The first premise anarchy, high-value information was costly to send or receive because of factors such as nation preference, strategic misrepresentations of preferences for outcomes such as peace, threats and bribes and costly behaviors. The powerful European countries falsely believed that war could be quick and decisive. Thus, governments falsely chose conflict despite the possibility of escalating to a long war of attrition. Had the planners had the accurate knowledge, the war might not have occurred. Nonetheless, the war planners from 1890-1914 were aware of the fact that industrial weapons could lead to mass causalities and attrition warfare if the vast military troops of major powers did not achieve quick decisive results (Fromkin).
The balance of Power is Balance of Conflict
The first deduction of the structural theory is the maximization of power and resources and the maxim of war being possible while a conflict is inevitable. Although Giuseppe Mazzini together with his disciples intended to create a peaceful Europe when he preached about nationalism in the nineteenth-century, it precipitated the war instead. Countries busied themselves accumulating wealth and increasing their war chest artilleries and arsenal. Most European states considered colonialization as the way to gain wealth with Germany conquering more regions than the other European nations. Michael Faraday had also made an interesting discovery regarding how to generate electricity. Additionally, countries were more fascinated with the idea of limitless power above everything else. Both Europeans and Americans were concerned about the future (Fromkin).
Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, who was the chief of staff of the Dual Monarchy’s armed forces, echoed the maxim that “conflict is inevitable, war is always possible.” He was known to frequently equate war to "the basic principle behind all the events on this earth." It also viewed war as “the key to personal success.” Therefore, the countries acted as unitary states to necessitate the personal interest of individual countries (Fromkin).
Rational self-interest
Otto von Bismarck, the leader who is responsible for the unification of Germany in 1870–71, was doubtful of imperialism. First, he believed that overseas colonies, unlike other, colonials, drained the power and wealth of his nation. He then coyly allowed France to regain its colonies overseas to distract her from recovering territories within Europe, which Germany had annexed. Therefore, Bismarck supported and encouraged France in its acquisition of new colonies in Asia and North Africa. With that policy, Bismarck hoped that France would be infrequent collisions with Russia and imperial England, thus reducing the potential might of Germany's rivals. This all suited Bismarck's intention of pursuing Germany’s interest first (Fromkin).
Rational self-help
Rational self-help through the formation of alliances secondary is another technique that is observable from Fromkin’s text. France and Russia, despite differences in ideologies, became allies, brought together by the threat from Germany. Germany allied with Austria-Hungary and the unreliable Italians, even though the Italians were in conflict with Austria of territories. Great Britain, which remained neutral for a while, was propelled to seek an alliance to counter the ambitious Germans. Hence, Britain formed an alliance with France and Russia (Fromkin).
Rational distrust
Rational distrust: spying and cyber-war brewed among the powerful European states. Fromkin writes that what Europe was building was not a peaceful or better world, but rather a huge smashup. The first half of the twentieth-century war witnessed a stiff competition among modern industrialized nations that involved the accumulation of explosive power and advanced scientific inventions developed with the intention of causing mass destruction. Franklin argues that it was either fear of each other or the ingrained aggression building up during the unnatural forty years of world peace that led to the driven by a race for powerful artilleries and was now on the brink of exploding. Fromkin also adds that maybe the governments deliberately put their countries on a warpath to subvert the citizens’ concerns from domestic affairs that the leaders considered as insoluble while some governments intentionally pursued dangerous and aggressive policies to provoke other nations to arm up and retaliate. Nonetheless, a brewing distrust among the powerful world economies led to each country preparing for the unlikely event of a possible fallout. To quote Fromkin, “Helmuth von Moltke, chief of Germany's general staff, told the civilian Chancellor in a memorandum dated December 2, 1912: All sides are preparing for European War, which all sides expect sooner or later"(Fromkin).
Conclusion
In summary, the focus of maintaining peace is creating a balance of power. However, the mistrust that existed between the European countries due to various reasons could not hold the peace that existed for four decades. The theory states that a declining power would chose war to restore its relative position in the balance of power while a rising power may choose war to preempt an attack. This explains why countries aggressively embarked on a rush to acquire weapons of mass destruction and update their military might.
Work Cited
Fromkin, David. Europe's last summer: who started the Great War in 1914?. Vintage, 2007.
