As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer. Neither of which existed in 1918. Clemenceau’s views represented the average sentiment of the European Allies after the war. In the closing days of the war, a war weary European population must have tried to make sense of the carnage, of the loss. Clemenceau casts a pale light on the German population, blaming the war on the aims of “the intolerable German Aristocracy.” (Clemenceau, p. 73) The entire argument for the French and nay, European view, was the perceived threat that Europeans felt of German arrogance.
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. Even though I believe that aggressive German Foreign policy was a huge and significant factor as to why the war grew so much geographically and became so violent, like source X, I believe that the real cause of the outbreak of the war in 1914 was Austria-Hungary and their policies in the Balkans. Aggressive German foreign policy is considered by many historians the main cause of the outbreak of war in 1914 due to their military and naval expansion which had taken place since the early 1900s. As source V suggests, the Germans ‘felt encircled’ by members of the triple entente, their only ally being revealed as Austria-Hungary at the Algeciras Conference where they were the only other country (aside from Morocco) to vote in their favour. Germany’s relations with other Great Powers had started to deteriorate since the battle for expansion of
Taylor wrote a book called “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe”, in this book A.J.P. Taylor claimed that German ambitions were the cause of the war. All of these views have merit; however, while imperialism was one of the causes of World War 1, the Alliance system and militarism in the pre-war period were definitely the major causes of the war. The Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawn, came up with a theory, the "zero-sum game" theory. This theory was applicable to World War One because it was an "age of total war", therefore the war was "zero-sum game".
Both soldiers and civilians blame the defeats in the war and the growing crises on the home front on Tsar. Even the Tsars only army stated it wouldn’t support him if a revolution occurred. Explain the importance/significance of World War 1 to the downfall of the Tsar WWI was a very significant event on the rule of Tsar Nicholas 11. Although it initially bolstered his position, it then became a large factor that contributed to Nicholas’ downfall. The Country was ecstatic when the Tsar made the announcement that Russia was going to fight against Germany in WWI.
These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them. With the Kaiser believing that foreign policy and civil war was increasingly the same, it can be assumed that aggressive foreign policy may have been set to distract the German public away from things at home and more onto how to become a strong world power. A factor that both strengthens and weakens the argument of aggressive foreign policy being the reason for the outbreak of war in 1914 is that of encirclement. Source V mentions ‘They felt encircled not merely by the Triple Entente, but also by the forces of change.’ First of all, Germany became sceptical about the alliance between Britain, France and Russia, the Triple Entente, they thought it was not going to work and did not fear it until they tried to cause problems between France and Britain with the ownership of the Balkan islands, which was unsuccessful. When Germany realised that the entente was a
Assess the impact of German Foreign Policy bringing about World War One There are different views and interpretations, regarding the major influences, of the First World War which broke out in 1914. Due to differences in ideas combined with newer pieces of evidence, there are still many different perceptions and not one clear cut answer. There are different historians, being traditional, revisionist, post revisionist or anti-post revisionists, who all have alternate ideas surrounding the main causations of World War One. The traditional view surrounding the First World War is that Germany was totally at fault in bringing about World War One. The victorious nations, after the war, agreed that Germany were the cause of the war and this was because of their ideas of Weltpolitik.
Although the Treaty of Versailles can be said to have has the most substantial impact on the political and economic stability of Germany, the arguments against its influence suggest that other factors were more important. For example, though the treaty can be said to have caused bad feeling in the country and hyperinflation, there were a number of problems with the constitution that meant that the Government became unpopular, sparking a number of revolts. In opposition to the sentiment expressed in the question, one factor that affected political stability of the Weimar republic was the fact that it was ruled by a coalition Government. Clauses of the constitution meant that elections were held using proportional representation. As a result, a clear majority of one party over the remaining twenty-seven was never a result, and so the country, from the time the Constitution was drawn up, was governed by coalitions.
Personally, I strongly believe the treaty of Versailles was completely unfair towards the Germans. The Big Three had forced Germany to sign the treaty and had centred the chaos of the war on one country- Germany. Wilson having published his fourteen points had given the German a misleading thought that if they surrendered they wouldn’t need to put up with the war guilt and reparations. Germany was given a false sense of security by the 14 points because the fourteen points were strongly centred on self-determination which was something that Germany would have liked just to keep their moderately large territory. The reparations that Germany were forced to pay weren’t solely centred on the rulers of Germany because they had had a more profound effect on the citizens of Germany instead.
'The Wilhelmine Germany was an entrenched authoritarian state'. How far do you agree with this judgement? Whether Wilhelmine Germany was an entrenched state is a subject of much debate among historians. Although many have argued that it was mainly the structure of the consititution in Wilhelmine Germany which gave the Kaiser complete authority over Germany. However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics.
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.