Historical books and scholars have in many instances painted Africa as a region that was out of touch with the First World War. W. E. B Dubois debunks these assertions by noting that the scramble for Africa played a significant role in causing the war. Dubois notes that “nearly every human empire that has arisen in the world, material and spiritual, has found some of its greatest crises on this continent of Africa. In this quote, Dubois explains how Africa has contributed to major global events in one way or the other. The scramble and partition of Africa brought immense problems to the Africans including theft, lies, rape, and murder. The white imperialists felt that it was their responsibility to help the black man who was living a primitive life. Dubois intimates that the superiority and the right over the Africans created a tension along the color (Du Bois, 2008). Using oppression, the imperialists succeeded in rallying the blacks on either side to fight in the war. Africans also participated in the battle as an act of retribution against the sides that had oppressed it.
Other than oppression and racial aspects, sexual orientation also played a significant role in the build-up to the First World War. In Germany, an event known as the Eulenburg scandal involved a controversy military officials were accused of homosexuality. The affair involved several individuals leading to the first ever national dialogue about homosexuality in Germany. All the individuals implicated in the homosexuality underwent rigorous trials with some falling ill. Many associated the Eulenburg affair one of the ways in which a social aspect such as homosexuality can be used to achieve specific political goals. Most fundamentally, scholars such as Norman Domeier have associated the controversy to the causation of the First World War. The Eulenburg scandal of between 1906 and 1909 utilized sexual morality as a way of explaining the tensions surrounding both the domestic affairs and international relations of Germany (Domeier, 2014). As a backlash the controversy, Eulenburg began a reckless charge towards initiating conflicts that would later lead the country to World War.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A psychological explanation that could be utilized in explaining the origins of the First World War is known as the Rubicon Theory of War. It assesses how overconfidence, especially in matters of international relations, can lead to war. Scholars such as Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney have asserted that a change in mindset, mostly from a deliberative to an implemental one often leads to war (Johnson, & Tierney, 2011).Decision makers primarily act deliberatively whenever the prospects of conflict seem distant. Some of the psychological mindsets that could have led to the First World War included the overestimation of victory, overestimation of war benefits, or perceiving negotiated solutions as less necessary amongst others. Such mindsets, therefore, can push decision makers or their enemies to spontaneously begin war as witnessed during the course of the First World War. The entry of the United States in the war was a psychological expression to depict that they would tilt the conflict in favor of the Allies.
Lastly, perceptions and actions also played a significant role in the advancement of the First World War. For instance, when Russia mobilized the necessary tools to deter Austria-Hungary, Germans perceived a threat leading to a crisis that began in 1914 (North, 1967). It remains critical to note that with the tension boiling towards the First World War, nations became suspicious over each other, a factor that was immensely built by perceptions that ultimately led to actions. If many events were not wrongly perceived, then there is a chance that the First World War wouldn’t have been severe as it was.
References
Domeier, N. (2014). The homosexual scare and the masculinization of German politics before World War I. Central European History , 47 (4), 737-759.
Du Bois, W. E. B., (2008). The African roots of war. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales , (1), 707-714.
Johnson, D. D., & Tierney, D. (2011). The Rubicon theory of war: how the path to conflict reaches the point of no return. International Security , 36 (1), 7-40.
North, R. C. (1967). Perception and action in the 1914 crisis. Journal of International Affairs , 21 (1), 103-122.
