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.
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. L.F.C Turner’s opinion arises somewhere between the two other historians’ arguments, and states that Germany was aggressive during Europe’s last month of peace before war, but there were other factors that should be considered equally. On the one hand, it was German aggression that was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. One example of suggested German aggression can be seen in their long term foreign policy, ‘weltpolitik’ (world politics), which had been implemented in 1897. The aim of this foreign policy was to spread German influence throughout the world, the meaning of which is interpreted differently by different people.
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
World War 1 was a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. Countries throughout Europe had agreements of consolidated alliances which would pull European countries into battle. Therefore, if one country were to attack another, a domino like effect would come into play and the allied countries were bound to defend the attacked country. Since Austria-Hungary decided to declare war on Serbia for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Russia was bound to join the war because of cultural ties and alliances with Serbia. Germany saw that Russia was starting to mobilize troops so Germany decided to declare on Russia which leads to France joining the war because of being drawn against Germany.
‘The outbreak of the war in Europe 1914 was due to an aggressive German Foreign Policy which had been waged since c.1900’ How far do you agree with this opinion? Discussions over the causes of the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 have caused much controversy due to the breadth of events in multiple countries which took place over a short period of time, concluding in war. The evidence within source V, W and X refer to some of these events, thus hold different countries and individuals to blame to different extents. Whilst source V suggests that aggressive German Foreign policy did hold a considerable proportion of the blame, it places the Germans in a sympathetic position due to their encirclement leaving them no other option. Source W is very similar due to the fact that it blames Germany’s strengthening of the military and navy to a large extent, however proclaims their ‘peaceful intentions’; whereas source X dwarfs Germany’s contributions as a state, placing more responsibility for the outbreak of war on Austria-Hungary.
When Hitler became the chancellor of Germany, he issued conscription and also began to rearm his army and build up his army capacity in order to invade both countries such as Czechoslovakia and Poland. In conclusion , even though increased militarism was one of the reasons why the second world war started , it was not the main cause of it. I believed that Britain and France hadn’t followed the policy of Appeasement, Hitler would not have the confidence to implement his plans to take over Eastern Europe. By allowing Hitler to reoccupy the Rhineland (which was against the Treaty of Versailles) Britain and France gave the impression that they were weak, and this allow Hitler to rebuild his army to invade other countries. (Note: the title is from a gcse paper but the essay is
Although German signed the Treaty of Versailles, much to the disgrace of many Germans, admitting they were to blame it is undeniable that aggressive German foreign policy had a lot to do with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914, but this neglects other factors that may have additionally added to the tensions leading up to the war. Many historians debate whether it was mainly Germany to blame or whether other dominant powers led them into a no-win situation. Source V, ‘Modern Germany’ by Volker Berghahn suggests that the Kaiser no longer saw foreign policy and civil war as separate issues and that they were now seen to entwine together. The mention of the 1913 Army bill that had aggravated many within the German society due to the growing distress over money and the status quo within the German political establishment, the argument over the tax burdens grew with every bill passed. These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them.
World War Two began in September 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland. Although the outbreak of war was triggered by Germany's invasion of Poland, the causes of the war are more complex. Treaty of Versailles In 1919, Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson from the US met to discuss how Germany was to be made to pay for the damage world war one had caused. Woodrow Wilson wanted a treaty based on his 14-point plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe. Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge.
In this weeks articles, there seemed to be an ongoing theme of nationalism that the two authors, Van Evera and Suny, seemed to embrace the subjectivities of the role of nationalism. Both authors discussed the dangers of nationalism in Eastern Europe, mainly in the regions of the former Soviet Union. In this reflection, I will be discussing why I believe that the greatest risks of war are due to the political/environmental factors in Van Evera’s article, “Hypotheses on Nationalism and War,” in comparison to the structural and perceptual factors that Suny’s article “Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations.” Also, I will be discussing how the feelings of nationalism are easily able to be converted into antinationalism, and what
Modern European History, John R Barber, Ph D Ball State University, HarperPernnial A division of Collins Publishers pg230 ) that Germany got involved in the war in the first place. Under the Dual alliance ‘The central powers (Austria and Germany) promise to defend one another against if either country was ever attacked while under the Triple alliance Italy and Austro-German