‘German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? The above judgement outlines a clear debate among historians as to whether German aggression was the main reason the First World War began in August 1914, or whether it was due to various other factors. Gordon Corrigan claims that it was due to German aggression and therefore represents the closest argument to the one made in the question. Corrigan also references Fischer to support his argument, and so supports the Fischer Theory, which holds Germany to be responsible for the outbreak of the First World War due to their aggressive foreign policy. Contrastingly, James Joll suggests that Germany’s defensive offensive war rooted from a fear of encirclement from the countries that it borders, and so presents the opinion most opposing to that of the question.
In this essay I will argue both sides of this argument using sources to back up my points, however ever maintaining the fact I agree. German aggression can be seen as being responsible for the outbreak of a General European war due to the Schlieffen plan. This plan devised by General von Schlieffen would give Germany the option of fighting a war on two fronts with the French and the Russians. Both sources 1 and 2 agree that this plan was aggressive and therefore agree with the statement herein. Source 1 state’s that ‘as early as 1906, Germany had in place a plan for an aggressive war.’ Suggesting that the plan was put in place to start a war when the time was right.
Considering that Realpolitik focused on preventing a war within Europe and Weltpolitik aggressively asserted German dominance, it can be validly argued that this direct change in German foreign policy played a major role in bringing about the First World War. Another reason that German foreign policy was so greatly scrutinized was because of the Anglo-German naval rivalry which was creating tension within Europe. As long as Germany built, Britain would be a German enemy. The German government dramatically increased the development of German Ships. [i] This arms race and change in German foreign policy, believing they needed to control the seas was seen as a definite and direct cause
Because Germany was surrounded by the Triple Entente (the Great Britain, France, Russia). So Germany was land-locked. Germany needed a strong navy so that it would have a place in Europe, and to confront other countries. c. Based on the state of the arms race in 1914, if you were a German citizen, how would you feel? Explain why.
You’d be scared that there is an attack coming your way. 2. How did the naval arms race encourage the development of the alliance system the way it did? Be sure to refer to Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, as well as each of the alliance groups specifically. The navel arms raced encouraged the Development of the Alliance system, Because the joining of The different countries meant even more power to both Germany and Great Britain.
Because Germany was surrounded by the Triple Entente .So that means Germany was land-locked. Germany needed a strong navy so that it would have a place in Europe, and to oppose other countries. c. Based on the state of the arms race in 1914, if you were a German citizen, how would you feel? Explain why. I would feel nervous but fear less.
When a country increases their power and wealth by bringing additional territories is called Imperialism. Before World War 1 even started, Africa and parts of Asia were the conjecture of European countries. With the multitude of natural resources that Africa and parts of Asia had offer these countries were the basis towards imperialism. Since with the increasing amounts of enigmatic competition and the simple desire to increase power, territory, and wealth lead to a great impasse that would later help push the world into World War 1. Around 1914 Germany started to have a huge increase in military buildup.
World War 2 & Hitler Nationalism was a large part of the second world war. Hitler wanted to achieve the status he desired for Germany, and there for he displayed multiple forms of ultranationalism. I agree with Margret MacMillan that Hitler would have always wanted more power no matter what happened, but I do not agree that the Treaty of Versailles had no effect on world war two. The Treaty of Versailles had a direct impact on the second world war, without Hitler violating the treaty Britain would not have declared war in 1939 kick-starting the second world war. I agree with Margret MacMillan that Hitler would want to gain more power no matter what happened.
Imperialism: The Scramble for Africa (1880-1900) was a period of rapid colonization of the African continent by European powers. But it wouldn't have happened except for the particular economic, social, and military evolution Europe was going through. In the end Britain and France had the most colonies and Germany lost out so it was also a major contributor to tension in Europe. Nationalism: Triple Entente, an informal alliance among Great Britain, France, and Russia in the period before World War I. It opposed the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
There are many ideas about how far Germany was responsible for causing the First World War, traditionally all major powers are thought to be equally accountable for the pre-war tensions that accumulated throughout the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, with Germany accepting the majority of the blame for the fatal events that ultimately brought about one of the bloodiest wars the globe has ever seen. Its quest for global power and a strong African colonial empire by a megalomaniacal Kaiser is acquitted as one of the biggest causes of World War I, but how far exactly was Germany responsible? German historian Franz Fischer believes it was almost entirely responsible, his first major book makes three key points against Germany: The first being That Germany hoped a war would ensue when it backed Austria-Hungary against Serbia, the second that The Kaisers war plans pre-dated the war, and the final being that it was Germany’s domestic position rather than its international position that instilled the strong feeling of expansionism. Fischer believes the fault lay at Germany’s door since 1890 with the dismissal of Bismark who had been making arrangements to renew the Reassurance Treaty with Russia, the Tsar had been very fond of his policies and ideals, Kaiser William II had other ideas; Bismark lost his position before the treaty with Russia was renewed and his successor General Leo von Caprivi was advised not to pursue it further. Instead he was told to look into forming an alliance which would link Britain to Germany and its allies: Austria-Hungary and Italy.