Causes of WW1 From A Neorealist Perspective
For nearly one hundred years, political theorists around the world have tried pinpointing the causes of World War 1 (1914-1918). Some political theorists have come to the conclusion that human nature was ultimately responsible for the war, while others blame it on the international political system. Those who believe that human nature is to blame for World War 1 fall under the theory of classical realism, while those who blame the international political system fall under the theory of neorealism.
Classical realists believe it is human nature, not the international political system, that ultimately causes war. Classical realists believe that humans are fundamentally flawed which results in states wanting to gain as much power as possible to ensure their survival is not endangered (Jehangi, 2012). Classical realist agree with Thomas Hobbes when he said the struggle for power is “a war of all against all.” This struggle for power is the main motivator in human life. Classical realists also believe that alliances can help bring about safety and power; however, their loyalty to each other should always be questioned.
On the other hand, theorists who believe that the international political system inevitably sets up states for war fall under the theory of neorealism. Neorealists believe that domestic issues and human nature have little to do with international politics; rather, they believe that the international system is what causes war. Neorealism, which looks at the world from a structural level, has five key assumptions (Mearsheimer, 2001). The first assumption is that the international system’s ordering principle is anarchy. This simply means that there is no such thing as a world government; there is no higher authority above the main units that exist in the system – the states. This means that in order to assure the survival of a particular state, states must gain as much power as possible, as failing to do so leaves you vulnerable to attack. The second assumption is that states cannot be certain of the intentions of other states. The third assumption is that at least some states have offensive capabilities and are able to attack if needed. The fourth assumption is that all states are rational actors pursuing their own interests. And finally, the last assumption is that states main goal is survival, at nearly any means possible.
In short, both classical realism and neorealism agree on the assumption that states are rational actors following their own desires to achieve power. They also agree that states operate under the “self-help” system, meaning survival depends on themselves alone. The difference between these two theories is that neorealists emphasizes that the international system forces states to want power, whereas classical realism believes human nature and morality is responsible for states wanting more power. In the following paper, we will take a look at the causes of World War 1 from a neorealist perspective, specifically explaining how the balance of power and security dilemma is ultimately responsible for World War 1.
First, the balance of power in Europe was a leading cause of World War 1. Because “states fear each other [and] regard each other with suspicion,” they are always striving to achieve balance of power (Mearsheimer, 2001). Balance of power is attempts by a state to gain and match the power of another state. This can be achieved through the “buildup of arms, forming alliances, or turning potential rivals against each other” (Morgenthau, 1948). Attempting to achieve balance of power is done to assure that one state cannot become too powerful and take over another state. The concept of balance of power was widely present in World War 1, and is a leading cause of the war.
To understand the balance of power in Europe leading up to World War 1, you must go back many decades, to 1871, when Germany unified and dramatically altered the balance of power in Europe. This new German power strengthened even further when Germany formed an alliance in 1879 with neighbouring Austria-Hungary, which Italy joined three years later. However, noticing that the balance of power was no longer equal, Russia and France entered into alliance in 1893 (Crocker, 2014). The two groups of World War 1 alliances are known as the triple alliance, which consisted of Germany, Austria and Italy, and the triple entente, which included Britain, France and Russia (Rich, 2018). All of these major players simply wanted to preserve their own wellbeing in the face of each other. And to do so, all these nations also undertook an arms buildup, creating a balance of power in Europe where no single nation is powerful enough to overpower others and create hegemony.
However, these alliances actually resulted in an adverse effect than the states were intentioning, which was trying to avoid war and protect their state. “The countries of Europe thought that the alliance system would act as a deterrent to war; but in fact it tied the countries together so that, when one country went to war, the others felt themselves obliged to follow. (Clare, 2007). This notion was proven correct when Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, essentially sparking World War 1. The assassination caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. This single event set off the alliances and war broke loose. Russia immediately jumped in to protect Serbia who they had an alliance with. Then Germany came in to protect Austria-Hungary and declared war first on Serbia but also on Russia and France. But to get to France it would need to go through Belgium and France and Britain declared war on Germany. In short, because states formed alliances attempting to achieve balance of power, once two states were in conflict, the rest were involved as states tried defending their allies.
Secondly, the security dilemma was another concept that contributed to World War 1. The security dilemma refers to a situation in international politics, specifically under anarchy, where actions by a state to increase its national security is seen as a threat to another state (Baylis, 2017). This causes the other state to increase its national security as well, which leads to increased tensions altogether. The security dilemma is concept that is closely related to the balance of power. When one state builds up its military, the balance of power is altered. And by trying to prevent one state from becoming too powerful, others states also increase their military to feel more secure. However, in the end, no one feels more secure.
In a neorealist perspective, the security dilemma is inescapable because states are always looking to maximize their power. The security dilemma is also connected to militarism, which is “a rise in military expenditure, an increase in military and naval forces, and a preference for force as a solution to problems” (Jakobsen, 1-2). Militarism and the security dilemma go hand and hand, as the security dilemma is often a result of state militarism. This concept can be seen years prior to World War 1 even starting. Between 1870 to 1914 both the France and Germany armies had nearly doubled. The increased Germany military put Britain on notice. “Britain began to fear becoming isolated and worried how it would defend its far flung empire” (Nye, 2013). As a result of feeling insecure, the security dilemma was seen with a naval race between Germany and Britain, resulting in in increased tensions (Rich, 2012). Also prior to World War 1, every major European power, beside Britain, introduced or increased conscription, also known as the draft, to expand their armies. Another result of militarism and the security dilemma was the Schlieffen Plan. The Schlieffen Plan was a military plan for a designated attack on France once Russia, in response to international tension, had started to mobilise her forces near the German border. “The execution of the Schlieffen Plan led to Britain declaring war on Germany on August 4th, 1914.” (Trueman, 2017). As seen with this, the security dilemma leaves each state feeling vulnerable, which results in states preparing for war and increasing their military for protection.
In review, a neorealist believes that the world is anarchy; meaning that there is no higher authority above the main states that exist in the system. Because of this, states are always trying to achieve balance of power, and make sure no state is powerful enough to take over other states. Closely related to the concept of balance of power, is the security dilemma, where a state builds up their military in response to seeing others states do the same. These two concepts helped lead to World War 1, and as a result, millions of people dead. In theory, all states involved in World War 1 were actually trying to prevent war from happening; however, because of their collective actions trying to achieve balance of power, war was inevitable. All the states involved in World War 1 were skeptical of each others intentions, which resulted in each state building up a military and forming alliances. But these actions increased tensions so much so that when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, every state was involved in the war within days.