How far is it correct to say that the First World War was fought essentially for the preservation of balance of power?
Approach · directive: “how far”
What it asks · Weigh the balance-of-power explanation of 1914 against other causes — imperial rivalry, nationalism, militarism, alliances and the July Crisis — and give a verdict.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Make the case that the First World War was fought to preserve the balance of power
- Weigh the other causes — imperialism, nationalism, militarism, the July Crisis and war aims — and give a verdict on 'essentially'
Open with · The balance of power — the principle that no single state should dominate Europe — kept an uneasy peace after 1871; its breakdown was a central, but not the only, strand of 1914.
Cover
- For the view: a unified, industrialising Germany upset the European equilibrium; Britain answered the naval race by moving closer to France and Russia.
- Alliance blocs (Triple Alliance vs Triple Entente) were built to balance each other, yet turned a Balkan quarrel into a general war.
- Britain entered to stop German dominance of the continent and uphold Belgian neutrality — classic balance logic.
- Against: imperial rivalry for colonies and markets (Moroccan crises) and economic competition drove hostility.
- Nationalism: Serbian and Pan-Slav ambitions, Austro-Hungarian insecurity, French desire to recover Alsace-Lorraine.
- Militarism and rigid war plans (Schlieffen Plan); the trigger was the Sarajevo assassination and Austria's ultimatum in July 1914.
- War aims and the peace settlement went beyond balance — annexations and redistribution of colonies.
Close with · Balance of power shaped the war's structure, but imperialism, nationalism and militarism supplied its fuel — an essential cause, not the essence.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 319 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The balance of power — the principle that no single state should dominate Europe — kept an uneasy peace after 1871; its breakdown was a central strand of 1914, but not the only one.
The case for the balance-of-power thesis
- A united, industrialising Germany upset the equilibrium; once Bismarck's restraining diplomacy ended (1890), Weltpolitik and the naval race pushed Britain out of 'splendid isolation' into the Entente Cordiale (1904) and the Anglo-Russian convention (1907).
- Two blocs built to balance each other — Triple Alliance (1882) and Triple Entente (1907) — turned a Balkan quarrel into a general war, because each power feared that an ally's collapse would tip the scales.
- Britain entered to keep the Channel coast and the continent out of one power's hands; the violation of Belgian neutrality, guaranteed since 1839, was classic balance logic.
What the thesis leaves out
- Imperial rivalry: competition for colonies and markets (Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911), Anglo-German trade rivalry and the scramble for Ottoman and African territory.
- Nationalism: Serbian and Pan-Slav ambitions after the Bosnian crisis (1908) and the Balkan Wars (1912–13), Austria-Hungary's fear of disintegration, French revanche for Alsace-Lorraine.
- Militarism: arms races and generals with rigid timetables — the Schlieffen Plan made Russian mobilisation a reason to attack France through Belgium.
- The trigger: Sarajevo (28 June 1914) and Austria's ultimatum to Serbia were about prestige and survival; Berlin's 'blank cheque' was a gamble, not a balancing act.
- War aims: Germany's September Programme of 1914 sought continental domination, and the Entente's secret treaties carved up colonies and Ottoman lands — ambitions beyond restoring balance.
Verdict
- Balance of power explains the structure — why a local crisis became general and why Britain joined; imperialism, nationalism and militarism explain the will to fight: an essential cause, not the essence.
Balance of power shaped the war's architecture, but imperialism, nationalism and militarism supplied its fuel — so the claim is only partly correct.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.