5W

Dear students:

By now, you should be able to understand and explain in your own words the following:

Causes for war do not work in isolation. They are interconnected. **Militarism** depended **on industry.** Industry **on raw materials**, **raw materials on colonies**, colonies required **larger military** to watch over, **finished goods** demanded **markets**, and **trade** depended on more **powerful navy**. Factors for war were and are interconnected. **Background causes** are the **powder keg** in an explosion as the **spark** is the **immediate cause** that sparked the explosion. One good example of this is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The group Black Hand planned his assassination enough time before. The making of the murder responded to the long time desire of making free Bosnians living in Serbia under the rule of the Austria-Hungary Empire. This making constituted a background cause for war, while the shooting ignited the war as a spark inflaming a forest. All the **suspicion, fear and tension** created by militarism, deterrence, industrialization and colonialism made war more likely. To **feed** their armies, powers called **conscripts**. Countries like France made conscription mandatory for three years. The British used professionals only. No wonder they were the best army in Europe to face the Germans. This increasing in conscription and **warship tonnage** is very important for military historians draw conclusions.
 * Militarism and deterrence** are not causes for war but they make war __more likely__. Countries are counted as following militarism when their political, diplomatic and social effort makes and **emphasis on** **military matters.** For many years, Latin America, suffered a strong military presence that led military men overturned democratic leaders and became dictators. Under militarism, **military spending** increases notably. By the same token, countries making military emphasis seek develop **military technology**. Militarism could be followed by **deterrence, an effort** to dissuade potential enemies either by attacking them first **(preemptively)** or by increasing the size of the military to scare the enemy. In reality, deterrence didn’t work. Countries saw the military growing of others as an alarming calling to grow themselves. Since **military capacity** depended on **industrial capacity**, countries promoted **industrialism.** To grow their industries, nations needed **raw materials**, which were bought to countries rich in natural resources. When European countries decided to stop buying raw materials and become **self-sufficient**, they created **neo-mercantilism**, the idea of becoming **self sufficient** by __**decreasing imports, increasing exports and colonies**__ where to obtain raw materials and to make them **future markets** where to sell finished products. The classical example is India under British rule in Gandhi’s times. British used Indians to obtain cotton to be sent to England where clothes were fabricated and shipped back to India to be sold to Indians. This new way of doing business was a hit for Indians who for centuries made their own clothes using the spinning wheel. Not only their tradition was attacked by they were obliged to buy English clothes. The burden became so heavy that India revolted against imperialist British Empire and in time Indians led by Gandhi defeated the almighty power.
 * Militarism, deterrence and industrialization are not causes for war,** but they make **war more** **likely**. One way showing militarism and industrialization going hand by hand is when the British launched the Dreadnought making every other battleship obsolete. This alarming launching woke German urgency to increase their navy sevenfold by passing the **Second Naval Law**. Not only that their stronger navy would help them in case of war but was useful to “protect and to increase this trade.” This trade makes reference to sales of German finished products to juice American market. **__Neo-mercantilism__** then, **created massive industrial machines.**