Are you more convinced by Structuralism or Intentionalism explanations for the causes of World War 1?
Are you more convinced by Structuralism or Intentionalism explanations for the causes of World War 1?
The main causes of World War 1 can be roughly divided into Structuralist, long-term forces and attitudes, and Intentionalist, where individuals make premeditated acts, explanations. I think that Structuralism is a more convincing explanation for the causes of World War 1, as I do not personally believe that any individual was solely to blame for the First World War. I do not believe that any individual went out of their way to purposely cause the First World War. However I believe that a mixture of both is the cause of the outbreak of war in 1914, but think that structuralism is more to blame than imperialism. I think that no individual set out to cause a war and thus that no individual is solely to blame for World War 1, likewise I believe that no one structuralist idea was solely to blame, or that either structuralism or intentionalism could of caused the war without the aid of the other. Thus I think that the War would not have occurred if either structuralism or intentionalism had been absent. But I think that structuralism played more a part in causing the war than intentionalism did. I consider that structuralism, such as the alliance system and imperialism where to the cause of the war than intentionalism, for example the roles of Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas.
Long-term economic forces and imperialistic attitudes are examples of structuralism which I believe are more to blame for the cause of the war. The build up of economic and colonial rivalry in the years preceding the war were a major contributing factor when assessing the reasons for the outbreak of war in 1914. In 1871 Germany emerged as a new central European power, and its strong economy, not to mention its sheer geographical presence, could rival that of France, Russia and even Great Britain. If Germany were to assume control of France then they would be just over the English Channel from Great Britain. This is supported by the fact that Britain joined the war, allegedly to protect Belgium, but it is much more plausible that they were in fact attempting to assert and maintain their international superiority. Some historians who disagree with this cause as an example of Structuralism would argue that since Russia was Germanys largest trading partner to have a war with them would have been illogical, thus it is not a valid cause of the war. But I believe that the amount of trade acquiring new lands would create would outweigh the potential loss of trade, and in the opinion of the German government would make war worthwhile. The build up of tension also occurred overseas, as many minor disputes in, Africa especially, inevitably lead to heightened imperialistic feeling, as well as feelings of international tension, distrust and friction between European countries. These feelings may later on have caused the countries in question to be antagonistic when dealings with future disputes. Some historians would say that none of the crises in Africa were important enough to cause a war, and thus is not an example of a structuralist cause. While it is true that no African crises were severe enough to start an instant war, the friction created could account for behaviour in dealings with future affairs, for example, the Russian handling of Austria-Hungary in regard to Bosnia. There were also incidents in Europe which caused tension that could be classified as a structuralist argument. Austria-Hungarian and Russian interest in the Balkans also increased tension between the two empires, as did the Balkan League and Balkan wars.
