• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Decisions made in Berlin from 1900 determined the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914. How far do you agree with this opinion?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Decisions made in Berlin from 1900 determined the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914." How far do you agree with this opinion? The various decisions made in Berlin from 1900 were seen by some to determine the outbreak of war in 1914. However, some would argue that the decisions made in Berlin didn't or at least to the same extent determined the outbreak of the First World War. This is evident in the three different sources that it is apparent there are many arguments to whether this is true and how far it is true. Firstly, in Source 1 it shows to a certain extent that it agrees with the opinion despite the limitations that it was published many years after the origin of the events described. These events described lead to show how Wehler, the author- where he described Germany's intent as "aggressive intent" on the basis of Germany trying to expand their battle fleet. This caused tensions with Britain as they saw this as a huge threat as Britain was known for their navy and so saw a bigger threat in being outdone to succeed in this area of battle. ...read more.

Middle

"aggressive intent" which is based around the theory that they were preparing for war. This is proven from Germany's War Council; though some agree it wasn't on the agenda despite the name and the fact it seemed to be about discussing certain aspects to decide whether it was the best decision. This of course led to an increase in collisions with countries especially with the continuing disputes with Serbia which was based upon their fear of encirclement. Though, this isn't to say that it was only these decisions that were to determine the war, as there were further decisions and events prior to 1900 that would increase the reasons for war. This is also seen in source 1 as it states "In the 1890's, commercial rivalry in the world's markets increased dramatically", which indicates the possibility at least in this source that there were more events that were the reason for the war. However, source 2 disagrees with the opinion that war broke out as a direct link from the decisions made in Berlin from 1900. ...read more.

Conclusion

This would disagree with the opinion due to not being a decision made from Berlin but a decision based on whether France and Russia were to make the first move, however this would lead to the tactic of the Schlieffen plan which is seen as a motive for war. These sources argue whether it was decisions made in Berlin that triggered the war, sources 1 and 3 argue for this but not to the same extent as the opinion and this is the opposite effect from source 2. And so the decisions made in Berlin that were seen in these sources were responsible for some influence in deciding the outcome of war in Europe but not to the extent the opinion offers, due to the way it was the decisions made prior to 1900 and in areas other than Berlin. It also comes down to the fact that if it was Germany to blame for the war, and the outbreak itself. But as this opinion narrows down the blame to just decisions based in a certain time period (1900-1914) it's difficult to agree with it to the same extent but decisions that were made were almost definitely another cause to add to the already colliding countries involved in the war. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

The author shows a good overall understanding of the viewpoints in the sources, and in some paragraphs is able to link this with own knowledge. This could have been done more in the second half of the essay however, and the points on provenance need reconsideration. 3 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 06/06/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    The Weakness of the Directory was the main reasons for Napoleons rise to Power. ...

    5 star(s)

    was strong and there was no discontent from two of the five main men in government. The weakness of the Directory was the main reason for Napoleon's rise to power as it had so many problems that an eventual downfall was inevitable.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleons Empire ...

    5 star(s)

    While also, explaining the negatives of the Napoleonic Empire fully as well as their actual benefits. Interpretations B and C both agree with the view that Napoleon?s Empire did indeed offer little to his subjects. Interpretation B shows that Napoleon merely views his subjects as a stepping stone for his

  1. How far were the ideas of the "Philosophes" responsible for the outbreak of the ...

    As the government was corrupt and hugely unjust towards the lower classes due to the Parlement consisting of aristocracy and nobles, agreements on reform for the country and taxation system could not be decided on. The inequality between the social classes were huge which meant that many people This meant

  2. What impact did war have on the French Revolution 1789-1799?

    The battle of Fleurus in June 1794 was the first of a series of successes that continued until all the members of the First Coalition, excluding Britain, had been knocked out of the war. Due to Napoleon's massively victorious campaign in Italy in 1796, the revolution was expanded into other

  1. Assess the economic, social and political consequences of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture in ...

    There were numerous problems that emerged in the Soviet Union at the time relating to collectivisation, and Stalin used the kulaks as a scapegoat, and accused them of causing all of the Soviet Union's economic and social issues, whilst also stating that they were responsible of sabotage and branded them as being anti-communist and therefore 'anti-Soviet Union'.

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * He also had ideas that appeared dangerous; he believed that the USSR should try to ferment revolution in other states because Russia could only be successful if supported by proletarian revolutions in the West. * He also advocated a radical solution to economic problems, opposed NEP and believed that

  1. Assess the reasons why opposition to Russian Governments was rarely successful in the period ...

    So in that sense, opposition was rarely successful as it had not brought about meaningful chance to the Russian state. Opponents within mainstream politics were rarely successful either. The October Manifesto had introduced the Duma which initially promised much, however in the long term it failed to have any impact on Nicholas II's autocratic rule.

  2. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    The founder of the protestant church Martin Luther is renowned for his strong anti-Semitic ethos. His attitudes reflected a theological and cultural tradition which saw Jews as a rejected people guilty of the murder of Christ. He wrote about exiling Jews from Germany and preached ?be on your guard against

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work