From the November 2018 IBDP History Paper 3 exam
The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was the result of a complex interplay between long-term structural causes and short-term triggers, each contributing to the eventual collapse of peace in Europe. The long-term causes, such as militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism, created an environment of tension and competition among the Great Powers, while short-term events, including the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent July Crisis, acted as the immediate catalysts. The war's origins cannot be attributed to any single factor; instead, they lie in the cumulative impact of these interconnected causes.
The long-term causes of the First World War can be traced to the rise of militarism and the arms race among the Great Powers. By the early 20th century, European nations had heavily invested in their military capabilities, driven by both defensive and offensive strategies. Germany, for instance, had built a formidable army and sought to challenge British naval supremacy through the expansion of its fleet, exemplified by the Anglo-German naval arms race. This militarisation fostered a culture of preparedness for war, normalising the idea that conflicts could be resolved through military means. Kennedy argues that the arms race not only increased the likelihood of war but also shortened the time available for diplomatic resolution once a crisis erupted, as nations were primed to mobilise quickly.
The alliance system further entrenched these tensions by dividing Europe into two rival blocs: the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and the Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia. While ostensibly defensive, these alliances created an environment of mutual suspicion and a domino effect, wherein a conflict involving one member could rapidly escalate into a general war. The alliances also encouraged the Great Powers to act more aggressively, confident in the support of their partners. Taylor contends that the alliance system transformed regional disputes into international crises, making the containment of conflicts increasingly difficult.
Imperialism was another long-term factor that heightened tensions among the Great Powers. The competition for colonies, particularly in Africa and Asia, created rivalries that extended into Europe. The Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911, for example, saw Germany challenge French dominance in North Africa, straining relations between Germany and the Entente powers. Similarly, disputes over the Balkans, where Austria-Hungary and Russia sought to expand their influence, added to the instability. Lenin viewed imperialism as a fundamental driver of global conflict, arguing that the competition for resources and markets inevitably led to war among capitalist powers.
Nationalism, both within and outside the Great Powers, was perhaps the most pervasive long-term cause. Nationalist movements in the Balkans, such as Serbian aspirations for a Greater Serbia, directly challenged the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Meanwhile, nationalist fervour within the Great Powers fuelled public support for aggressive foreign policies. The belief in national superiority and the desire to assert dominance on the global stage exacerbated tensions, as nations were unwilling to back down in crises for fear of appearing weak. Clark highlights that nationalism not only motivated the ambitions of smaller states but also shaped the decisions of larger powers, contributing to a climate in which war was increasingly seen as inevitable.
The short-term causes of the First World War, particularly the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the July Crisis of 1914, transformed the long-standing tensions among the Great Powers into an immediate conflict. The assassination, carried out by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, symbolised the broader instability caused by nationalist aspirations in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary’s response to this act, driven by the need to reassert its authority and suppress Serbian nationalism, escalated the situation. The issuance of an ultimatum to Serbia, with demands intentionally designed to be unacceptable, was a calculated move to provoke a confrontation. The involvement of the alliance system turned this regional crisis into a global conflict. Germany’s “blank cheque” of unconditional support for Austria-Hungary emboldened Vienna’s aggressive stance, while Russia’s mobilisation in defence of Serbia drew in France due to its alliance obligations. Germany’s subsequent invasion of Belgium, intended to execute the Schlieffen Plan against France, brought Britain into the war, completing the chain reaction. Strachan argues that the interconnectedness of the Great Powers’ alliances ensured that the conflict could not remain contained, transforming the assassination into a trigger for a much larger war.
The timing of the July Crisis also played a critical role, as it occurred within a broader context of heightened tensions following earlier crises. The Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 had already destabilised southeastern Europe, emboldening Serbia and alarming Austria-Hungary. These wars demonstrated the inability of the Great Powers to manage regional disputes effectively, as their competing interests often exacerbated conflicts rather than resolving them. The legacy of these crises created an environment in which Austria-Hungary viewed Serbia as an existential threat, making a harsh response to the assassination almost inevitable. The decisions made by individual leaders during the July Crisis were crucial in turning a diplomatic incident into a full-scale war. Austria-Hungary’s insistence on punishing Serbia, Germany’s support for an aggressive policy, and Russia’s determination to protect its Slavic ally all reflected a broader unwillingness to compromise. Fischer argues that Germany, in particular, saw the crisis as an opportunity to break the encirclement posed by the Entente powers, deliberately escalating the situation to achieve its strategic goals.
The interplay between long- and short-term causes reveals that the outbreak of the First World War was not solely the result of immediate events but rather the culmination of decades of tensions and rivalries. The long-term causes, particularly militarism and the alliance system, created a framework in which the Great Powers were increasingly inclined toward conflict. By 1914, Europe was effectively divided into two armed camps, each suspicious of the other’s intentions. The arms race had not only increased the capacity for war but also reduced the time available for diplomatic solutions, as mobilisation schedules dictated the pace of decision-making. This structural environment made it unlikely that a crisis would be resolved peacefully, even if the initial cause was relatively minor.
Nationalism, as a long-term cause, also amplified the likelihood of war by fostering aggressive foreign policies and heightening regional tensions. In the Balkans, nationalist movements undermined the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and drew the Great Powers into a web of conflicting interests. Serbian nationalism, in particular, directly challenged Austria-Hungary, while Pan-Slavism provided Russia with a pretext for involvement. At the same time, nationalism within the Great Powers encouraged leaders to adopt uncompromising positions, as backing down in a crisis risked domestic backlash. Clark notes that the interplay between state nationalism and popular sentiment created a situation in which leaders felt compelled to act decisively, even at the risk of war.
The short-term causes, particularly the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the July Crisis, provided the immediate context for the outbreak of war. The assassination crystallised Austria-Hungary’s fears about Serbian nationalism and prompted a response that quickly escalated into an international conflict. While this event was the direct trigger, it gained significance only because it occurred within the broader context of long-standing tensions and rivalries. The responses of the Great Powers during the July Crisis reflected their alignment with long-term interests and priorities, from Austria-Hungary’s desire to suppress nationalism to Germany’s strategic calculations against the Entente powers.
Ultimately, the importance of both long- and short-term causes lies in their interconnectedness. The structural factors that shaped the pre-war environment ensured that any significant crisis, such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, would have far-reaching consequences. The long-term causes created the conditions for war, while the short-term causes provided the spark that ignited the conflict. Together, these factors explain why the First World War emerged not as an isolated event but as the result of decades of tension and competition among the Great Powers. The interconnectedness of long- and short-term causes highlights the inevitability of conflict once a significant crisis arose. The long-term causes, particularly the alliance system and militarism, had created a rigid framework in which the Great Powers were bound by mutual commitments and distrust, reducing the flexibility needed for peaceful resolution. The alliance system, while designed to deter aggression, ultimately made escalation more likely, as each power sought to honour its obligations to allies, even when doing so risked a wider war. The short-term triggers, such as Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia, exploited this pre-existing structure, ensuring that the localised tensions of the Balkans quickly spiralled into a continental conflict.
Militarism further compounded the impact of these short-term events by fostering a mindset that prioritised military solutions over diplomacy. By 1914, most of the Great Powers had adopted detailed mobilisation plans that relied on rapid and decisive action to achieve success. Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, for example, required an immediate invasion of Belgium and France to avoid a two-front war with Russia. This rigid military planning left little room for negotiation once the July Crisis began, as the powers were locked into strategies that demanded swift mobilisation. Strachan argues that the militarisation of diplomacy meant that once the crisis began, war was not merely a possibility but an expectation. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand gained significance because it occurred within this militarised and polarised environment. Austria-Hungary’s decision to use the assassination as a pretext for action against Serbia reflected its broader struggle to maintain authority in the face of nationalist challenges. However, it was the entanglement of alliances and the Great Powers’ broader strategic interests that transformed this event into a global conflict. Russia’s mobilisation in support of Serbia drew Germany into the conflict, while Germany’s invasion of Belgium brought Britain into the war. The sequence of events following the assassination illustrates how the long-term causes, particularly alliances and militarism, amplified the impact of short-term triggers.
The importance of long- and short-term causes in the outbreak of the First World War lies in their mutually reinforcing nature. The structural tensions created by militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism ensured that a crisis was likely to escalate, while the specific events of 1914 provided the catalyst for war. This interplay underscores that the First World War was not the result of a single cause but a convergence of long-standing tensions and immediate provocations, making it one of the most complex conflicts in modern history.
The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was the result of a complex interaction between long-term structural causes and short-term events. Long-term factors such as militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism created a volatile environment in which tensions among the Great Powers steadily escalated. Militarisation and the rigid alliance system ensured that a localised crisis would likely trigger a wider conflict, while imperial and nationalist rivalries further strained relations between nations. These underlying causes established the conditions for war, shaping the decisions and policies of the Great Powers over decades.
The short-term causes, particularly the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent July Crisis, acted as the immediate triggers that set this volatile environment into motion. The assassination, rooted in Balkan nationalist tensions, highlighted the fragility of peace in Europe and the inability of diplomacy to resolve deep-seated grievances. The decisions made by Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, and Russia during the July Crisis reflected their alignment with long-term strategic interests and underscored the degree to which militarism and alliances constrained their actions.
The significance of both long- and short-term causes lies in their interconnectedness. The structural tensions created by long-term factors ensured that the Great Powers were predisposed to conflict, while the short-term events of 1914 provided the spark that ignited a general war. Together, these causes demonstrate that the First World War was not the product of a single incident but the culmination of decades of rivalry, competition, and mistrust among Europe’s major powers.
