To what extent was the nature of the Schlieffen Plan responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914? The Schlieffen plan, completed in 1905 was a vital piece of evidence that helps to explain the true cause of the First World War. However it can become unclear how it affected the European powers involved in the conflict when the nature of the plan is considered. There are arguments both for the plan being utilised, as an offensive manoeuvre, suggested by events such as the intention to invade both Belgium and France. There are also arguments for the plan as a means of defence, suggested by Russian mobilisation and fear of encirclement.
Of course, that Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette understood that the people of France didn’t like them but they didn’t want to believe in it. That is one of the reasons why they both didn’t try to do anything. One small step could have changed the whole course of the French Revolution. If only, they would have gone and asked the people of France what they need and what they want them to do. The way that they could have done this is by giving fair taxes and giving people the freedom of opinion and speech.
This meant that the government had back up from the army if anything were to up rise. But this came at a cost, Ebert promised to stop the spread of revolutionary socialism (which the army hated) and too preserve the authority of the current army officers, this basically meant the army were controlling Ebert. This was a significant change that could have led to a revolution because Ebert would NOT have been able to hold onto power without the support of the army. Ebert hoped to maintain Stability throughout Germany by introducing an Act called ‘Stinner-Leigien Act’ which represented real progress and reform. Both Ebert and the Army simply wanted to ensure that there would be no Left Wing Revolution.
• financial crisis faced by Louis that meant that he needed more money; weakness of the Ancien Regime’s system excluded nobility from paying and this therefore needed to be changed – something some nobility did not want • actions of Necker; he had made out that there was no need for any change in the tax system by saying via the Compte Rendu that the financial system was working well (and so nobility did not see urgency of reform) • ideas of philosophes which helped to strengthen arguments of nobility that the king could not force through change, was acting tyrannically and that the parlements were acting in the name of the people. and some of the following short-term/immediate factors: • actions of de Brienne and Calonne in trying to get radical tax reforms agreed to by the Assembly of Notables and the parlements. These reforms involved a land tax to be paid by everyone. This led to opposition from 1st and 2nd estate who had most to lose. The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support.
On the other hand, the left might have wanted more control at the centre and more equality throughout France, but not the rural based leveling of Babeuf. In other words, there seemed to be no grey area, and no scope of reaching a compromise between any interest group to make the constitution work. Furthermore, the Electorate had a part to play as well due to its mounting cautiousness regarding the regime of the Directory. The electorate was ignored, despite the holding of annual elections. Them being left unheard and ignored contributed to the failure of the Directory because they did not recognise and acknowledge the voice of an important Republican body, the electorate.
This Alliance consisted of Holland, England, Brandenburg, Portugal, Savoy, and the Holy Roman Empire. At the time England did not want another War following the events of 1698 and as for France, Louis believed that another major conflict would be unnecessary. After Charles II’s death the European powers found themselves in a provocative and ambiguous situation that was turned on its head following Leopold’s declaration of War following the acceptance of the throne by Louis’ grandson in 1700. This ascension to the throne had
France protested because they thought that having German influence on both sides would be too much if conflict would have occured. William the King of Prussia withdrew Leopold but the French still did not let this situation rest at hand. The French influence group led by Empress Eugénie wanted war with Prussia. So they sent a French ambassador to seek William I and ask him to sign papers
Moreover, any war against Austria in the 1820's would mean war against Russia and Prussia too because the Holy Alliance acted as international police force resisting the tide of change. So the political, diplomatic and military condition in 1820's and 1830's did not favour the unification of Italy. Moreover, the movement of
This led to Wilson wanting to use the Paris conference as a way in allowing his Fourteen Points to be accepted. However, France strongly opposed to the idea of punishing Germany lightly, and the other members of the ‘Big Three’ did not like some of Wilson’s Fourteen Points - such as all countries having self-determination or having access to the sea, since Britain and France both had empires where they ruled their
The continental system also failed since it did not actually affect Britain, but rather France and the other European countries. This meant that many European countries who were forced to participate in the system were upset with Napoleon and this turned them against France. Lastly the second coalition was formed. It was a group of countries opposing Napoleon. With England in this group, Napoleon had no chance to survive since the great navy of