"Germany came to see itself as a victim without actually being destroyed" How accurate is this? On the 16th June the German government, lead by Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, were presented with the Treaty of Versailles. They were originally given 14, and then 21 days, to agree to it. "The treaty, which included some 440 Articles, was not as vindictive as Clemenceau had wanted nor as moderate as Lloyd George would have wished. It certainly fell far short of the conciliatory features of Wilson's fourteen point proposals." (Evans and Jenkins) However, in order to decipher whether the end results were destructive to Germany or not, it is necessary to asses not only the main points of the treaty (including military provisions, territory, financial provisions, war guilt and the establishment of new nation states), but also the treaty makers themselves and their intentions towards Germany. The main three statesmen associates with Versailles are: Lloyd George of Great Britain, George Clemenceau of France, and Woodrow Wilson from the U.S.A. With regard to these statesmen Stephen Lees claims that we should "start by not being too dismissive" He claims that although they were responsible for their own people they also were also able to think on an international level. Their three main aims were "to guarantee Europe against the possibility of future German aggression; to revive the
"Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War." How far do you agree with this judgment?
"Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War." How far do you agree with this judgment? Although Germans had a great part in the outbreak of the First World War, all responsibility must not lay on her, for she was not the only country involved in the outbreak. Many will argue that "Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak," but historical evidence proves that this is not so. First of all, it is Serbia who provoked the initiation of the First World War. This provocation came in the assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, by a Pan-Slavic nationalist. This problem would not have escalated to greater lengths if the Serbian government had warned the Austrian-Hungarian government of the intended plot to murder their Archduke, of which they had knowledge. When the Austrian government learned that the Serbian government had known of the plot to kill their Archduke, of course they felt resentment and betrayal. The only thing the Austrian government looked forward to was capturing those involved in the murder. This is where Austria became involved in the outbreak of the war. Following the discovery, Austria left Serbia with an ultimatum. This ultimatum demanded a full investigation into the assassination and went to say that the Serbian government stop supporting propaganda, etc. All the stipulations of the
"Germany should introduce a toll for use of its autobahn - not only for lorries, but for all traffic. Neighbouring transit countries such as Austria, France and Switzerland do it, too."
Felicitas Schäfer Written Communication I Löffler WS 2004/2005 2.12.04 "Germany should introduce a toll for use of its autobahn - not only for lorries, but for all traffic. Neighbouring transit countries such as Austria, France and Switzerland do it, too." The topic about introducing tolls for the German autobahn is highly discussed not only among German politicians today. France, Switzerland and Austria do all have tolls to increase their earnings, which they use to build and repair their roads. In the year 2000 there was a statistic1, where 1137 German citizens over the age of sixteen were asked whether they are in favour or against establishing autobahn tolls. In the western part of Germany, there was a forty-five percentage equally on each hand, while in the eastern part of the country fifty-nine per cent of the citizens were against tolls and 29 per cent in favour of them. This is a clear statement that the introduction of autobahn tolls is not wished by many German residents. I am against it, because German car owners already pay three times as much tax2 for the infrastructural system as it is spent for it. Additionally trains and buses would be more overcrowded. Not to think about that this idea would cost all German citizens a lot of extra money. Firstly, German inhabitants already pay three times as much tax2 as is spent for repairing the streets.
Kirsty Whalley Europe Since 1870 "Germany started World War One". Do you agree? On the 28th of June 1914, the heir to the Austrian Empire, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo in Bosnia. What should have been a localised conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia soon escalated and by the 4th of August 1914 all the great powers in Europe were at war. What followed was an unprecedented, bloody and horrific war lasting 4 years and involving up to 32 nations. When the war finally ended in 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles agreed upon, article 231 placed firm blame on Germany as the main aggressor. It is certainly arguable that had Germany not given Austria-Hungary a blank cheque and encouraged her aggression against Serbia who was supported by Russia, the conflict may not have escalated into a world war. However there are other factors that have to be taken into consideration when determining exactly what caused the war. Hobsbawn points out that "If we are interested in why a century of European peace gave way to an epoch of world wars the question of whose fault it was is trivial."1 Germany may have indeed seemed the aggressor in the immediate crisis of relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. However, if we look at international relations between the
"Germany was responsible for causing the 1st World War" Do you agree? The world fell into war in 1914, due to a series of events throughout Europe. This is an essay to explore whether Germany was the cause of the 1st world war. Germany was responsible for creating a lot of the tension in Europe leading up to the 1st world war. In 1906 Kaiser Wilhelm II built the 'dreadnoughts', there was no apparent reason for the building of these ships, but to instil fear in Germany's enemies. The 'dreadnoughts' were seen as naval rivalry and a means of Germany stating that they were more powerful than any other country. The building of the 'dreadnoughts' started off a naval race between England and Germany, to see who could manufacture the largest and most impressive system of ships. In 1870 Prussia, in Germany, conquered Alsace-Lorraine, in France. Alsace-Lorraine was a highly desirable place to conquer; it had excellent coalmines and iron mines ideal for manufacturing steel. France was furious that the Germans, and Wilhelm I, had taken Alsace-Lorraine, and were eager for revenge, and to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. This conquering of Alsace- Lorraine started of hatred between Germany and France. This added to the European tension. Germany sought coalition with Austria-Hungary and Russia forming an alliance called the 'Drei Kaiser Bund' or the 'three Emperors league'.
"Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. How far do these sources support this view?"
William Martin Assignment 2 Q: 6 "Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason. How far do these sources support this view?" In the Question all the sources will be or relevance, some will support Haig and some will not. This is a summary of the sources that support the question. Source A was written a month before the attack and it is preparing the nation for the heavy losses and casualties that they will have to suffer. Winning is the main objective and it doesn't matter about the lives of his men. The whole source has a cold tone to it. In the second part of source B it claims that the battle is going well but it was only the first day and far to early to be drawing conclusions from it. From background knowledge we know that actually going badly but he still sent in more men to be killed. At the end of the first day alone there were about 60,000 men lying dead on the battlefield. Source C is from an extract with George Coppard who was Private in the battle of the Somme and would have been fighting at the front line. Although it was written a long time after the battle it is still a primary source and can be trusted. It shows that the men had little confidence in their senor officers and the plans and tactics that they came up with. "any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a
"Haig was an uncaring general who sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for no good reason" How far do these sources support these views Source A tells us that Haig did not care about his men and is willing to sacrifice lives in order to win. The source itself was written by Haig in June 1916, a month before the battle of the Somme, and was intended to be seen by the general public. " The nation must be taught to bear losses" This makes it look like Haig doesn't care about his mens' well being and seems to be telling people to "toughen up" and "live with it". Personally, I don't think Haig meant it to sound like that. I think he meant for it to explain that in war, men do die no matter how precautious you are. "No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men's lives. The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists." This sentence seems to tell us that Haig was ready to let people die in their thousands, if not millions, in order to win the war and also tells us that Haig believed that it was the only way to win. I feel that the purpose of the source was to explain to the public that the only way to win is to sacrifice lives. He is being realistic but harsh.this source leads uus to believe that Haig was a butcher, even though he was
"Hitler's aims and actions were the only cause of World War Two." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
"Hitler's aims and actions were the only cause of World War Two." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? When considering the reasons for the outbreak of war in 1939 it is easy to place the entire blame on Hitler's aggressive foreign policy in the late 1930s. One British historian, writing a few years after the end of the war, claimed that 'the Second World War was Hitler's personal war, in that he intended it, he prepared for it, he chose the moment for launching it.' In this assignment it is my intention to show that Hitler's foreign policy was a major factor in causing the conflict but that other reasons, both long term and short term, need to be recognised as well. Probably the first factor that need considering is the Treaty of Versailles, of 1919. The harshness of the Treaty and the way in which it blamed Germany for World War I crippled Germany. Much of its territory was taken away from it, including West Prussia that went to form a new Polish Corridor to the sea. Plus the Treaty forced Germany to reduce its army, demilitarise the Rhineland and get rid of its navy. The Treaty also forced harsh reparations for the War resulting in a great deal of the German people resenting the Allies. And it was later that Hitler used the bitter memories of Versailles to gain public support for his actions. Another factor in causing World War II was the Wall Street Crash of
"Hitler's single aim in foreign policy was expand in the east." How far do you agree with this view?
"Hitler's single aim in foreign policy was expand in the east." How far do you agree with this view? Once his regime was consolidated, Hitler took little interest in domestic policy, his sole concern being that Germany becomes sufficiently strong to realize his long-term geopolitical goal of creating a German empire that would dominate Western Europe and extend deep into Russia. His racially motivated ideology and the need to create a greater Germany became his most hierarchical aims to fulfil. However, Hitler's policies were much more than a policy of expansionism but entailed the need to eradicate the Versailles Treaty and the unification of all German people into the Reich. I will argue towards the fact that these aims were as important as expansion into the east. Additionally I will stress that Hitler did not necessarily follow an intentionalist school of thought rather he was an opportunist able to make use of opportunities at hand whilst keeping a consistent aim in ideology. I will conclude that the aims that Hitler set about achieving were merely a step towards world domination through greater Germany. Hitler's idea of expansionism into the east (lebensraum) was in place long before he had come to power. However what differentiates Hitler's ideology from the idea itself is that he was able to imprint his own racial ideology encompassing a large and more threatening
"How far would you argue that it was clear from the beginning that the league of nations would fail?"
"How far would you argue that it was clear from the beginning that the league of nations would fail?" The league of nations was put up after the Treaty of Versailles in 1920, January 10. Its headquarters were in Geneva. The leagues membership was forty-one in 1919, then fifty by 1924 and sixty by 1934. This league was the idea of the American president of the time Woodrow Wilson, even though they don't join the League. The League of Nations aimed to establish institutions for international diplomacy and arbitration. In this essay I will argue whether it was clear that the league would fail from the beginning. One of the problems that should have made clear that it would be difficult for the League to reach its aims was the fact that it needed as much power as possible and by two of the most powerful countries, America and USSR. The whole structure of the league was a not very strong. It had 6 departments: Secretariat, Council, Assembly, Court of International Justice, International Labour Organization, and keeping order. At the assembly ( based in Geneva) all the countries had to take a vote and they had to vote on the members budget, at the International Labour Organization they aimed to improve the working conditions for the workers and they collected all the statistics. These two departments in the League only met up once a year which made the process of complaints