Path to World War I Joll, Mayer, and Fischer each look at the same events and players leading up

Even though it is believed that World War I was initialized by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, others believe that there were a number of issues that played into the start of the war. There are said to be four areas that played into the cause of World War I, including the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the other three are imperialism, militarism, and nationalism. In this paper, we will discuss all of these areas to see how they played a part. We will also discuss what events drew the United States into World War I.

For Germany, 1914 would witness the enthronement of Kultur in Europe and the fulfillment of Germany’s historic mission. As Thomas Mann saw it, “Germans . . . deserved to be the most powerful, to dominate, to establish a ‘German peace’” (311). The French, for their part, in the face of growing German militarism given voice by the Kaiser himself, “possessor of the least inhibited tongue in Europe,” stoked up their furor Gallicae and awaited the moment that had seemed inevitable ever since the Treaty of Versailles had amputated her eastern flank. Aside from nationalistic scores to settle, many other nations were simply “sore-headed and fed up” with “Germany’s clattering of the sword” and saw in the coming conflict hopes for the “moral regeneration of Europe” (312-313). Tuchman sees the parts as well as the whole, and her discussion of cause as it relates to individual battles and the generals involved is psychologically astute without being limiting. She offers plausible explanations for General John French’s lack of will in the defense of Belgium (218) and shows how the breakdown of Plan 17 in the first weeks of the war paved the way for a long and brutal struggle (262), as did the final failure of the Germans’ Schlieffen Plan for a double envelopment of the enemy. The ensuing deadlock

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

This paper focuses on the underlying causes of world war I instead of just immediate causes. In this article, I will answer the question what were the underlying causes of world war I. ("DBQ: What Were the Underlying ...", 2010, p. Doc 1) Some of these causes consist of militarism, nationalism, and imperialism. The immediate causes of the war were the ones that set it off but the underlying causes are the ones that had been building up over time. ("DBQ: What Were the Underlying ...", 2010, p. Doc 1)

James connects the facts he presents to the main idea throughout the paper. For instance, he states that criticisms showing the “bestial side of military” keep looting and mastery from being respectable reasons for war, and Britain’s leaders claim that their vast military is in the name of peace to avoid that stigma. Therefore, he decides that peace has lost its meaning and is, instead, a synonym for “war expected”. This then leads him to the conclusion that when it comes to war, men have developed a double personality. Another example of his reasoning is when he argues in favor of General Lea’s approach to militarism. He infers that, because history has proven how men are drawn to conquest, men will continue to be drawn to conquest. With this logic, it is not unreasonable for Japan to desire the islands in the Pacific and the westernmost regions of the United States. By constantly connecting facts together, he can support the main point of his

When analyzing any sort of book, it is best for the reader to have a basic summary and understanding of the books arguments and evidence in order to understand further arguments made about said book. It is important to note at the beginning of this paper that Fussell fought in the Second World War, something he does not mention until the end of his book. Fussell also states that as wounded ex-infantry officer, who is fascinated and at times obsessed with his own experience in Europe during the Second World War, he related his circumstances to those that he wrote about who participated in the First World War. It is important to keep in mind because it may influence how Fussell wrote his book and the reader should be aware of this fact while reading this analysis of his work.

Nowadays, most of the countries on this world is trying to make peace and gain alliances with each other. However, the situation was a little different than this in the 1900s. Chaos was everywhere in Europe in the 1900s due to various reasons. After a long time of chaos, people decided they had enough of it so they asked for war. Eventually, after Serbia secret society “Union or Death” (called “The Black Hand” by its opponents) assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, World War I began.

Have you ever planned something to protect against a problem but it backfired? The intended use became a major reason that the situation went horribly wrong. For instance, say you do homework early so you don’t stress out later. When you go through it right away, you accidentally missed important directions. After you finish the project, you feel accomplished until find out that you did it wrong. Now you have even less time than if you just procrastinated before, and you don’t know how to fix your original project or start all over. That’s pretty much what happened to cause World War I. Alliances and treaties, nationalism, and quick reactions led to a series of events that started World War I.

Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, leader of the German delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference, describes it as this: “In the last fifty years, the imperialism of all European states has chronically poisoned international relations. Policies of retaliation, policies of expansion, and disregard for the right of people's to determine their own destiny, have contributed to the European malady which came to a crisis in the World War” (Document 5). This means that all of the countries of mainly Europe, more specifically ones that were not in alliance with one another, only grew pressure in between. This grew a ‘poisoned’ sense of nationalism for these countries, resulting in an eventual declaration of war. In the book, Origins of the World War, Sidney Bradshaw Fay states that the European war broke out as “in each country [of Europe] political and military leaders did certain things which lead to the mobilization [of their armies for war] and [finally] to the declarations of war, or [these leaders] failed to do certain things which might have prevented [the war]” (Document 6). This defines the fault in the growing sense of nationalism, as political and military leaders then only grew this stress. An example of this is the German propaganda which brought the idea to German people that Germany was idealistic, and that they should answer the call to war. However, this led to Germany

Leah Griffin 3/6/15 HIST 121 Document Analysis Paper World War I played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. After the devastating war, Germany was viewed as the main instigator and the European Allied Powers decided to impose strict treaty obligations upon Germany. This treaty, also known as the Treaty of Versailles, was signed by Germany and went into effect in June 1919 (“Treaty of Versailles, 1919” 1). The treaty forced Germany to give up the land it seized from multiple countries during the war and also forced Germany to recognize the independence of several others (“The Treaty of Versailles – 1919” 37-43). The treaty also forced Germany to agree to many other humiliating terms that did not rest easy with the German public

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

The war that broke out in 1914 was one of the worst, if not the worst, wars in human history. It had left millions dead and a scar burned into European history forever. However, if we do not identify why war broke out in 1914, stopping others wars will be impossible. Clearly, we may never know the answer to this, but many sources give many interpretations. In this essay, I will try to recognise the key factors that led the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 and try to identify the most significant of these causes.

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

November 1918 saw the result of WW1 though Germany's eyes. A crumbled economy, revolution and counter-revolution, the flailing of a government, and an angered mass population- searching for scapegoat in which to blame their

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.