WW1 Essay Planning

• ferdinand and states
  • Ferdinand
    • On June 28, 1914, a young Bosnian revolutionary, a member of the Serbian secret soci ety called "Union of Death" and commonly known as the Black Hand, acting with the knowledge of certain Serbian officials, assassinated the heir to the Habsburg empire, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand,
    • states
      • and above
      • The Germans, issuing their famous "blank check," encouraged the Austrians to be firm.
      • The Austrians, thus reassured, dispatched a drastic ultimatum to Serbia, demanding among other things that Austrian officials be permitted to collaborate in investigating and punishing the perpetrators of the assassination.
      • The Serbs counted on Russian support, even to the point of war, judging that Russia could not yield in a Balkan crisis, for the third time in six years, without losing its influence in the Balkans altogether.
      • The Russians in turn counted on France; and France, terrified at the possibility of being some day caught alone in a war with Germany and determined to keep Russia as an ally at any cost, in effect gave a blank check to Russia.
      • It has often been said that had the German government know as a positive fact that England would fight, the war might not have come. Hence the evasiveness of British policy is made a contributing cause of the war.
• tension and alliances
  • triple alliance
    • The Germans complained of being "encircled" by France and Russia. They dreaded the day when they might have to face a war on two fronts.
      
    • Bismarck after 1871 feared that in another European war his new German Empire might be tom to pieces. […] in 1879 he formed a military alliance with Austria-Hungary, to which Italy was added in 1882. Thus was formed the Triple Alliance,
  • triple entente
    • The French, faced by the Triple Alliance, soon seized the opportunity to form their own alliance with Russia
    • By 1907 Eng land, France, and Russia were acting together. The older Triple Alliance faced a newer Triple Entente,
  • tension
    • that would arise in the future. Each power felt that it must stand by its allies whatever the specific issue. This was because all lived in the fear of war, of some nameless future war in which allies would be necessary.
    • Never had the European states maintained such huge armies in peacetime as at the be ginning of the twentieth century. One, two, or even three years of compul sory military service for all young men became the rule. In 1914 each of the Continental Great Powers had not only a huge standing army but millions of trained reserves among the civilian population
    • The Germans, who already felt encircled by the alliance of France and Russia, naturally watched with concern the drift of England into the Franco-Russian camp.
    • Once united (or almost united), the Germans entered upon their industrial revolution. Manufacturing, finance, shipping, population grew phenomenally. By 1900, for example, Germany produced more steel than France and Britain combined,
• systemic
  • "In the last years before 1914 the idea that war was bound to break out sooner or later probably made some statesmen, in some countries, more willing to unleash it."
  • Each power felt that it must stand by its allies whatever the specific issue.

In a system of raison detan't, increase in tension and the formation of alliances shifted the local minima from peace to global warfare.

analyzing individul actors in a broader system

While many individual actors could be blamed, analysis at this level is not useful for understanding causation.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand caused World War One. In 1914, a Serbian member of the Black Hand "assassinated the heir to the Hapsburg empire." (citation). This murder caused the Austrian government to try and end Serbia's independence; global warfare ensued. However, for the assassination of Ferdinand to cause such a large scale event, larger factors must have been at play. The situation was akin to an egg sitting in a busy highway – at some point, the egg will get cracked. Yes, the driver who runs the egg over caused it to crack, but a deeper and more useful understanding of causation comes from analyzing the situation rather than the one of many possible drivers. At a higher level of removal, it could be argued that Serbia was the cause of the war, as the assassin was "acting with the knowledge of certain Serbian officials."(citation). Or perhaps it was Austria, who issued a "drastic ultimatum to Serbia." (citation). But Austria only did so after Germany delivered "their famous 'blank check,' encourag[ing] the Austrians to be firm."(citation). Trying to determine which point in this causational chain truly led to World War One is a fruitless exercise, as the fact of the matter is, "in the last years before 1914 the idea [was] that war was bound to break out sooner or later" – and this wasn't due to one meddling state (citation).

To better understand the cause of the war, we must first understand the geopolitical situation at the time – a time of growing alliances and tensions. In 1817, the fear of warfare led Germany to form "a military alliance with Austria-Hungary, to which Italy was added in 1882." (citation). This alliance led to the creation of another; faced by this new threat, France allied with Russia, and later, England. Tension only grew, as Germany "who already felt encircled by the alliance of France and Russia, naturally watched with concern the drift of England into the Franco-Russian camp."(citation). The Continental Great Powers were now riddled with alliances. These alliances contributed to the massive amount of tension, evident by the "huge standing army" and "millions of trained reserves among the civilian population" of each Continental Great Power. (citation). This tension created a feeling of impending war, "in which allies would be necessary." (citation). This feeling tightened existing alliances and led to the creation of new ones, in turn contributing to even greater tension. Alliances formed, tension grew, and the with this change the local minima began to shift. { could mention: Massive industrial and economic growth }

The emergent property from raison d'etat changes from a balance of power to large scale conflict when alliances and tension are introduced. A system of states all enacting raison d'etat is known to lead to a balance of power, as when any one state gains power, the others act in their own best interest and crush the rising state. Out of pure self interest arises peace. We can represent this scenario with a payoff matrix – two actors, each with two possible actions: attack or defend. If both states defend, they each get a score of two. If both attack, they each lose resources, and any power gained would be crushed; each state gets a zero. If one state attacks while the other defends, the same scenario occurs. In this case, defending is clearly the best action. However, as alliances form, this payoff matrix changes. If an alliance attacks, it becomes much more likely that they will reap a reward, as crushing them requires an alliance of equal or greater size. If one doesn't form, the alliance gets a score of three, and the defending party a zero. Thus, larger alliances form as a preemptive measure. This alliance formation then starts a sort of snowball effect. For any insider – an attacking or defending party – the best course of action would be to try and recruit more allies. One side is expected to win, and effectively gain the power of their fallen foes. And hence, outsiders, if the war is sufficiently large, must join the fray lest they be left in the dust with their old divided power level. The global minima has shifted. The emergent property from raison d'etat is no longer peace but rather large-scale warfare.

• raison d'etat leads to balance of power
  • states all crush others when they gain power cus it's their best interest
  • we can represent this scenario with a payoff matrix, with two actors who can either defend or attack
    • if both actors defend, they get a reward, say two.
    • if both actors attack, any resulting power gained would just be crushed by the state system, so each state would get 0 or lower.
    • if one actor attacks and another defends, then any resulting power would againbe chrushed, resulting in 0.
  • the best option is clearly to defend.
• when large allainces form, it becomes a lot more likely that the AD scenario results in a reward, 0,3.
  • if the balance of power system is to be preserved, allainces of greater size must be formed (temp?)
• Unsure of whether or not attacking will be fruitfull. With tension, you want to attack first.

**

support exploring the causes of World War One through

We want to, need to, build systems such that the emergent properties lead to peace - even stable peace. Uncomfortable as it sounds, the modern mutually assured destruction of the atomic era is one such model.

In the modern day, this methodology still applies (nukes).

Emergent properties exerting downward causal control.

Rather than the classic "chain of causality" it is really a cycle of causality.

**