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
So to me other nations invading the Great Britain are impossible. 2. How did the naval arms race encourage the development of the alliance system the way it did? Be sure to refer to Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, as well as each of the alliance groups specifically. In the naval arms race, Germany wanted to have a naval army as strong as the Great Britain since the strong naval army brought the Great Britain the control right of the oceans.
You’d be scared that there is an attack coming your way. 2. How did the naval arms race encourage the development of the alliance system the way it did? Be sure to refer to Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, as well as each of the alliance groups specifically. The navel arms raced encouraged the Development of the Alliance system, Because the joining of The different countries meant even more power to both Germany and Great Britain.
These can be categorised into long term reasons and short term reasons. The most significant short term reason to why the war broke out was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Austria. This contributed to the war a lot and was the spark that started it off. There were many long term reasons too, but the most important ones were Imperialism, Militarism, nationalism and alliances. These influenced the war majorly and were the main explanation to why large quantities of countries were prepared for it when it took place in 1914.
World War 2 & Hitler Nationalism was a large part of the second world war. Hitler wanted to achieve the status he desired for Germany, and there for he displayed multiple forms of ultranationalism. I agree with Margret MacMillan that Hitler would have always wanted more power no matter what happened, but I do not agree that the Treaty of Versailles had no effect on world war two. The Treaty of Versailles had a direct impact on the second world war, without Hitler violating the treaty Britain would not have declared war in 1939 kick-starting the second world war. I agree with Margret MacMillan that Hitler would want to gain more power no matter what happened.
Source 1 state’s that ‘as early as 1906, Germany had in place a plan for an aggressive war.’ Suggesting that the plan was put in place to start a war when the time was right. Source 2 says, in agreement, that ‘as a reaction to the German war plan’ the French told the Russians to start mobilizing. This suggests that the Schlieffen plan pushed for war and also suggests that the French were being aggressive. Furthermore, this shows how the French - amongst other countries - had ‘confidence in victory’ as said in source 2. Many historians like Fischer, who’s also mentioned in source 1, believe, that if the Schlieffen plan was not aggressive then why would a war plan need to be devised in a time of peace?
Around 1914 Germany started to have a huge increase in military buildup. Considering that Germany started to build up military forced Britain to build up and this lead to another domino effect of European countries building up militaries. This put great amounts of pressure and influenced the standard set of a military. Since the build up of militaries this also put an egotistical mindset on some of the countries
‘German aggression was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? The above judgement outlines a clear debate among historians as to whether German aggression was the main reason the First World War began in August 1914, or whether it was due to various other factors. Gordon Corrigan claims that it was due to German aggression and therefore represents the closest argument to the one made in the question. Corrigan also references Fischer to support his argument, and so supports the Fischer Theory, which holds Germany to be responsible for the outbreak of the First World War due to their aggressive foreign policy. 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.
Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however. Russia’s best chance of victory came at the very beginning of the war when a large number of German troops were invading Belgium and France, but instead of ceasing this opportunity the Russian generals blundered into defeat after defeat. Russia’s dreams of a swift victory were all but crushed in the Tannenberg and Masurian disasters that set the stage for further defeats in 1915. The First World War was a new type of war, a war dominated by modern technology, technology that the Russians were struggling with. Meanwhile the Germans were making massive advancements in both new technology and it’s utilisation but also the strategic aspects of
By doing this Wilhelm aggravated Britain because they had the largest navy in the world and because Wilhelm was colonizing along the borders of British colonies. Wilhelm’s increase in German navy fleets started an arms race with Britain in 1910; losing hope of an alliance with the country and also losing hope of keeping France isolated, a hope in which Bismarck also had. Because Bismarck (along with Wilhelm) dreaded a two front war with France he strung a web of alliances with countries such as Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy and was hoping to add Britain to his long list of allies. The differences that Bismarck