Bethmann-Hollweg, German Chancellor, told England’s Foreign Secretary that Germany had no intention on military occupation of Belgium or seizing Belgian territory. (Doc L). Germany crossed over into Belgium 4 August 1914, on that same day the UK declared war on Germany. Thus, the war may have possibly been an accident because Germany’s intentions were not fulfilled. It also may be possible to argue that WWI was an accident because the Great Powers took action in order to try to avoid war.
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
In 1848 Austria proposed to establish a union between Austria and the Zollverein, this was rejected. Prussia was now considered to be the state best equipped to direct the commercial fortunes with its rapidly developing economy. With the failure to establish a united democratic empire in the resolutions of 1948-49 Prussia proposed to set up a united German Empire under Prussian leadership, while Austria would be excluded from the empire, but not from German Affairs. While Austria was distracted in Piedmont and Hungary, Prussia accounted the Erfurt Union the first step in the
The involvement of the German Army and other military groups in Weimar politics served to strengthen the Republic in the early years but later lead to its downfall. In 1918 the Ebert-Groener Pact was signed, ultimately giving the moderate-left side of Weimar politics (also known as the Socialist Democrats Party) the support of the traditionally right army in response to fears the extreme left might take power. This served a dual purpose in that it both maintained the power of the army in German politics and it also strengthened the position of the Weimar Republic in the eyes of the citizens, who still respected the army. Despite the Ebert-Groener Pact, in late 1918 Defence Minister Noske created the Freikorps, a paramilitary force of former soldiers and volunteers, which allowed for these small militant groups to be satisfied with their power – hence strengthening support for the new Reichstag – but later proved to create political instability through the Freikorps’ uncontrolled violence, which ultimately damaged the public perceptions of the Weimar Government. During the late 1920s, the involvement of the Sturm-Abteilung (SA) in the politics of the Nazi Party initially furthered
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
Kleindutch supporters saw in Prussia a more cohesive state, which was less archaic and more progressive economically. Also Bismark was more determined to prepare his army and do anything to unify with Prussia. It was the famous blood and iron theory. Also his international diplomacy was a key figure on the unification with Germany. Between 1864 and 1865 he promoted an alliance with Austria reasoning that this would allay the fears of the southern German states, which were more naturally inclined towards Vienna than Berlin.
Not only was America prosperous, but they also were generous. America helped other nations rebuild their countries by funding the projects. In the post-war, America gave off an idealistic example of a leading nation. Its industrialization left it one of the leaders in military power, but they didn’t intend to use it for selfish reasons. Along with common weaponry, America possessed the knowledge of creating the most powerful weapon of all time, nuclear
Following this, Bismarck turned his attention to Austria as he wanted them out of the Bund so he could fulfil his vision of a unified Germany under Prussian leadership. This war between Prussia and Austria proved to be a success for Bismarck as 21 states north of the River Main formed a new German state under Prussian leadership and he also took over Schleswig, Holstein, Hesse-Cassel, Frankfurt and Hanover under Prussian control. All of this new power meant that Bismarck was another step closer towards a unified Germany as he had gained full control of the German states that had been under control by its enemy. The final reason and believed key factor to German unification was Bismarck’s victory in the Franco Prussian War. As France threatened to declare war due to Bismarck’s manipulation, this caused
However, in 1815 this future trend was not at all apparent. In that year the Vienna settlement was created in order to re-establish a balance of power in Europe after the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire, and the traditional power and authority of Austria over Germany was reasserted. In the settlement, Germany was broken back into 39 separate parts and Austria was given presidency of this German Confederation, which it used to keep them separate and prevent them from unifying. In addition, the Austrians joined the “Holy Alliance” which was an alliance between Russia, Austria, and Prussia created in order to crush nationalism, which brought Prussia under Austrian influence. Prussia meekly complied with the status quo, and indeed supported it in the start as the rulers of the states needed nationalism gone to maintain their thrones.
At that time Bismarck wasn’t even born. German liberal nationalists made the first major attempt to unify Germany in 1848, it was an ultimate failure, but the failure to achieve unification in 1848 resulted in the late formation of the nation-state in 1871, which in turn delayed the development of positive national values. At that time Bismarck strongly opposed the revolution, but he changed his views later and started the unification. Prussian economic and military development was also a factor for unification. J.M.