the combination of militarism and imperialism don't mix well with the network of countries morally required to help their allies. One of the questions that arise in the study of world war I is “how would a tretie cause a war?” A problem with so many allies is that if any number of them get in trouble it's your responsibility to help then in the struggle; Say for example that there are two gangs composed of more than 50 members each, now suppose that one person kills someone from the opposing gang. As you can see in a situation with many members and only two sides the outcome is far more chaotic than an altercation between members. The result was many countries with too many guns being roped into violence that if not for their alliances would not have been their fight. Ironically the attempt to build bridges that prevent wars was more effective as a tight rope tied on both side of the gorge if one side goes down it pulls the rest with it. The allied powers were the United States, Brazil, Japan, Argentina, United Nations, China, Poland, United Kingdom, France, British Empire, India, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of Netherlands and Yugoslavia, Norway. Fortunately the central powers composed of Italy, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, Other Movements, Armistice and treaties, Leaders, Austria-Hungary,German Empire, and Bulgaria lost the war. The thing to realize is that these massive lists might as well be the names of gang members in my earlier example and just the same most hade no place in the original act of aggression. In hindsight the massive collectives of countries should never have been set up in a way that put the world on two equal yet opposing sides. Its as if someone went through the trouble of motivating, arming, and separating the groups to perfectly set up world war I; You could say it was imminent, unavoidable even inevitable. However even with a domino effect ready to go you still needed the means to fight whatever that is the result. World war I was able to become a world war because of the massive amount of alliances.
The perfect gun however still needs a trigger to be shot this trigger was literally an assassination. I believe that the more figurative trigger to world war I was the overactive exponential expansion of the more imperialistic countries. When you look at the time countries like britain and the ottoman empire were constantly increasing the territories they “control.” In reality the imperialistic expansion of these countries happened far too fast to be stable. The reason I label that as unstable is because it's like a room with a gas in it if you don't contain it the border of the expansion becomes thiner and thiner. Thinning borders is exactly what happened when borders of competing countries started to overlap chaos ensued over ownership of discovered resources. With the border disputes weakening relations the gap between the allied forces and the central powers widened furthering the tension to the point where it rivaled a game of jenga with one middle block on each story. The problem being that in real life relations there is no magical fix all “tie” that would happen in that example. In the event were the world is on its last straw something as small as a archduke being assassinated can kickstart a war involving the entire world (add your choice of emotional tone to the end of that sentence for effect). But when the world hit that critical point every country was ready for a war to happen because of one little
word. Militarism is like the one thing that was technically a cause of world war I but really doesn't have a point until a war actually occurred. Militarism caused the war in an indirect way. When you have many people proud of their country and ready to enlist you have a problem not then but when that pride turns sour and becomes a form of cocky that causes conflict. After many years of governments building arsenals and manipulating nationalism to get more troops you have one soldier of a country waiting to prove itself. As many countries had more than healthy amounts of military force on standby the other factors of world war I worked to provide a reason for all the weapons. The now beefed up countries were rearing and ready to fight. During the war the constant exhaustion of resources was met with militarism strong enough to supply the country with troops. Militarism drove the opposing groups of people and countries into a war of utter chaos and destruction so large there has only been a single event to match it since. In my young mind militarism is what happens when the harsh reality of nature comes into contact with militarismus much more noble cousin nationalism. The hordes of troops and fighting started with average everyday people that simple loved the country they lived in enough to fight for it. es being thrown away in a massive war now thoroughly embedded in my mind i find it almost impossible to come up with one of my usual soft hearted take aways. Now being reminded that wars happen people die i decided to stick to facts. World war one was caused by far more than listed here. A complex and varied network of ideas and decisions within the history of the world caused the initiation and propagation of mass death. Militarism the belief that your country should be strong and ready to use that strength to further the goals of the nation caused pride and an abundance of conviction. Treaties made decade and even centuries beforehand allowed the problems of the few to send echoes resounding through the world calling allies to fight by their side. The expansion of human territory and control in the form of imperialism allowed for the slow but constant degradation of the moral code that kept us in check.The lasting effects of world war I one will sadly be one of the most lasting things humans have ever done unfortunately. Most of the biggest thing humans have done as a species has been related to violence. World war I was inevitable because expansion, military might and moral duty met and decided that the countries of the world all had a reason to kill and fight over the lose of a single and comparatively inconsequential life.