amount of power and had a great influence on world politics. Zinn's ideas of economic motives are easily seen as correct as are the ideas of propaganda. However Zinn does not delve into the raise of German industrialization.

One can derive that Nye and Zinn are the most correct, and Organski almost completely missing the point that other countries beyond the most powerful hold a great amount of power.