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?
His views fell between those of Clemenceau and those of Wilson. He was under huge pressure from the public to punish Germany. Yet at the same time he believed he should not punish Germany too harshly. He saw this action as disastrous for future peace, for Germany would seek revenge in the near future if the treaty was too harsh. “We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive.
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.
While Austria Hungary wanted to crush Serbia, Germany wanted to crush Russia. Two countries, during the July Crises, wanted war. Due to the fact that there were two proponents of war it is to little extent that WWI was an accident. On the one hand one might possibly contend that WWI was an accident. Some may argue that no one wanted war.
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
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
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".
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
And he's ideals was a major influence in America going to war. Wilson was ready to take the opportunity of this major war and push his ideals of democracy and independence for the many nations of Europe. Although the League of Nations would fail to pass the U.S. Senate and only would eventually fall apart his ideals would live on and push the country to war in the name of democracy. And that is why Wilson's idealism was one of three main major influences in America's push for
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.