"Germany came to see itself as a victim without actually being destroyed" How accurate is this?
"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.
"Germany started World War One". Do you agree?
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?
"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'.
"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
"It was war and nothing more and nothing less that united Germany"
Bianca Nardi History HL "It was war and nothing more and nothing less" To what extent is this a fair assessment of the process of unification in Germany from 1815 to 1871? The factors which led to the unification of Germany and their importance towards the latter have been an area of debate amongst historians in the early 1900s. Bismarck claimed, in a 1862 speech, that Germany would be united through "iron and blood". He believed in the use of preventive wars and in the paradoxical idea of war being a mere diplomatic act. However, there were evidently other factors which have influenced the process of unification of Germany such as the economical factors and the implementation of the Zollverein as well as Bismark's diplomacy and the revival of German nationalism. Hence, is the affirmation that "it was war and nothing more and nothing less that united Germany" a fair assessment of the process of unification from 1815 to 1871? Bismarck created an alliance with Austria in order to prevent intervention during his attack on Denmark. The treaty of Gastein was created, which ensured that only Austria and Prussia could make decisions of the future of the Duchies - Austria received Holstein and Prussia received Schleswig under the treaty. The war with Denmark and the treaty of Gastein were viewed as excuses to go to war with Austria in 1866-
Long term causes of the war
Two main interpretations: . Rise in international tension, impersonal forces etc. were the real causes of the war and the July Crisis was merely the inevitable manifestation 2. Joll's concept of 'concentric circles', where earlier situations and policies, together with impersonal forces, contributed to the frame of mind in which decisions were taken in 1914 Long term causes of the war Quarrel between Austria and Serbia SPARK The Rise of Germany The New Kaiser and World Power// WELTPOLITIK * Harmed Germany's relations with other powers, and created sense of frustration amongst leaders and public of its meager achievements- had not attained position in world affairs that their economic strength entitled them to * Increased their feeling of insecurity through a sense of encirclement which was actually caused by policies of Weltpolitik The Arms Race NOT DIRECT * German gov passed a law in 1900 ordering the building of a new fleet of 41 battleships and 60 cruisers (Britain responded by 'Dreadnought' in 1906 and later 'Super Dreadnoughts' ) * French had an army of 4 million by 1914 * Russians spent a fortune on military railways MORE DIRECT FACTORS.... * Tripitz Navy Laws (1898), growth of both armies main bone of contention According to Churchhill, however, in the spring and summer of 1914 naval rivalry had ceased to be a cause of friction, because it was 'certain
Long term Causes of World War 1
Long term causes of world war 1. The long term, underlying causes of World War I were nationalism, militarism, imperialism, and the defensive treaty alliances of both sides. Militarism is another name for the arms race. Great Britain and Germany were distrustful of one another and attempted to keep their military might as powerful as possible. Great Britain felt the development of German naval might was a threat to their empire. Nationalism was developing in areas like the Balkans, which would lead to conflicts between the major powers. Imperialism was the desire to expand one's nation via colonies or control over other areas of the world. This also would lead to conflicts between the major powers. Once the "spark" of the assassination of the Archduke ignited the conflict in the Balkans, the alliance system would draw the major nations into the Great War. Superficial and more fundamental causes Nobody doubts that the 'trigger' or 'spark' was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by the Serbian Black Hand terrorists in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. The real question is this: Why was this crisis not dealt with in a more conventional, much less destructive way? There had been several crises before in the decade before 1914 and those involving the major powers in Europe had been settled peacefully. So did something go wrong in the handling of the crisis, or
Was the League of Nations a Success or Failure?
Was the League of Nations a Success or Failure? The League of Nations was first brought up by the President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson in his 14 points. His Proposition was this... "A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike". Soon after the war in 1920 the league was set up. Its headquarters were in Geneva, a non league country to make the League of Nations look as neutral as possible. The leagues aims were to: * Stop wars * Improve peoples living conditions * Disarmament * Enforce the treaties In this essay I will try to cover all of the successes and failures of the league. The adjudication of the Aaland Islands in 1921 is regarded as a success. The islands are nearly equal distance between Finland and Sweden. In the past the islands had been owned by Finland but most of the residents wanted to be ruled by Sweden. Neither of the countries could resolve the problem so they asked the League of Nations to arbitrate the matter. The league decided to keep the islands under Finland's control, but no weapons can ever be kept there. The decision was acknowledged and is still in effect. The Treaty of Versailles gave the citizens of Upper Silesia (1921) a choice if they wanted to be governed by