Home
There are two different branches of explanation for the initiation of World War I. The two explanations are offered by offensive and defensive realism. Defensive realism pins the blame on Germany’s fear of being surrounded by powerful states, which led Germany to take preventive measures by increasing the army size. The triple entente of Britain, France, and Russia was created as a defensive measure to counterbalance Germany’s rise as a possible hegemon. Offensive realism puts the blame on Germany’s aggressive expansionary and power-seeking attitude as the ultimate cause of World War I. Germany was increasing its power to maximize security and assert itself as a hegemony in Europe, which compelled other powers to go to war against Germany. Also, one should note that in the offensive realism perception explains that German leaders foresaw a long, drawn-out war, a concept that was quite the opposite of what Schlieffen Plan was supposed to accomplish.
It’s hard to determine which of the two explanations accurately explains the cause of World War I. However, when one compares the two, the offensive realism explanation makes more sense. How so? First of all, the idea that Germany was inexplicably threatened by the rise of Russia seems baffling. No matter how great of a power Russia was poised to become, there was no immediate evidence that they would attack Germany if given the chance. Europe was already in a multipolar system and a balanced world order. If Russia restrained itself to maintain the balance of power, Germany’s sudden and retaliatory gesture to ramp up security would be unjustified. It makes more sense that Germany was the aggressor, trying to make noise after being a nonfactor in Europe for such a long time. Also, evidence from the article “The New History of World War I” by Keir Lieber points out that that Schlieffen Plan wasn’t expected to defeat France quickly, and that Germany predicted it would be a long war, which is an idea supported by offensive realism. Therefore, offensive realism theory is a better fit for the outbreak of World War I.
It’s hard to determine which of the two explanations accurately explains the cause of World War I. However, when one compares the two, the offensive realism explanation makes more sense. How so? First of all, the idea that Germany was inexplicably threatened by the rise of Russia seems baffling. No matter how great of a power Russia was poised to become, there was no immediate evidence that they would attack Germany if given the chance. Europe was already in a multipolar system and a balanced world order. If Russia restrained itself to maintain the balance of power, Germany’s sudden and retaliatory gesture to ramp up security would be unjustified. It makes more sense that Germany was the aggressor, trying to make noise after being a nonfactor in Europe for such a long time. Also, evidence from the article “The New History of World War I” by Keir Lieber points out that that Schlieffen Plan wasn’t expected to defeat France quickly, and that Germany predicted it would be a long war, which is an idea supported by offensive realism. Therefore, offensive realism theory is a better fit for the outbreak of World War I.
