The Between 1879 And 1980

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

2) Which nation joined the Triple Entente alliance in the early 1900s (and to complete the alliance?)

The beginning of the twentieth century brought with it relative peace and growth of economies throughout the world. New technological developments such as airplanes, radio, cinema, and automobiles were created during this time frame. Europe’s powerful countries consolidated in their colonial conquests from earlier decades that balanced their alliances. However, after only a few decades into the twentieth century multiple tensions between the great powers surfaced. These tensions caused the great powers to separate into different alliances and eventually lead to the Great War.

The South in one period in time became a distinct entity away from the North. It became a separate unified entity during the Antebellum Period between 1800’s and 1860’s. This period introduces the idea that men wanted to make a difference in the world. An idea that a male will share is that of absolute authority on his own plantation. One term that can be pinned down on this is that of the yeoman farmer. A Yeomen farmer strived to become successful. Many wanted to own a huge plantation with lots of slaves. Owning a lot slaves meant that many men could relax. The term of Yeomen Farmers is introduced by Thomas Jefferson who sets a milestone for Southerners down the road. Other then Yeomen farmers being part of the Social class is that of women. Women in society are to be subjected to their husband. What the husband says for the to do it goes. Only one exception to this is that if a woman is a Southern Belle. They can be further opinionatedThe South is unified by the idea of a social class, honor, and politics.

It is heavily debated that the display of German aggression inevitably contributed to the outbreak of general European tensions, and war in 1914. The use of strategies such as the Anglo-German Naval Race, as stated in Joll’s source, highlighted the aggression by Germany prior to war. Moreover, this type of tactic also demonstrated the desire and hunger Germany obtained for continental power, another factor towards European tensions. The sources in question both support and contest the set statement, to an extent. Sources 1 and 3 by Corrigan and Joll, respectively, argue how Germany’s use of tactics agitated European powers, thus causing war. However, Source 2 by Turner disagrees with the statement, arguing how other European powers were to

After reading William R. Keylor's The Legacy of the Great War, I realized the important events that pertain to the international relations. Until our present day there has not been so many great leaders come together to address issues such as: politics, economics, and social settings in Europe. This is the beginning of the problems in European civilization.

Document A also outlines the different alliances between the three major powers; the Triple Alliance, Triple Entente and the Neutral Nations in 1914 after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. This also proves that an outlying cause to World War 1 could be the drastic side taking after Ferdinand’s

Over the years of 1877 to the 1900’s many changes were occurring. The Southern cities were changing faster than anyone could’ve imagined with new transportation, growing industries, and the end of slavery. Not to mention, the changing role of women.

Thirdly, as countries began the military build-up of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it became increasingly important for nations to ally themselves to each other as to uphold the balance of power. Assuredly, an alliance system of similar fashion and exercise had existed in Europe for the past century or so. Indeed, it wasn’t even surprising that major powers had allied themselves, for, again, they had be

23 July 1905, Tsar Nicholas of Russia had come close to forming an alliance with Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, but a prior agreement with France and Russian desire to avoid upsetting their ally led to denial of the treaty by officials in St. Petersburg. Convinced that Germany could drive a wedge between the Entente powers, Berlin demanded an international conference in Algeciras, as promised by the treaty of 1881. Initially, the Germans were sure that Britain would not intervene in a dispute regarding Morocco, but France gave compensation deals to Britain, Italy, and Spain, and promised more money to Russia for support in the Algeciras conference held January 1906. Not only was the Entente proven stronger than Germany had initially thought, historian Christopher Clark also argues that ‘the uselessness of the Triple Alliance [between Austria, Italy, and Germany] was revealed for all to see.’ Not only did actions taken by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the First Moroccan Crisis of 1905 not have the desired effect of pushing apart the Entente powers, they led to a stronger connection between France and Britain, Italy, Spain, and Russia, impacted the European view of Germany negatively, and isolated Germany and Austria

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

The first half of the 19th century was a time of sweeping changes. With transportation, and factories increasing, North America was in for a major upgrade. While all of those things are going on, the two regions that made up the growing nation was the North and South. These two sides were very different in their approach of lifestyle which would soon lead to conflicts. Two issues stood out more than others as the North and South headed towards civil war. One reason increase of tariffs and taxes the Congress placed on the south to ship goods to other countries. The other was the idea of keeping slavery in the country. The tariffs placed economic inequality between the northern states and the southern states.

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.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).