Origins of the First World War by William Mulligan

Time for some catch-up, so this will be short!

Mulligan's Origins of the First World War is a view of the war's origins through the lens of an international relations theorist. That, of course, means it’s a bit drier than most accounts. Still, it makes for an interesting perspective somewhat different in approach from most of the historical accounts I've been reading this year. His primary approach to his analysis is through the lens of globalism and the long term waning of great power conflict. More crucially, he is less interested in the traditional explanations of the war's causes, and is much more concerned with why the war occurred as a result of the July Crisis, and did not occur sooner. In other words, what was different about 1914 than every other crisis in the first decade and a half of the Twentieth Century. He concludes that the July Crisis was not simply a trigger, but a cause in its own right.

For his analysis, Mulligan looks back through post-Napoleonic European history, examining why there was such a long period of peace between Great Powers. This examination is a key part of his book, as he posits that Great Power conflict waned dramatically after Waterloo (he does not mention him, but he definitely seems to be in the Stephen Pinker school of thought). He looks at two balances of power - one within Europe proper, and one with a world-wide perspective; he discusses at length how the two affected one another. He argues that, prior to the Second Morocco Crisis, conflicts did not involve vital interest; those after, did. Further, the alliance system that evolved made wars less likely, not more so, a difference between him and other authors.

As a side, he has a long discussion of the effects of public opinion. He sees it as complex and changing over the time examined, but does not see it as a factor in the war starting. As part of this, he discusses "defensive patriotism" at length, by which he means public opinion in most countries generally did not wish war, but were willing to fight under some circumstances. Public opinion was really more of a tool of politics than an influencer, but it did set some broad limits on what was possible.

A bit dry, but interesting to see a different approach.