From the November 2022 IBDP History paper 3 exam
The First World War (1914-1918) remains a pivotal event that reshaped the contours of modern history. However, discerning the contributing factors leading to the conflict remains an ongoing academic discourse. Among the many causes, the arms race between European powers has garnered significant attention as either a major impetus or a peripheral factor. The discussion is characterised by divergent viewpoints that oscillate between attributing direct causality to the arms race and dismissing it as an inconsequential element. This essay contends that the arms race played a substantial but nuanced role in the outbreak of war, acting more as an accelerator and multiplier of existing tensions than as a standalone cause.
The pre-war arms race is often viewed as a mere reflection of the deep-rooted animosities between the European powers rather than a cause for conflict in itself. As Kennedy contends, the arms race acted more as a 'magnifier of existing tensions' between the nations involved. Primarily, Germany's decision to build a large navy to challenge British naval supremacy, encapsulated in the Naval Laws of 1898 and 1900, exacerbated the pre-existing antagonism between the two nations. Kennedy argues that this militaristic competition aggravated the strategic insecurities of Britain, pushing it closer to France and Russia, thereby creating a volatile mix of alliances and rivalries. This contention is supported by the dynamics of the Entente Cordiale and the Triple Entente, which were, in part, reactions to the burgeoning German naval prowess. Thus, the arms race was not an isolated phenomenon; rather, it accentuated underlying hostilities and hastened the pathway to war.
The arms race also facilitated the spread of militarism, a phenomenon deeply connected to existing national rivalries. Massie concurs with Kennedy by underlining how the arms race amplified a climate of suspicion and aggression, thereby making the atmosphere ripe for war. Yet, Massie further posits that this wasn’t merely an extension of diplomatic or territorial disputes but rather a shift towards a belligerent worldview. Leaders and policymakers started perceiving military solutions as viable options, making military build-ups not just quantitatively but also qualitatively different. For instance, the Schlieffen Plan, Germany's operational doctrine for a two-front war, was predicated on the necessity of swift military action, a thought process that was only reinforced by the arms race. Therefore, the arms race can be considered as not just an amplifier but a catalyst that changed the quality of pre-existing rivalries. It pushed countries into a precarious position where the cost of not going to war appeared higher than the cost of initiating conflict. In essence, it was an enabling factor that made the eruption of hostilities more likely than before, intensifying existing strategic concerns into immediate existential threats.
The arms race has been faulted for narrowing the window of opportunity for diplomatic solutions. Keiger’s analysis illuminates how the armaments race adversely impacted diplomatic ventures, citing the example of the Agadir Crisis of 1911. According to Keiger, the aggressive posturing accompanying the arms build-up hardened public opinion, making it increasingly difficult for statesmen to advocate for peaceful negotiations without appearing weak. The heightened atmosphere of rivalry led to less room for diplomatic manoeuvres. For instance, the increasing scale and pace of army mobilisation strategies meant that once a nation started mobilising, it set off an irreversible chain reaction. The plans were so meticulously detailed and interconnected that altering or stopping them was deemed almost impossible, as highlighted by the events following Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia. In a sense, military preparedness sabotaged diplomatic flexibility.
Whilst the arms race undoubtedly played a role in amplifying tensions and restricting diplomatic options, several historians argue it was more of a symptom of underlying issues than a root cause of the war. Joll, for example, positions the arms race within the broader framework of nationalism, imperialism, and the complex alliance system. Joll asserts that the arms race was, in many ways, a physical manifestation of the political and ideological divides that already existed between the European powers. Had it not been for these underlying ideological currents, the arms race would not have assumed such a bellicose character. For example, Germany’s Weltpolitik policy aimed at making Germany a global power and was an expression of nationalistic fervour as much as it was a strategic necessity. The arms race, in this context, was the tool, not the instigator. The French desire for the return of Alsace-Lorraine or Russia's ambitions in the Balkans were long-standing objectives that predated the acceleration of military build-ups. The arms race merely provided the means to pursue these ends but did not fundamentally alter the objectives themselves. To consider the arms race as a cause in isolation would be to misinterpret its nature and role in the events that led to the First World War. Furthermore, Joll emphasises the domestic pressures within individual countries, such as civil unrest or the need for national unity, that also influenced the decision to engage in an arms race. In Germany, the arms race served to divert attention from internal social and political issues, including rising labour movements. Therefore, while the arms race unquestionably contributed to the volatility of international relations, it was far from the only factor and, arguably, not even the most critical one. It acted as a facilitator, enabling nations to pursue their pre-existing objectives with renewed vigour and urgency.
The contribution of the arms race to the outbreak of the First World War is a subject of extensive debate within historical scholarship. While it is clear that the arms race played a significant role in escalating tensions and limiting diplomatic options, this essay has argued that it functioned more as a catalyst and an enabler rather than a primary cause. The arms race intensified pre-existing rivalries, restricted the scope for diplomatic solutions, and acted as a physical and psychological manifestation of underlying ideological and geopolitical divides. However, it was intricately woven into a broader fabric of nationalism, imperialism, and complex alliances that collectively precipitated the war. Therefore, while the arms race cannot be entirely discounted as a factor leading to the war, it must be understood within the wider context of European politics and international relations during the period. Its role was substantial but not sufficient, making it a critical piece of a complex puzzle rather than the sole explanation for the outbreak of hostilities.
