To what extent was the nature of the Schlieffen Plan responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914? The Schlieffen plan, completed in 1905 was a vital piece of evidence that helps to explain the true cause of the First World War. However it can become unclear how it affected the European powers involved in the conflict when the nature of the plan is considered. There are arguments both for the plan being utilised, as an offensive manoeuvre, suggested by events such as the intention to invade both Belgium and France. There are also arguments for the plan as a means of defence, suggested by Russian mobilisation and fear of encirclement.
Austrian neutrality in the Franco- Prussian War was made possible after 1866 with the far-sighted leniency of Bismarck was careful in provoking the needed wars. Seeing the duchies Schwelte and Holstein as opportunities, Bismarck used the control of the two duchies between Austria and Prussia as a cause of major disagreement that caused the Austro-Prussian War; the acquirement of two duchies also provided exercises for the Prussian army and exposed
There were many reasons how the Nazi Soviet Pact played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than the policy of appeasement such as an important factor, which let Hitler invade Poland without having to fight a war on two fronts. Also, after the failure of appeasement, the British had guaranteed polish security. Once Germany invaded, the British would be forced to declare war. The Nazi Soviet Pact can be considered major causes of World War Two, however the policy of appeasement was the most important reason for the war. The Nazi-Soviet pact was responsible for the outbreak of war because France and Britain had decided to finally intervene.
A German diplomat named Bismarck knew that Germany’s neighbouring European Powers’ reaction would be to unite against their new empire. He was determined not allow the nation to become isolated or overpowered, so it was he who began the chain of international alliances which would form over following years. Bismarck practised a particular type of diplomacy called ‘Realpolitik’. This is defined as politics based on strictly practical, rather than idealistic, notions. However this particular style of diplomacy was also described as unprincipled and unscrupulous.
“The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 was due to an aggressive foreign policy which had been waged since c.1900”. How far do you agree with this opinion? Explain your answer using sources V, W and X and your own knowledge relating to the controversy. The implication that Germany’s use of an aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of the First World War is an extremely controversial topic, and has ultimately caused great debates amongst historians. Fischer, the provoker of this controversy, expresses this concept of German aggression by stating that since c.1900 Germany planned, and then was able to execute a war, due to their aggressive weltpolitik; based purely on expansionism.
The British also realised that at some point in the future the Germans would want to modify the Treaty or renounce it altogether. They believed this could lead to another European War. The British felt that they had to avoid war, particularly with Germany, at all costs. The best way to do this seemed to be through the policy of appeasement - remedying German grievances before they themselves tried to remedy them by force - which could lead to another European war. Thus, the policy of appeasement could be thought to have worked effectively if Germany’s efforts to rectify the Treaty of Versailles did not lead to the use of force.
How far was the Treaty of Versailles justified at the time? The Treaty of Versailles was an agreement between 32 nations deciding the fate of Germany. It was needed badly as war torn Europe was in turmoil. France had been devastated by the effects of war and sought to cripple Germany. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, realised the severe implications that this could have and so wanted a more lenient peace treaty.
(Cranny p.55) Normally, when Britain went to war, Canada would automatically be at war as well, but King took a big step in not following orders from the mother country. Another accomplishment King succeeded in was demanding to be able to sign an international treaty without a British representative’s permission. (Cranny p.55) Once again, King did not follow the rules. He was supposed to receive a British representative’s signature for treaties, but he continued to push for greater Canadian independence. Secondly, The Balfour Report allowed Canada to receive autonomy and gave Canada equal status with Britain for creating laws.
Moreover, as Britain was one of the major power of the WWI, the effects on both of their men and arms were not recovered from the WWI. This also led Chamberlain hesitant to take part for a large war at this time. Thus, making an appeasement with the Germans was the best solution for them to be recovered and prepared later in the future because rather than fighting a big war against advanced army with unprepared-no men army, they would fight a war with recovered army even if the opponents might grow more. ! Back again to 1919, the Treaty of Versailles made conclusions to the German’s territorial, armed forces, colonies, preparations and indemnity, and the war guilt issues.
Why did Germany go to war in 1914? There are many reasons as to why Germany went to war in 1914 such as fear of encirclement, various alliances formed, internal policies and domestic and military factors. I personally think the most important reason was due to their internal politics. Germany was formed as a country in 1871 and so felt like they had to prove themselves as a nation to the rest of Europe. They did this through aggressive policies, which they hoped would achieve their aim and build up their empire.