Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T00:04:55.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The arms race

qualitative and quantitative aspects

from Part I - The industrialization of warfare, 1850–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Roger Chickering
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Dennis Showalter
Affiliation:
Colorado College
Hans van de Ven
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Analyses of the arms race that preceded World War I typically focus on quantity, and with good reason. The numbers of weapons and personnel which each alliance could mobilize were enormous indeed, and numbers always matter. As Clausewitz noted, numerical superiority is the “most common element” in tactical and strategic victory, while pointing out it is not always decisive. Although it is common practice to represent the arms race in terms of quantitative comparisons, doing so overshadows the race’s qualitative dimensions, which are just as important to an accurate understanding of the nature of military competition during this period. The quarter-century before the war saw more qualitative advances, defined as technological innovations, than any previous era. The industrial revolution, for all its emphasis on mass production and efficient distribution, also created numerous opportunities for innovation, many of which were actively sought by military establishments. In fact, the pursuit of technological and tactical innovations had become integral to the dynamics of military competition by the turn of the century. Qualitative advances are, in other words, as much hallmarks of the prewar arms race as are its unprecedented numbers of weapons and personnel. As a result, this chapter gives equal attention to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the prewar arms race.

An arms race is defined here as a competition between two or more parties for military supremacy, which is sought by amassing a greater quantity or quality of weapons, or both. There is an ongoing debate as to whether such competitions tend to become ends in themselves, and the extent to which they then lead to war. An examination of the events of the arms race that preceded World War I suggests the race neither became an end in itself, nor led directly to war. Admittedly, the major competitors at times seemed to embrace the basic impulse to outpace their rivals militarily, thereby giving apparent credence to the idea that arms races tend to become ends in themselves. However, this basic impulse still generally served each of the major powers’ larger political goals, which were as vague as they were inherently competitive.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carl von, Clausewitz, On War, trans. and ed. Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (Princeton, 1984), 194Google Scholar
Ferguson, Compare Niall’s, The Pity of War: Explaining World War I (New York, 1999), 82Google Scholar
Roksund, Arne, The Jeune École: The Strategy of the Weak (Leiden, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echevarria, Antulio J., “The Cult of the Offensive Revisited: Confronting Technological Change before the Great War,” Journal of Strategic Studies 25, no. 1 (March 2002): 199–214Google Scholar
von Schlieffen, Alfred, “Der Krieg der Gegenwart,” Deutsche Revue (January 1909): 13–24Google Scholar
Alfred von Schlieffen’s Military Writings, trans. and ed. Foley, Robert T. (London and Portland, 2003)Google Scholar
Elman, Benjamin A., “Naval Warfare and the Refraction of China’s Self-Strengthening Reforms into Scientific and Technological Failure, 1865–1895,” in Lambert, Andrew, ed., Naval History 1850–Present (Aldershot and Burlington, 2007Google Scholar
Die Wilhelminische Flottenrüstung, 1908–1914: Weltmachtstreben, Industrieller Fortschritt, Soziale Integration (Munich, 1991
Kennedy, Paul M., “Tirpitz, England, and the Second Navy Law of 1900: A Strategical Critique,” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 8 (1970): 38Google Scholar
Clough, S. B., The Economic Development of Western Civilization (New York, 1959), 377, 385Google Scholar
Henderson, W. O., The Rise of German Industrial Power, 1834–1914 (Berkeley, 1975), 233–34Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. R., European Historical Statistics 1750–1970 (London, 1975), 818–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connaughton, R. M., The War of the Rising Sun and the Tumbling Bear: A Military History of the Russo-Japanese War 1904–5 (London, 1988)Google Scholar
Westwood, J. N., Russia against Japan, 1904–1905: A New Look at the Russo-Japanese War (Albany, 1986)Google Scholar
Jane, Fred T., Jane’s Fighting Ships (New York, 1906–7)Google Scholar
Breyer, Siegfried, Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, 1905–1970 (London, 1973)Google Scholar
Jane, Fred T., Jane’s Fighting Ships (New York, 1912–13)Google Scholar
Hutchinson, Robert, Jane’s Submarines: War beneath the Waves from 1776 to the Present Day (New York, 2005)Google Scholar
Maurer, John H., “Arms Control and the Anglo-German Naval Race before World War I: Lessons for Today?” Political Science Quarterly 112 (1997): 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnenkohl, Hans, Vom Einzelschuss zur Feuerwalze: Der Wettlauf zwischen Technik und Taktik im Ersten Weltkrieg (Koblenz, 1990)Google Scholar
Gudmundsson, Bruce I., On Artillery (Westport, CT, 1993)Google Scholar
Beard, George M., American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences (New York, 1881)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellpach, Willy, Nervosität und Kultur (Berlin, 1902)Google Scholar
Hanotaux, Gabriel, L’Energie française (Paris, 1902)Google Scholar
Howard, Michael, “Men against Fire: The Doctrine of the Offensive in 1914,” in Paret, Peter, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Modern Age (Princeton, 1986)Google Scholar
Craig, Gordon, Germany 1866–1945 (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar
Kennett, Lee, The First Air War, 1914–1918 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar
Jane, Fred T., Jane’s All the World’s Airships (New York, 1909)Google Scholar
Morrow, John H., German Airpower in World War I (Lincoln, NE, 1982), 7Google Scholar
Holley, Jr. I.  B., Ideas and Weapons (Washington, DC, 1997), 29Google Scholar
Jane, Fred T., Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft (New York, 1913)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×