14/08/2012
Cause and Effect
Cause and Effect
The study of cause and effect - which requires a strong grasp of historical chronology constitutes one of the basic approaches to the discipline of history. The underlying principle is
one adapted from physics: for every action there is an equivalent reaction; every cause results in
an effect. In historical terms, every event has a cause, and is itself the cause of subsequent
events, which may therefore be considered its effect(s), or consequences. For various reasons,
three of which are listed below, this view of history has become less popular in recent times.
However, thinking in terms of cause and effect remains a valuable skill you should master.
Some of the problems with the cause and effect approach to history include:
a. its risk of reducing complex historical issues to overly simplistic explanations. For
example, "in 1914, Austrian Crown Prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in
Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb ['the cause']. In retaliation, Austria declared war on Serbia,
launching the sequence of events that culminated in World War I ['the effect']." In fact,
both the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and even Austria's declaration of war against
Serbia are but two relatively minor variables within the far larger set of complex issues that
contributed to the many causes of World War I. While Franz Ferdinand's assassination
may have been the immediate catalyst of the war, it was certainly not the cause.
b. its implicit reliance on the negative logic-argument. Part of the way in which
physicists (and some philosophers, too) have applied the cause-and-effect model to their
subject matter is by way of negative logic. Not only did A cause B, but (here's the
negative logic) B would not have happened, had it not been for A. In history, however,
things do not work out as neatly. Take the above World War I example. Following the
negative logic argument, if Franz Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated (the catalyst for
World War I, remember?), the war itself would never have begun. This claim is highly
doubtful: most historians agree that the rivalry between the major European empires, the
power blocs that had been established among them, and the complex set of alliances that
existed within each bloc had made war all but inevitable long before 1914. In fact, if Franz
Ferdinand had not been assassinated, and even if Austria had not declared war on Serbia,
a major military confrontation involving all European powers would most likely still have
occurred.
c. its inability to anticipate the unreliability principle. Another concept from physics,
the unreliability (or Heisenberg) principle, articulated in 1927, severely complicated
physicists' earlier faith in simple causal relationships with its discovery that, no matter
how clearly a cause seems poised to have a certain effect, unexpected variables may
impact upon the outcome in unanticipated ways. The same is true of history. For
example, the European power blocs of the pre-World War I period and the complex sets of
internal non-aggression and mutual aid agreements that existed within them made war
inevitable, as outlined above. Following World War II, however, a similar set of
circumstances (the U.S.-led NATO alliance vs. the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, each of which
was also internally organized around the principles of mutual aid and non-aggression) did
not lead to a direct confrontation between the two blocs. In fact, contrary to popular
wisdom, history does not necessarily repeat itself.
Despite the above-listed reservations, you still need to develop an understanding of cause and
effect, for two reasons:
Home
1. an awareness of cause and effect, simplistic as it may be, does help you recognize
causal relationships between historical events; this is an important skill
2. you will frequently find your history professor assigning essay questions that ask you to
"explain the cause(s)" or "examine the effect(s)" of specific events in history.
Types of Writing Assignments
Like it or not, cause and effect is here to stay.
Basic Considerations When
Writing on History
Here's a sample topic, one that is in keeping with our events-leading-up-to-World-War-II theme,
and a favorite in twentieth-century history classes:
Types of Sources
Explain the Treaty of Versailles and explore ways in which it contributed to the
rise of Adolf Hitler.
Critical Reading
Preparation and Writing
Basic Quoting Skills
Style and Editing
Plagiarism
Archives
This is classic cause and effect, as even implied in the wording of the question: the Treaty of
Versailles ("the cause"), dictated by Britain and France in the aftermath of World War I,
"contributed" to the rise of Hitler (which, therefore, is "the effect"). In order to fulfill such an
assignment, you will first explain the Treaty - which called upon defeated Germany to cede
territories, give up its colonies to the victorious Allies, limit its army and navy, and pay war
reparations of $33 billion - then show ways in which the treaty's effects (anger and resentment in
qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/considerations/cause.html
1/2
14/08/2012
Cause and Effect
reparations of $33 billion - then show ways in which the treaty's effects (anger and resentment in
Germany, accompanied by political and economic turmoil) helped set the scene for the rise of
Hitler over the next fifteen years. (See also Establishing a Broader Context on this.)
As you proceed, you will notice a whole series of causes and effects:
Being forced to cede territories fuelled Germany's desire to reclaim those territories
and, in fact, to increase its original territory, a desire articulated in Hitler's famous call
for Leb ensraum im Osten ("living space in the East").
Being forced to give up its colonies (which went to England and France) stoked
Germany's resentment against those countries, making it easier to support a leader
who staked his political future on his ability to exact revenge against those who had
"wronged" the nation.
Being forced to limit the size of their armed forces fuelled a desire among Germans
to restore the army and navy to their former stature. The explicitly militaristic appeal of
Hitler and his uniformed brownshirts, along with his own military credentials and his
association with German World War I hero Erich Ludendorff thus held significant
appeal for the masses.
Finally, the economic sanctions of the Treaty of Versailles, and the resulting political
and economic turmoil, inspired within Germans a desire for a strongman leader who
could restore order and rebuild the economy, two of Hitler's rallying cries.
Thus we see that the method of cause and effect can yield useful results and, in so doing, can
avoid its three above-listed potential pitfalls. By tracing each effect of the treaty in its own right,
we are not reducing the complex issue of the rise of Hitler to an overly simplistic cause but - far
from it - establishing a broader context within which to understand Hitler's career. Nor are we
claiming the negative argument, that, had it not been for the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler would not
have come to power (avoid such claims; also the claim that, had it not been for the treaty, there
would have been no World War II; there are too many variables involved to make such claims).
Finally, we are acknowledging the unpredictability principle: a Treaty that was designed to bring
Germany to its knees and render it unfit to ever start another war in fact had an entirely different
long-term effect.
qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/considerations/cause.html
2/2