I don't recall where I heard in an interview or read in an article that there is a causation between economic crises and the two world wars, is there is historical truth in that?

For the second war is kind of common wisdom that Germany went into economic crisis because of 1929 stock market crash and then went to start WWII, but for WWI even if there was a lot of regional economical crises there were no generalized and synchronized one like the one started by the 1929 stock market crash.

Is there a correlation or causation between generalized economic crises and World wars?

  • 2
    The economic crisis of 1929 helped create conditions that allowed Hitler's Nazi party to come to power. It did not in and of itself caused WW2 -- there were many more important factors. Aug 31, 2012 at 13:11
  • @Sardathrion Agree with you, but maybe without it Germany would have gone the way it had after WWII. Aug 31, 2012 at 13:13
  • 1
    World War I reparations led to some serious war debt for Germany. This led to a whole fiasco where the nations borrowed money to pay of debts and it just went in circles for quite a while. Aug 31, 2012 at 13:28
  • 3
    Depending on how you define an economic crisis and how you define a war, it's easy to show correlation. Since independence, the U.S. alone has experienced at least a dozen panics, recessions, and depressions (and 4 years of McKinleynomics); and undertaken hundreds of military operations. But the question as worded is impossible to answer quantitatively, as there have been only two world wars, too small a sample size to prove a direct relationship with anything.
    – choster
    Aug 31, 2012 at 14:11

2 Answers 2


There's a good argument to be made that the Great Depression caused WWII. The German Republic was brand new, and the economic devastation was far more than its tenuous prestige could support. As an alternative, extremist parties like the communists and the Nazis, neither of which wanted a Republic at all, were greatly strengthened. In the 1930 election enough Germans voted for the anti-republican parties that it wasn't possible for the Republic to create a government without them. The Nazis were invited into the government, and Hitler's ambition did the rest. In happier economic times this would not have happened.

WWI on the other hand, was mostly the result of the surpassing incompetence of the German monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Here's an excerpt from his wikipedia page to give you an idea:

German foreign policy under Wilhelm II was faced with a number of significant problems. Perhaps the most apparent was that Wilhelm was an impatient man, subjective in his reactions and affected strongly by sentiment and impulse. He was personally ill-equipped to steer German foreign policy along a rational course

He fired Otto von Bismark, easily the most talented German politician and diplomat of the age (in fact, the man responsible for there being a German Kaiser in the first place), and instead surrounded himself with people who could be counted on to tell him only things he wanted to hear. The subsequent disconnect from reality had rather sad effects.

The spark that started the war happened in Austria-Hungary. But rather than try to contain things, Wilhelm at every stage fanned the flames. He became convinced that Russia, France, and England were all in cahoots against him, and then proceeded to take pre-emptive measures that ensured that in short order they were.

  • The Napoleon's France was in an even more belligerent situation still though no WW. Aug 31, 2012 at 15:10
  • 1
    About the only thing missing from making the Napoleanic wars "world war"s is the involvement of US troops in Europe. I've seen it argued that isn't enough of a difference, and they should qualify too.
    – T.E.D.
    Aug 31, 2012 at 15:28
  • I would recommend removing GWB from your otherwise excellent answer. Sensible intelligent people disagree on GWB's overall competence (especially compared to surrounding presidents as opposed to absolute scale). I can't stand many of his policies, but the bumbling idiot picture was largely painted by people personally invested in disparaging him and not objective observers.
    – DVK
    Sep 1, 2012 at 22:06
  • @DVK - Folks from both parties are down on the guy these days, but I think you are right. Done.
    – T.E.D.
    Sep 3, 2012 at 5:31

In their book "Generations," William Strauss and Neil Howe argue that there is a correlation between economic crises and American wars. A decade-long economic crisis "no taxation without representation" in 1765-1775 led to the American Revolution; the Depression of the 1850s led to the Civil War, and the Great (and global) Depression of the 1930s led to World War II (with America being one of the greatest participants in both the depression and the war).

  • 2
    What about WW1? Not meant to be flippant, just curious. Aug 31, 2012 at 13:16
  • @Sardathrion: From an American point of view, World War II was more tied to political crises associated with colonialism. Unless you argue that the issues surrounding colonialism constituted an economic crisis.
    – Tom Au
    Aug 31, 2012 at 13:21
  • @TomAu (assuming you meant WW1), this American's point of view is different. Details in answer.
    – T.E.D.
    Aug 31, 2012 at 13:57
  • @T.E.D.: I did mean WWI but your answer supported my theory of "political" crises, including Algeciras, started by our old villain, Kaiser "Bill."
    – Tom Au
    Aug 31, 2012 at 18:09
  • @TomAu - Right. I just don't think colonialisim had a lot to do with it period.
    – T.E.D.
    Aug 31, 2012 at 19:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.