Although sources W and X both suggest that German aggression was primarily to blame for the war, source V also outlines a very different but equally valid view. It states that Germany felt threatened and mentions the “diplomatic isolation of Germany”. This would explain why the Second Naval Law of 1900 was necessary to the Germans defence and provides an alternative explanation for the naval race that source W blames for the War. Source V also suggests that the Triple Entente was formed to bully Germany which would cause it to get paranoid and thus used an aggressive foreign policy as a way to retaliate towards the threats from other countries. For example source V also blames the diplomatic isolation for forcing Germany into an arms race, this can be seen through Germany expanding their army to three times bigger since 1890. Although source V gives reasons why it was not Germany’s fault that the war broke out, it also states that Germany did use aggressive foreign policy, and so it may not have specifically been down to Germany, but implies that they must at least partially take the blame.
Source W states that although Germany was aggressive, it was not the Kaiser or Bethmann-Hollwegg who were to blame. Since the unification, the Germans were set upon becoming a major power. This would have a very significant impact upon how their foreign policy came across, as it would appear aggressive. The General Staff managed to take control of the Reichstag; this meant that Germany was being run by the military, which were very much in favour of war, so that they could create an empire. Blackbourn in source W states that “of course they would have preferred to get what they wanted without a war”, but it implies that as long as they created an empire they did not care what happened between. This would be shown as aggression through their foreign policy.
The sources make a number of valid points, however they gloss over or do not mention the other things that had occurred between Germany and other countries at this time. The Germans appear to make many decisions that would cause the Triple Entente not to trust them. The Moroccan Crisis of March 1905 supports the view of sources W and X, which both state that Germany was the aggressor. The Crisis caused relations between Germany and France to be damaged. Germanys efforts to form a wedge between France and England backfired and also created a stronger bond between France, England and Russia. The Second Moroccan Crisis in 1911 led to an even deeper rift between Germany and the Triple Entente. It also left them with Britain warning them against further aggression. This states that Germany was aggressive in their foreign policy toward the French in Morocco and could be a factor in the lead up to the First World War and why France got involved.
Source V makes the valid point that the war occurred through force being put on Germany and in turn the German response got increasingly more aggressive. An example of this happening can be examined using AJH Taylor’s Railway Timetable Theory. He believed that all of the great powers thought that if they could mobilise their armed forces faster than any of the others, this would serve as a sufficient deterrent to avoid war and would allow them to achieve their foreign policy. Thus the General Staff of all the great powers, developed elaborate plans to use timetables to mobilise faster than any of their rivals. So when crisis broke out in 1914, though none of the statesmen wanted war they needed to mobilise faster than their rivals, which created an inexorable movement towards war. This can be used as an example that it was not Germany’s aggressive foreign policy which created war but all the powers rushing at once to beat the other’s to mobilisation. This theory also gives the idea that if war had not broken out in 1914, it would have at a later date because all the major powers were constantly watching each other. Therefore this shows it was not down to Germany, but to the whole of Europe’s central powers and this theory also backs up source V as it gives an explanation of why Germany felt under pressure.
Some historians also use the problem with Germany’s domestic situation, which faced economic and social crisis, as a cause of the war, and this is mentioned briefly in source V. British Empire building and Britain’s failure to make clear its stance if a war occurred is used by K Erdmann to explain the war, however HW Koch also sees Germany’s geographical position as crucial. Indeed, David Kaiser advances on sources X and W by saying that Germany did not deliberately plan war but believed war was an acceptable risk as it would be short and winnable and should not involved Britain.
In conclusion, although all three sources agree that Germany was aggressive in their foreign policy, source V also gives a range of reasons for war and does not entirely blame Germany. Indeed it accepts that many factors occurred across Europe and although Germany had a big part to play in it, they were not just to blame. Their aggression in the years since c1900 will have impacted upon the scale of war but the Triple Entente also made Germany feel surrounded and gave them the need to be aggressive. Sources W and X give good evidence to it being solely Germany’s fault. Other historians such as Fritz Fischer who see the war as a product of German aggression support this view. However John Moses, the author of source X was hugely influenced by Fritz Fischer and so his work may have been biased against Germany. Overall the sources and other evidence suggest that German foreign policy was aggressive, but that the other factors also played a hand in the start of the First World War.
