German Aggression Responsible for Ww1

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

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

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

Militarism in the nations was shown through its military spending (as shown in document 4). Militarism was also shown through military recruitment posters (shown in document 6) which encouraged enlistment. I believe this was the most important cause of WWI because Germany had an industrialized nation and military.

At the turn of the twentieth century Europe seemed to enjoy a period of peace and progress. Yet below the surface, several forces were at work that would lead Europe into the “Great War”. Some of the causes of WW1 were Nationalism, Militarism, Imperial Rivalries, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Alliance.

In document B it explains how France had complete control over Germany and that Germany was only allowed 100,000 men max for their military. Also in document B, it explains that France had very tight control on most of the Germany land and they couldn't rebel because they didn't have a strong enough military for another war. The German military was strictly devoted to maintaining order within the border. This evidence supports the idea that lack of military power helped cause World War II because lack of military power that the Germans had was a huge loss at the time because they were one of the strongest

At the end of World War I, the sole responsibility of initiating the conflict fell on Germany. With the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany took the blame and agreed to pay for reparations. However, the origin of the war was not the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Rather, the origins were nationalism, the creation of entangling alliances, the conflict in the Balkans, and the economic and imperialistic rivalries in Europe. These factors created the right conditions for war to occur. However, the responsibility of initiating conflict can be placed on Austria-Hungary.

Wars have immensely contributed to human history for thousands of years, becoming highly destructive usually for the means of gain. The First World War, also known as ‘the Great War’ was a truly global war centred in Europe. The causes of one of the most destructive wars in human history are still debated to this day. Some historians have come up with a list of multiple causes of the war. However, experts have identified some of the primary causes of the war, including the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism. The causes of the truly deadly war, sending ripples of shock throughout Europe and the world, can be summarised into four points, and the start of the war pinpointed to one bullet from a young Serbians gun.

During the summer of 1914 British politicians believed that Germany would not start war because, despite his angry outbursts, the Kaiser had peaceful intentions. The bureaucrats in Britain believed that Germany did not have the capability to go to war, and if it did go to war, France and Russia would quickly squash Germany. Perceptions of German intention did matter in British decision-making in the summer on 1914. Britain’s position on the war remained ambiguous long after they should have publically made a statement because they believe the tension would die down on it own when Germany eventually decided it would not go to war. This information, and the way politicians and bureaucrats reasoned through Germany’s intentions, follows the guidelines

Fischer argues that German imperialism bears the onus for the Great War, as he concluded that they had gone to war to achieve European and worldwide domination. He states that Germany had ‘confidence in the invincibility of her military strength,’ implying that Germany had been building up their forces. This indicates Germany must have already been preparing for war, strengthening her army until she saw that both France and Russia were ‘militarily weak’ in comparison - to the extent that German elites believed they would remain somewhat unhindered in their continuation of ‘aggressive intentions.’ This is significant for several reasons. First, it was controversial as these ideas challenged the pre-existing general consensus of historians’ outlook since the 1930s: that all involved European nations shared a collective war-guilt from the First World War. Fischer rejects this view. He references a document written by Bethmann’s private secretary on 9 September 1914, outlining the Chancellor’s plan for peace negotiations which he anticipated would soon take place, as according to the September Programme. Fischer extrapolated that these detailed plans (that already had the support of the wider political nation in Germany) must have existed in August and July, and that this was indication towards Germany’s

Germany encouraged war because, they had some imperialistic “needs”, and they wanted to grow their navy into becoming the best, and take control over the seas. They thought they could do so if they conducted a war, and Germany had a plan to win the war, however, they didn’t. Though some historians disagree that it wasn’t solely Germany’s fault for the war, though if you consider that some countries participating in the war, had declared the war to be Germany’s fault, and that Germany agreed the war occurred because of them. Being, that not only did others believe it was Germany’s fault, but Germany themself agreed it was their fault, and took the punishment. There are many topics on World War One that historians debate on, most of them being who started World War One.

Scholars are clearly split to two sides, like the war they are referencing. Both supported by evidence, they convey that either Germany was the main instigator or not. The historians who base their argument behind the fact that Germany was not the instigator of World War I and had just scared the triple entente powers through a string of misunderstandings like Russia allegedly did, are slightly baseless. The clear pre-meditation and circumstances relating to Kaiser’s disdain towards the other royals of Europe along with Germany's naval arms race, desire to expand, and its secret alliances with the Austro Hungarian empire and the Ottoman Empire say otherwise. Though, yes, Germany was not the first to declare war, and not even the first to outwardly support their side, its ability to make it a global war, unlike Austria-Hungary is

Many historians, such as Martel, believe that it was the attitudes and views of the time that would make the outbreak of war in 1914 inevitable. The fact that everybody at the time thought that were superior to everybody else led

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.