The next theory, while still relying on the realist principles of power maximization, turns it on the Power Transition Theory on its head. Instead of two exceptionally strong states competing for domination, it focuses on weak states struggling to appear strong, so they will not be dominated. This theory is the most original of those included in this document, it combines elements of the internal disunity theory of war with the need of states to project power in an anarchic international system. In a predictive context, it can be referred to as the Theory of Overcompensation. In the specific application to the First World War it could be aptly referred to as “The Weak East Theory” because its base assertion is that in 1914, the traditional European powers in the East, the Romanov Russian and Hapsburg Austrian Empires were in their last throes, struggling to stay relevant. By 1900, the Habsburg dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary was a shadow of its former grandeur. Meanwhile it struggled with the growth of nationalism among the dozens of ethnic groups within its borders. Both desire …show more content…
It had to adopt a aggressive stance. Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Chief of Staff of the Austrian military at the outbreak of war, wrote that the decision to fight Serbia came not out of a desire for vengeance, but because “highly practical importance of the prestige of a Great Power” demanded it. The Hapsburg monarchy he believed had been “seized by the throat and had to choose between allowing itself to be strangled and making a last effort to prevent its destruction.” (Stoessinger, 8). Austria-Hungary was desperate to defend its status as a “Great Power” and its leaders believed that in at least this occasion the best defense was a good
It appeared like Germany hoped that the Austro-Serb crisis might divide the big Entente powers and with that give Germany a blood free victory. In addition to that Zechlin accepts the fact that Germany took advantage of the crisis to advance its own plan.
Jackal bandwagoning describes efforts done by aggressive powers to block counterbalancing coalition by encouraging smaller powers to flock to its side. Piling-on bandwagoning exemplifies state's decision to join the victorious power willingly near the end of a war to claim the victory status. Bandwagoning for the wave of the future analyzes state's determinacy to join emerging power for future gains. Contagion bandwagoning explains the spread of domino effects on asserting endless aggression by a rivalry (Schweller 1994: 88-99). The paper then argues that neorealist's comprehension of 'balancing versus bandwagoning' should best explain contingency under situations of 'survival of status quo power versus aggression and annexation by revisionist powers' (Schweller
Hence the blank cheque to Austria. Austria-Hungry looked for no other possibility but war to solve the problem because of their short sighted plan to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist movement Conclusion: § Conclude that three long term factors contributed to war, failure of triple entente to accommodate Germany as a dominant power, instead allowing them to feel threatened, hence the naval and arms race progressed. Austria Hungary and Russia could not resolve Balkan conflict peacefully; Germany's backing of this making a small local war a world war. Attitude in the time, Nationalism, no country backing down, notably Germany. Austria Hungary looked for no other possibility but war to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist Movement.
Italians felt overshadowed by Britain and France, especially when attempting to colonize. These disagreeable sentiments against Great Britain and France motivated the two jealous nations to increase the size of their military and devise battle plans against the prosperous countries. Germany and Italy wanted to exercise their power against Britain and France and prove their superiority, and this lead to the German and Italian rivalry against France and Britain. Secondly, the formation of alliances occurred as a result of nationalism, since it motivated nations with similar goals and beliefs to collaborate to prove their nation's’ power and superiority over other European nations. Austria-Hungary chose to ally with Germany and Italy for two primary reasons. Foremost, slavic people in Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire and become part of Serbia. Furthermore, Russia was attempting to expand into Austria-Hungary. These issues motivated the country to ally with Germany and Italy, since Austria-Hungary wanted to overcome the issues they faced within their country, as they did not want the groups advocating for independence to be successful, and they wished to counter Russian interests in
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia's influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria's closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia's Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist revolts.
The rise of European nationalism in the 19th Century brought with it an overabundance amount of change that would definitively modify the course of history. The rise of nationalism in one country would rouse greater nationalism in another, which would in turn, motivate even greater nationalism in the first, progressively intensifying the cycle that eventually concluded in a World War. Nationalism as an ideology produced international competition which inspired absolute allegiance to an individual’s nation state. The ideology was fueled by industrial commerce and imperialistic developments which led to nation-states pursuits of outcompeting rival nations.
Austria was one of the strongest empires in Europe in early 19th century and most of the small European states had rulers from Hapsburg dynasty so Austria had a lot of influence. Letting Nationalistic feelings to rise anywhere in Europe meant that soon those feelings would rise up in Austria
Nationalism is a devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation, with primary emphasis on furthering its interests as opposed to those of other countries. This feeling widely spread throughout Europe during the 19th and 10th centuries and caused many problems. The Slavic people of Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to break away from Austria-Hungary and unify with other Slavic nations. Russia as a Slavic nation backed up the two countries in this matter, therefore causing tensions between Austria-Hungary and itself. Nationalism was also a source of anger between France and Germany as France resented its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871).
Why It Proved to be Impossible to Solve the Problems Created by Balkan Nationalism Before 1914 Balkan nationalism was apparent in the years leading up to 1914 in two forms: The desire for expansion, or rather, self-determination, within the immediate region, and also in the support of Pan-Slav nationalism (a Russian idea). In the years from 1900 to 1914, this nationalism caused the key problems of mistrust and suspicion between the two great powers of Austria Hungary and Russia, who’s conflicting national interests concerning the Balkan states arose from mutual distrust and desire to gain influence in the area and brought to the surface the conflicting national interests of the two countries within the region. The reasons it why it proved impossible to solve these aforementioned issues and soothe the tensions will be the focus of this essay. The Bosnian crisis of 1908 resulted form the annexation of the Balkan provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria Hungary.
The rise of nationalism and its mark on the history of Europe was quite profound. The unification of major powers and the civil unrest on the journey to unification created a large chapter of history in the nineteenth century. By the 1900s the mark of nationalism had been left on Italy, Germany, France and Great Britain. The major European powers had come through great trials to set the stage for the twentieth century and the conflicts that will erupt. Nationalism will be remembered as a great period of change and growth.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
The growth of the European super powers during the 19th century consisted of the great powers vying for territorial attainments, developing their international influence, and ensuring positive domestic attitudes of their diplomatic actions. Attempting to cement their hegemony of international politics, the Prussian Empire sought to create an ethnically and politically unified German state to rebuff the prominence granted to Austria at the Congress of Vienna. Through the machinations of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and his determination to unite the German lands through “blood and iron”, Germany quickly rose to become the epicenter of European politics and forever changed the geopolitical landscape of Europe. In examining the unification of Germany and its implications for the international system, this paper will explore the prehistory of the unification, significant diplomatic successes and failures during the bolstering of Germany’s power, and the change in the power structure of Germany that ultimately changed the military landscape of the international system and became the precursor for World War I.
After years of hostility and aggression between the European superpowers and large states, the balance of power began to be challenged. The Serbians in 1914 assassinated the Arch-duke, Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. The country counteracted and “issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which would bring the assassins to justice. And with that action Serbia’s sovereignty was nullified” (Duffy Michael, 2009). Since Serbia did not succumb to the harsh demands of Austria-Hungary, “preventative” war was declared on Serbia on July 28,...
Also a strong influence on Austria is its previous 50 year involvement in the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867-1918. During this time, Austria already had a strong alliance with Germany, and Austria infrequently held power over the German states during this time period. During a treaty made by the emperor at the time, Austria was lumped with Hungary as one state, binding the countries together. The people of the Empire were not consulted for this act, nor were they generally happy with it. However, throughout the remaining years of the Empire, the countries exchanged influences throughout each others cultures. As the countries melted together, their political distinctions soon began to disappear and this area was often referred to simply as Austria by the end of the Empires existence (The Editors). This German and Hungarian influence can be found in most regions of Austria and its cuisine to this day...