• 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)

    promise on liberty, and then turned on those who opposed the revolution and attacked them. Without Lucien, Napoleon would not have come to power as the Council would not have allowed the revolution to happen, but instead accelerates the process by gaining support for Napoleon, and also makes Napoleon seem

  2. Was Rasputin to blame for the fall of the Romanov dynasty?

    Mainly due to his handling at this time of the war though, he squandered his chance.

  1. How far and why did the aims of the revolutionaries in France change during ...

    These began with Louis XVI's reluctancy to accept the reforms taking place in Paris. Louis responded to the Tennis Court Oath by sending military force into Paris in order to dissolve the National Assembly. He dissolved Necker at the height of his popularity, inspiring large-scale popular demonstrations against him.

  2. To what extent can Hitler be considered to be "weak"?

    strong than weak 2nd paragraph: Hitler's decision making The historians argue Hitler stayed supreme by blurring lines of command, creating duplication within the Reich. For example, He broke up unified control over the Party organisation and established himself as Furher.

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

    Without money to fund the country, the public especially, the third estate were angered that they had to starve and suffer whilst the royals lived in absolute luxury and the government were fighting a war which had no benefit to them whatsoever and cost them 1 billion livres.

  2. To what extent were the Bourgeoisie responsible for the outbreak of Revolution in 1789?

    of church and state work with the creation of a new state, based on the principles of democracy and fairness that all people can do well in life, not just the upper classes. Another reason why the Bourgeoisie weren?t responsible for the revolution is France was because of the influence of the Clergy.

  1. To what extent was Napoleon nothing more than a dictator?

    Lucien, Minister of the Interior, frequently altered voting figures to preserve government credibility, rounding figures up by 900,000 and adding a further 500,000 ?yes? votes to represent the unanimously favourable votes that would have been cast had they attended the plebiscite.

  2. How successful was the National Assembly bringing equality and liberty to France during 1789-93?

    It offered the freedom to worship, freedom of property and freedom of expression. It meant that previous documents like the lettres de cachet which unfairly arrested people, were abolished. This led to the Great Fear where many of the countryside?s hunted down the documents and set them alight and they would use violence if anybody attempted to stop them.

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