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.
Considering that Realpolitik focused on preventing a war within Europe and Weltpolitik aggressively asserted German dominance, it can be validly argued that this direct change in German foreign policy played a major role in bringing about the First World War. Another reason that German foreign policy was so greatly scrutinized was because of the Anglo-German naval rivalry which was creating tension within Europe. As long as Germany built, Britain would be a German enemy. The German government dramatically increased the development of German Ships. [i] This arms race and change in German foreign policy, believing they needed to control the seas was seen as a definite and direct cause
Contrastingly, James Joll suggests that Germany’s defensive offensive war rooted from a fear of encirclement from the countries that it borders, and so presents the opinion most opposing to that of the question. L.F.C Turner’s opinion arises somewhere between the two other historians’ arguments, and states that Germany was aggressive during Europe’s last month of peace before war, but there were other factors that should be considered equally. On the one hand, it was German aggression that was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. One example of suggested German aggression can be seen in their long term foreign policy, ‘weltpolitik’ (world politics), which had been implemented in 1897. The aim of this foreign policy was to spread German influence throughout the world, the meaning of which is interpreted differently by different people.
Germany had been expecting a treaty based on Wilson's 14 points and were not happy with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, they had no choice but to sign the document. The main terms of the Treaty of Versailles were: 1. War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One 2. Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war 3.
The peace of the mighty proved that to be wrong. The German Army in the field, although battered was still formidable in the eyes of the German leadership. They had gone to the peace table hoping for scraps and got the business end of the newspaper. The German Peace Delegation was forced to assume blame for the war, and then sit helplessly by as territories it felt were largely inhabited with Germans were made part of other states. The Germans had come to the table hoping to hear Wilson saying, “the equality of nations upon which peace much be founded on if it is to last must be an equality of rights..” (German Peace Delegation, p. 76) Instead they were hit with several Billion reichmarks in reparations, a reduced military and many other limitations politically, economically, militarily and territory wise (The Versailles Treaty, 1918).
Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance. George F. Kennan, an American Secretary of State during the cold war also disagreed with the Munich Agreement. Kennan thought that Chamberlain and Daladier only agreed with Germany’s proposal only because they didn’t want to participate in war. Chamberlain and Daladier wanted to maintain the peace in Europe. (Document 6) As written in The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P.
‘German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914.’ How far do you agree with this judgment? Whether German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a European war in August 1914 is one that is widely debated by historians up till today. Many historians, for example Fischer, agree, as sources 1 and 2 will show. Others, however, suggest that the Germans’ actions can be seen as a form of defense against the rest of Europe – the arms race with Britain, for example - as talked about in source 3, due to the fact that they felt encircled and only had one ally. In this essay I will argue both sides of this argument using sources to back up my points, however ever maintaining the fact I agree.
He tried to find a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau. Germany had been expecting a treaty based on Wilson's 14 points and were not happy with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, they had no choice but to sign the document. People supported Hitler because he promised them what they wanted and needed to hear. The Weimar Republic appeared to have no idea how to solve the problems of the Depression.
His first move was to test the other European powers by inserting troops into Germany’s coal mining area next to France. This was ofcourse forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler wanted to see how far he could push his adversaries before they would strike back. If Britain had not been so passive to Hitler they might have stopped this war before it ever started. They, however, allowed Hitler to do this because they did not want to start another war. Hitler then pushed the European powers further and further until he invaded Poland and Europe had no choice but to react.The results of the vote were fixed and showed that 99% of Austrian people wanted Anschluss (union with Germany).
More specifically, while any number of aggressive acts could have triggered war, following public disclosure of German efforts to lure Mexico into war with the United States, American for the first time felt both threatened and hostile toward the European aggressors. Finally, the continued presence of German u-boats in the North Atlantic and the threat of unrestricted submarine warfare against our economic interest hit close to home, drawing the United States into war with hopes of breaking growing stalemate. (Faragher et al.,