Skip to main content

What military alliances pushed European nations into war? (World War I and World War II)

In World War I, there were two alliances that pushed the world into war.  These alliances were the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente.  The alliances did not cause the war to begin, but when the war did start, they caused it to spread farther than it might otherwise have done.


World War I started when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.  This came after a Serbian nationalist named Gavril Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.  Austria blamed Serbia for the attack and issued an ultimatum that Serbia was sure to reject, thus bringing about war.  So, the war began not because of alliances, but because of nationalist opposition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


However, the war spread because of alliances.  Austria-Hungary was part of the Triple Alliance.  They joined Italy and Germany in this alliance.  They were opposed by the Triple Entente, which was made up of Britain, France, and Russia.  Russia was allied with Serbia because both were Slavic countries and they felt the need to be allied against the ethnic German countries (Germany and Austria).  When Serbia and Austria-Hungary went to war, Russia felt compelled to enter the war on Serbia’s side and Germany entered on Austria’s side.  This activated the system of alliances and widened the war dramatically.  In this way, the existence of these alliances broadened the war, even if it did not cause the war.


It is somewhat harder to say that alliances pushed European nations into World War II.   WWII was fought by two main alliances, the Axis and the Allies.  However, these alliances were not really what pushed the European countries into the war.


It is more accurate to say that Hitler pushed European nations into WWII when he finally went too far and forced those nations to fight.  Britain and France declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.  You could say that this was because they had alliances with Poland, but it was really because they finally decided that Hitler was a major menace to their security.  They fought to protect themselves, not for the sake of Poland, which was beyond their help in any case.  Hitler did not fight because of his alliance with Italy.  He fought to make his country more powerful.


When the USSR entered the war, it did so because Hitler attacked it.  In fact, the USSR and Germany had nominally been allies (or at least had a non-aggression pact) right up until Germany invaded.  Clearly, the USSR did not join the war because of an alliance.  Thus, it is difficult to argue that military alliances pushed European countries into WWII.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.