Deep divisions in politics combined with distrust in foreign nations and growing domestic turmoil paved the way for the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the Federalists. The two major parties of early America were the Anti-federalists and the Federalists. The schisms in politics resulted from the fierce rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson. Both had different notions of how government should be run, especially when it came to the foreign policy. As France and England battled for European supremacy against the backdrop of the French Revolution, the American parties sought opposite alliances with the European rivals.
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
Henry had a very aggressive policy on France throughout his rein until he eventually decided on trying to become the peacemaker of Europe. Henry wanted to regain the lost territory in northern France so he could be seen as a Great War lord with visions of honour and glory but also to challenge Henry V’s title of the last great English warrior. The first sign of this aim being put into place is the first French war from 1512-1514. However the first expedition on June 1512 was a disastrous failure as Ferdinand of Aragon didn’t hold up his end of the deal for an allied invasion. This shows Henrys naivety in foreign policy and the other European powers were using him to benefit themselves whilst sending him to his downfall.
During the late 1700s and early 1800s, the different viewpoints over foreign relations in America became a controversy when it was believed that the wrong decision could lead to a loss of independence. The two major sides of the bitter disagreement were the federalist and the anti-federalists. The argument between the two factions became a bitter controversy, especially once the XYZ affair came into play. Both parties believed that if America formed an alliance with the wrong nation, that America would eventually be taken over and lose its independence. The federalist wanted to become allies with Britain, while the anti-federalist wanted to become allies with the French, who had helped them in the Revolutionary War.
They argued that Imperialism played a major role in the war. Lenin stated that “Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”, this thesis was further supported by Emil Ludwig which stated that war was caused due to incapable leaders. On the other hand, many revisionist historians argue that the war was caused by nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the system of alliances. In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe”, in this book A.J.P.
The whole point of America becoming its own sovereign country was Britain’s overbearing control on the colonies. Many early Americans had concerns and feared a government in which, by design, could become too strong. Consequentially, the Democratic – Republican party (later known to historians simply as the Republican Party) was formed with ideas of smaller government and thusly, less control. A semblance of the rivalry between the parties in the United States could be seen in the French Revolution. The Republicans supported the popular forces in the French Revolt and wanted America to assist.
There are several reasons and causes for the wars, including growing religious tensions, weak monarchs, foreign intervention, the role of Catherine de Medici and the existence of weak Kings coupled with strong Nobles. These factors provided shaky foundations, which, when confronted with a collapsing economy, led to rebellion and civil war. One of the most important reasons for war in the second half of the century was the existence of weak kings. During the first half of the century, France was led by domineering Monarchs, who kept control with an authoritarian style. In addition, the wars only ended when a strong King returned to the Throne; Henry IV after the ninth war.
This is illustrated from his proclamation that "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means," the concept of "remarkable trinity" and the general uncertainties of war which he termed as ‘friction' (Moran 2007: 91-106). Many scholars have assumed that the concept of trinity is fundamentally linked to states. Thus critics claim that the end of state legitimacy brought about by the international system of nations will lead to only violent, non-Trinitarian and non-political Wars. This argument is supported by the changes of structure of modern conflicts where the confrontation between opposing armies has been replaced by contemporary wars which do not follow a conventional norm and lack rationality. According to Mary Kaldor (2005: 491-498), who is the leading proponent of new war, the primary example of the new type of warfare is the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby the conflict appears to manifest in irrational traits that are guided by other factors other than politics.
IB History Anagnostopoulou - Merkouri Alkistis “To what extent was the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine the main cause of Germany’s difficulties in foreign policy in the years 1871-1890?” During 1871-1890, the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, faced numerous difficult situations, which tested his ability to implement an effective foreign policy. Although he is well known for his success in unifying Germany into a politically and administratively integrated nation, his reign was certainly not without problems. On the18th of January, 1871, he pursued pacific policies in Europe, his main aim being to keep France isolated from Europe, while also targeting the formation of alliances with the other Great Powers. In addition, he sought to generally maintain the existing borders of the European sovereign states, by balancing and consolidating the power between the nations. Bismarck’s desire was to alienate France from European affairs, a France which had become resurgent and powerful after the Franco-Prussian war.
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.