German Responsibility For The War

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.

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

Not only is this recurring in history but in even further discombobulates the truth.. During World War II, Germans were propagandized into believing that not only are they superior, but that the Jews were responsible for the mega depression that occurred in Germany. Not only did they believe this, but it gave them a cause to fight for, something to rally by. If it hadn’t been for the U.S., this essay might be a lot further from the truth, and it might be in German. But the U.S. did decide to enter the war because they saw the truth; the fascist dictatorship that could very well country the entire globe if not stopped. Americans realized not only what was going on in Germany was absolutely horrible and that its causes were wrong, but it needed to be stopped. Certain perspectives can distort people's interpretation of the truth to fit what they believe. Everything written is somewhat biased to an extent. The truth is there, but hard to

Appeasement was arguably the only realistic option for British policy towards Germany between 1936 and 1938 when considering the fact that appeasement permitted Britain to rearm, thus preparing her more effectively for war, whilst also giving her the moral high ground. Nevertheless, for some “appeasement has become a dirty word, synonymous with weakness and defeatism in the face of naked aggression” since Britain’s policy of appeasement succumbed to Nazi aggression and failed to actually prevent war. Subsequently many historians argue that alternatives including a ‘Grand Alliance’ and military intervention in the Rhineland (1936) and Czechoslovakia (1938) would have been better options. However, when considering the several hindrances to these alternatives including political and public stance, financial difficulties and the depth of pacifist objection, it appears that appeasement was the only realistic option.

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

The world war had drawn in all of the world’s greatest political and economic powers of the century as a result of several reasons, as suggested by historians. Historians have weighed in over the past century, providing examples of causes for ‘the Great War’, for example; previous relationships and tensions, a lack of international laws, corrupt governments, etc.

Germany was now desperately seeking a strong leader that would rescue their country. The domestic crisis was the source of their anguish and Hitler who called for self determination and the abolition of the Treaty of Versailles appealed to the people. According to the revisionist views “The depression also helped to destroy German democracy and contributed to Hitler’s rise to power, and it was his dictatorship which brought war”. The rise of the Nazis cannot therefore be blamed solely on the reparations, the Weimar Republic and the Wall Street Crash both independent factors from the consequences of WWI highly contributed to the rise of the Nazis.

Considering the fact that the author, John H. Morrow Jr, is an American citizen, his point of view and argumentation are one-sided. However, in such events there are two sides and it would be advisable to hear both of them, notably about the concept of responsibility. On one hand, some Historians (i.e. Christopher Clark) bring a lot of nuances to the question of fault; all participants bearing a share of responsibility for the deadly explosion of this mixture made of policy, internal oppositions, opaque decision-making, for example within diplomatic machinery. Germany entered the war as a result of unfortunate circumstances

‘From the first day that he "seized power," January 30, 1933, Hitler knew that only sudden death awaited him if he failed to restore pride and empire to post-Versailles Germany.’[1] The Second World War was the deadliest battle in History. Figures estimate that over 59 million people were killed during its conflict. German leadership was under Adolf Hitler, a ruthless dictator who was the chancellor of Germany during the majority of the conflict. It is debatable that Hitler was solely responsible for the events in which lead to and occurred during the Second World War. Hitler was responsible to a large degree, however cannot be accountable for every aspect in which the

World War Two began in 1939, and lasted until 1945. It was started by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to lose lots of its’ land and people, have to openly accept the guilt of war, that World War One was their fault, and they had to pay 6.6 billion pounds to the Allies for damages caused by the war. The Treaty of Versailles had four main terms. War Guilt, Germany had to accept the blame for starting World War 1. Reparations, Germany had to pay a huge fine for damages caused in the war. Territorial Clauses, Germany lost a lot of its land. Disarmament, Germany was only allowed a small army, and no tanks, submarines or air force. Germany was obviously not happy with the terms of this

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

Why did A.J.P Taylor’s analysis of the origins of the Second World War cause such controversy among historians?

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.