Chain Ganging Research
Origins of War
Explanatory theories for the outbreak of World War I
The phenomenon of chain-ganging has been used to explain the outbreak of World War I. Is chain ganging a convincing explanation for the onset of the war? In what ways? Are alternative explanations more compelling, and if so, how and why?
The First World War was the first total war and can be seen as a contingent catastrophe or rather a unique event. It cost the lives of more than 10 million people and the involvement of more than 40 states. Even 100 years later scholars still research on it, intending to explain this horrific event in history (Hosch 2011: 9). There are several explanatory theories for the outbreak of the war. In this work I will analyse different explanations …show more content…
In his view the outcome of tight alliance systems relies on whether the allies share the same interests regarding war and therefor provides three different scenarios. The first is chain-ganging in the style of Christensen and Snyder, assuming that the allies’ interests vary. The second scenario is one he names ‘restraint’ in which the ally favouring peace has more influence and hence is able to hold back its associate from going into war. The third option is the ‘coordinated action’. Thereby both allies share the same interests and therefor act within the alliance individually following their own strategies (Tierney 2011: 287-288). In his opinion the second and the third option are more likely to happen and explains that the outbreak of World War I was a coordinated action since Austria-Hungary and Germany were both in favour of war emphasised by the fact that Germany gave a blank check of support to its ally (Tierney 2011:299-301). According to Tierney “the issuance of blank checks is a sign of the convergence of interest, and impeding coordinated aggression, rather than chain-ganging” (2011: 291). Christensen and Snyder in return use the fact that Austria-Hungary’s actions forced Germany to follow unintended as evidence for their chain-ganging theory (1990: …show more content…
The first part introduced the theory of chain ganging. Looking at several aspects of the argumentation of the authors it becomes clear that the theory lacks a deeper analysis of alliance behaviour due to the fact that there is historical evidence that alliance dynamics tend to cut both ways chain-ganging and restraint. Chain-ganging intents to explain why wars in Europe escalated, but does not give the explanation for the onset of World War 1. There is clear evidence that states interfere driven by national interests as the pursuit of power and security. Thus theories such as coordinated action, misperception and the security dilemma are more compelling. There exists a complex web of variables that leads to war. Hence chain-ganging cannot be seen as the only explanation for the outbreak of World War
Explanatory theories for the outbreak of World War I
The phenomenon of chain-ganging has been used to explain the outbreak of World War I. Is chain ganging a convincing explanation for the onset of the war? In what ways? Are alternative explanations more compelling, and if so, how and why?
The First World War was the first total war and can be seen as a contingent catastrophe or rather a unique event. It cost the lives of more than 10 million people and the involvement of more than 40 states. Even 100 years later scholars still research on it, intending to explain this horrific event in history (Hosch 2011: 9). There are several explanatory theories for the outbreak of the war. In this work I will analyse different explanations …show more content…
In his view the outcome of tight alliance systems relies on whether the allies share the same interests regarding war and therefor provides three different scenarios. The first is chain-ganging in the style of Christensen and Snyder, assuming that the allies’ interests vary. The second scenario is one he names ‘restraint’ in which the ally favouring peace has more influence and hence is able to hold back its associate from going into war. The third option is the ‘coordinated action’. Thereby both allies share the same interests and therefor act within the alliance individually following their own strategies (Tierney 2011: 287-288). In his opinion the second and the third option are more likely to happen and explains that the outbreak of World War I was a coordinated action since Austria-Hungary and Germany were both in favour of war emphasised by the fact that Germany gave a blank check of support to its ally (Tierney 2011:299-301). According to Tierney “the issuance of blank checks is a sign of the convergence of interest, and impeding coordinated aggression, rather than chain-ganging” (2011: 291). Christensen and Snyder in return use the fact that Austria-Hungary’s actions forced Germany to follow unintended as evidence for their chain-ganging theory (1990: …show more content…
The first part introduced the theory of chain ganging. Looking at several aspects of the argumentation of the authors it becomes clear that the theory lacks a deeper analysis of alliance behaviour due to the fact that there is historical evidence that alliance dynamics tend to cut both ways chain-ganging and restraint. Chain-ganging intents to explain why wars in Europe escalated, but does not give the explanation for the onset of World War 1. There is clear evidence that states interfere driven by national interests as the pursuit of power and security. Thus theories such as coordinated action, misperception and the security dilemma are more compelling. There exists a complex web of variables that leads to war. Hence chain-ganging cannot be seen as the only explanation for the outbreak of World War