The Fischer Controversy. The Publication In 1961 Of Fritz

In the year 1961, Fritz Fischer had presented his book, which was known as Germany's Aims in First World War. In the year 1967, this book was translated in English language. 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

This essay analyses the origins of the Second World War by briefly summarizing the events from 1919-1939. However, most emphasis is put on the amount of responsibility the Treaty of Versailles deserves for the outbreak of war. Other than analysing the Treaty of Versailles on its own, it also analyses the effects of the 1929 Wall Street Crash on the world, the rise of Fascism and Nazism, as well as the rise of Adolf Hitler, the failure of the League of Nations and the appeasement of the Fascist and Nazi regimes by Britain and France throughout the 1930s. Hence the Treaty of Versailles plays a

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.

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

In addition to the damaging consequences of the First World War with the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, certain features of Germany caused the state to be susceptible to the influence of this dangerous ideology. Along with the damage to the national ego as a result of the First World War, Germany had co-existing and conflicting highly modern strands of development forced to integrate with powerful remnants of archaic values and social structures, and had a deeply fractured parliamentary political system, and the weaknesses of this system reflected the social and political differences within the population. This shame and failure after World War I was superimposed onto a modern country which once had an advanced economy, a sophisticated state

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

The Great War was a tragedy: modern weaponry and Gentleman’s war collided, causing millions of lives lost in what was considered to be the war to end all wars. The war was ignited by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. The chain of events that followed were, however motivated by the imperialistic, militaristic, and paranoid characteristics of the governments of Europe, caused by Germany, whose characteristic ambitions burned out hot and fast in the late 19th and early 20th century. Germany is largely to blame for the start of the Great War due to their imperialist and militarist pursuits as well as their alliance system. Germany’s imperial ambitions

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

For quite a number of reasons, World War II was largely inevitable. In this text, I will take into consideration some arguments that have been presented in the past in an attempt to demonstrate the inevitability of the Second World War. These arguments range from the creation of the Treaty of Versailles to the conditions imposed on Germany to nationalistic issues. Many historians consider German's invasion into Poland the official commencement date of the Second World War.

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

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

On June 28th, 1914, the Belle Époque came to a halting ending when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo. Because of the new technological advances such as tanks, aircrafts, and submarines, WWI was unlike any other. However, one of the greatest weapons of war Europe had created was nationalism (Shevin-Coetzee, p.98). Nationalism is the concept where one feels that their country is superior to others, it is taking patriotism to another level, and it was fostered during the Belle Époque. In France, this patriotism was centered on the Church, so much so that the denominations banded together to enhance the patriotism. In The Great War and the French People Jean-Jacques Becker states, “We have ceased dividing ourselves into Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and Jews. Suddenly something more basic has emerged, something all of us share: we are Frenchmen”(Shevin-Coetzee p.105). While this seems like a sentimental moment for the people of France, this was a weapon of war in the development of WWI because every country held some sort of nationalism and that was the fuel that kept the fire burning.