Causes Of German Imperialism

In the year 1961, Fritz Fischer had presented his book, which was known as Germany's Aims in First World War and it had been successful in launching a debate among German historians and scholars as older historians severely criticized and opposed Fischer and his book. However, his contemporaries and younger historians supported his book. The book draws a detailed and comprehensive picture of Germany and its aims during the World War I.

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

The Schlieffen Plan is commonly – though misleadingy – identified with the German western offensive at the start of the First World War in August 1914, which began as a campaign of rapid movement but ended in deadlock and trench warfare. The plan is generally seen as a desperate gamble almost certain to fail, and its recklessness is counted as part of Germany’s war guilt – the plan held out the false promise of a quick victory, and so it underpinned the “short war illusion” that led Germany into a long war of attrition, ending with her defeat and collapse in 1918. This analysis confuses two quite different moments in history. The Schlieffen Plan was not designed to meet the strategic challenge Germany faced in 1914,

Many historians argue that the reason for Germany going to war was due to the aggressive behaviour of Germany in the build up to the war. Throughout this essay I will be addressing this issue looking at whether Germany was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. There are many factors which contribute to the outbreak of the war from a short-term trigger such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the long-term annexation aims Germany implemented in the years building up to the war, the most important reason was Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, they had provided

to be more like them so that's the more the reason why they would want

Documents1, 3, and 4 support the idea that one of the causes that led to World War II included Germany’s attempt of imperialism. Document 1, an excerpt from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, explains some of Hitler’s ideas of forming a regime first in order to gain lands that had been taken away after German defeat in World War I. Document 1 is biased since it has been written by Hitler’s point of view who only wants to brainwash the German masses into supporting his

When a nation gained more powerful arms, they were seen as a larger threat to the rest of the world, which was proven by post-war speeches from leaders of involved countries and statistics from the war. When Germany was blamed entirely for starting the war, German Versailles Treaty delegation leader Count Brockdorff-Rantzau argued that imperialism and the massive power put in the militaries across Europe had a larger impact on the war than Germany (Document 5). The mobilization of European armies and missed preventative steps to avoid war in almost every European country were both also cited by many historians for causing the Great War to occur (Document 6). The effects of military advancement and involvement in political discrepancies is clearly shown in statistics of money paid by each country involved in the war throughout time. When the war broke out, substantial increases in the investments made for weaponry are shown, especially by the main countries involved in the war, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany (Document 1). Military advancement overall had a large part in World War I’s breakout, due to its effects on the mindset of countries to create more weaponry for defense, and the power it gave to a nation’s

Turner states that Germany provoked Austria-Hungary to declaring war on Serbia. Nevertheless, Turner also argues how other nations contributed to war. Turner states “The crisis got out of control because Bethmann pushed Austria into premature war with Serbia. French General Staff drove Russia along the fatal path of mobilisation”. The quote infers how despite that Germany may have provoked Austria-Hungary into “premature war”, they were not the only nation causing general war. The fact that France forced Russia into “fatal mobilisation” suggests that most people ignored other nation’s flaws and their contributions to war, scapegoating Germany in the process. Furthermore, this also argues how Germany’s aggressive Schlieffen Plan was not fully responsible for general war. Furthermore, the 1905-06 Moroccan Crisis was also evident of how other nations as well as Germany were to blame for war. The crisis led to a Russian betrayal of Germany, prioritising the Triple Entente instead. As a result, Germany vowed revenge, leading to aggressive strategies to take place. Despite this indicating that German aggression was at hand, it is implied that Russian betrayal was a cause of this aggression – evident that other nations were not just at blame for war, but also the consistent aggression by Germany. Despite this, Joll supports Turner, also arguing how Germany had a concrete

During the late 19th century, many European countries were seeking to gain power, both in Europe and the rest of the world. In doing so, the Europeans colonized many different areas, including India, North America, and quite notably, Africa. This colonization was part of a process known as imperialism, where the various European nations would each colonize territories around the world, and subsequently used the natural resources, and often times people, in these colonies to fund their empire. This would work towards an eventual goal of possible world domination through an aggregation of power. The Europeans also did not want to cede power to their rivals in Europe, as this could lead to their own country getting conquered and thus losing control of Europe and their bid for heightened power and world domination. As a result, they each conquered territory to both earn money and power for themselves, and keep these from ending up in the hands of their rival nations. European imperialism in Africa was thus driven by economic and political forces, due to the fact that European countries wanted to spread their influence, improve their economies by keeping control of their colonies, and prevent other nations from gaining power in a similar manner.

Promptly after the First World War had ended there were many debates about who or what caused the war. Historians such as Fritz Fischer argued that Germany was the to blame for the entirety of the war but there have been many more ideas of what was the cause of the war and therefore causing peace to fail. The main ideas amongst historians for the underlying causes of the war are the different balance in power due the formation of alliances, imperialism, militarism and also the July Crisis of 1914. This essay will argue that the alliances were the main cause of peace failing as with the constant conflict of interests and increasing tension it made it almost impossible to create peace in Europe in 1914.

New imperialism was a period of colonial expansion by European powers during the late 19th century and early 20th century. It is distinguished by the continuous territorial acquisitions of Africa and Asia by European powers. These powers include Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium (Tusan, Scramble for Africa, October 23rd). There were many reasons behind this aggressive competition. To them, these newfound lands were an opportunity to expand their power and exploit further resources. To put it bluntly, economic, political, cultural, and ideological motivations all helped start the era of New Imperialism and its new form of empire.

The Scramble for Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries encouraged many different nations to become involved in colonialism. In this time period, competing European powers carved up the continent of Africa between themselves, due to a variety of political and economic motives. Generally, these powers benefited from these land acquisitions. However, Germany’s neo-imperialist experience was unlike that of the other powers. Within the colony of Namibia, located in South West Africa, the real advantages that Germany received were far outweighed by the disadvantages the German empire faced. Although Germany received elevated political status from occupying colonies, the economic and military efforts that were invested in

Leading up to the First World War (WWI) was a series of crises -- Serbian unification efforts, the Ten-Point Ultimatum from Austria to Serbia, the Kruger Telegram, the Dreadnought Race, the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and of 1911, the Balkan Wars, and the Bosnian Crisis -- that generated significant conflict and division among the countries of Europe, all of which seemed to lay the foundation for the start of WWI. With concern for its own power and security in a rapidly changing Europe, Germany set out to undermine the power of as well as the alliances between other European countries. In his book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914, Christopher Clark points out that, while ‘not one of the great powers has escaped the

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

After the First World War (1914-1919), the world was faced with the questions - who was responsible and what was reason for the outbreak of the war. Ultimately it was agreed on the 28 June 1919 that “the Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage” from the First World War. However, there have been many other interpretations on whom and what was responsible for the war. On the one hand, some historians would agree with David Lloyd George’s notion of all “the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war”, however, on the contrary, others would agree with Fischer in arguing that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the First World War. Whether you agree with Lloyd George or Fischer, it is important to understand some of the other possible reasons for the outbreak of the First World War – including the growth of nationalism and imperialism, the alliances within Europe and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although this essay will argue that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, it will also illustrate why other historians have argued against that notion.