Was Germany to blame for the start of world war one? Germany was to blame for the First World War, but only to a certain extent. Germany was not solely to blame, but did contribute greatly to the sequence of events that led to war. Germany were a major contributor to the Arms Race, caused tension between many European countries, made alliances, were extremely nationalistic and encouraged Austria – Hungary to declare war on Serbia. In 1904, Germans were encouraged to become nationalists.
Despite these threats ultimate power remained in the hands of the Kaiser in 1914. Some would argue that this retention of power was a result of the moderate reform put in place in order to placate the parties in the government enough that they would not challenge the status quo. It cannot be denied that a small amount of moderate reform played a small role, there is evidence to suggest that other factors played a larger, more important role. The sense of nationalism and patriotism that gripped the country at the time as well as the disunity of the political parties meant that there was never any real threat to the Kaiser and his autocratic rule. Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser.
Compare and contrast the aims, methods and success of the use of propaganda in two single party states. Essentially, both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had the same fanatic desire to make their nations “Great” and gain considerable respect worldwide which would be determined by their economic might. Both leaders used various means of propaganda to achieve their ultimate aims. To what extend they were successful, however, is a debatable issue. Hitler could not achieve the solid control over the masses which he had, if he did not have the help of the so called powerful propaganda machine.
To properly examine whether the Foreign policy of England from 1509-1514 was successful; we must first establish what was deemed “success” relative to the period in history. Taking the Character of Henry VIII into context i.e. as a renaissance King and his admiration for Henry V, one can conclude that certain things would represent success to him. For example the capture of claimed lands in the North and West (for example Calais) of France would be looked upon as success as well as the prestige of regaining the title “King of France”. As the attempted capture of foreign fields would undoubtedly be a declaration of war, a strong of the Armed forces would be a necessity especially as Scotland was allied with France and they could theoretically face an attack from two angles simultaneously.
Fischer’s argument that the outbreak of the First World War was due to Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, with a harsh focus on annexation, can be regarded as one of much significance. This theory has been backed up by historians such as Berghahn who claims that Germany ‘[tried] to shift the balance of power in their favour’, and did this through a weltpolitik policy of aggressiveness. This, it can be argued, can be shown by The Navy Race, in which Germany attempted to expand their navy in order to compete with Britain. Despite this being regarded by some as an attempt to
‘German aggression’ was responsible for the outbreak of a general war in august 1914; how far do you agree with this argument? Jesse Thompson Evidently German aggression played a key role in the causation of the first world war. Corrigan strongly supports this view and uses Fischer’s Theory to structure his argument as it effectively highlights the nature of German foreign policy in this period. Other historians, such as Joll and Turner, provide opinions which support the view of the question as well as providing evidence for alternative factors such as Fear of encirclement and foreign policy of contending powers; evidence for this can be clearly seen in Joll’s and Turner’s pieces in an equal and different amount. On the one hand, German aggression held the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of a general European war in august 1914.
Anti – democratic figures had seen the Nazi party as potential allies to provide popular support for an authoritarian regime. From this we can learn that the increase of support in which the Nazi party had gained, Hitler had also gained too. However the Nazi party were only ever capable of receiving 37% of the vote, this implicates that despite the increase in popularity, the level of support was not as significant as Hitler had hoped and therefore he could not had been elected by popular support alone. On the one hand, it must not be diminished that the Nazi party created a new outlook for most Germans. They were beginning to doubt that Germany had any pride left.
Great Britain, France, and Russia all formed the Allies while Germany, Austria- Hungary, and Italy formed the Central Powers. The position of Germany might have led to an early declaration of was because it was surrounded by the allied powers. Nationalism and extreme patriotism towards the country was also a reason for the outbreak of the war. This over-confidence gave birth to a fatal misconception: that in the event of war in Europe, one’s own country would be victorious
The term appeasement is very relevant when describing the causes of World War II. Appeasement is when a potentially dangerous nation’s demands are met in order to maintain peace, as well as to avoid war. It is because of appeasement that countries like Japan, Italy, and Germany were able to occupy, as well as take over, other countries. The country that is responsible for appeasement is Britain. Having a huge leadership role in the League of Nations, Great Britain played the largest role in allowing Italy, Germany, and Japan to take advantage of other nations, and eventually take them over.
However, this was not manifested in reality, in which Hitler maintained power through his Kommandogewalt and appeal to the German public. This is highlighted in Kershaw’s statement that Hitler’s “power was charismatic, not institutional”. Hitler’s self-appointed omnipotence was only feasible due to his popular support from the German Volk and not any leadership structure. Hitler’s capacity to control a totalitarian state was also undermined by the nature of his rise to power. The Hitler Myth, which depicts Hitler as Germany’s saviour from the “ruin” following World War 1 and the Treaty of Versailles, undermined his ability to lead the Nazi state through means of violence and terror because his power