PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Letter to a loved one

2005-05-20T20:13:48-04:00

It’s cold. So cold it -- it goes deep into your bones, but there is one place I can go to find warmth and that is to think of you. I’m driven to the point of desperation, where I feel like giving myself up. But I must continue the fight, as everyday that passes, I am one day closer to being reunited with you. My mental and physical state decreases rapidly as the death tolls around me continue to rise. Sitting alone in this damp, filth trench I hear the constant blasts of artillery and the moans of each dying man, each man as innocent and honest as the next, suffering though for no given reason. I thank you, from the pit of my burning nauseous stomach, for giving me a reason to keep strong... to keep fighting. I do this for you, you’re my strength and hope. I focus on returning to you, for us to be us, one again. I think if I fight hard enough and keep focused on you then nothing can stop me. Every other man thought that too. Many of the men I had befriended her are dead. John, James, Peter and George. All dead, from one gas attack. I’m trying my best to describe this to you, but the only word I can think of is evil. Unnecessary evil to us fighting. The corpse of one man lies beside me, his rotting flesh stinking out this part of the trench. I can still see the blood coated bullet that killed him, shining slightly from his chest. His eyes are still open as if he’s staying at the sky, his mouth hanging open making it look like he was trying to say something. Our lives must mean nothing to anyone as everyday we are sent to almost certain death and those who do survive and return to the trench cannot rejoice as we are sent back out again, within a few short hours. It all seems fake, like a drastic nightmare, but it’s only until you see your friends lying dead at your feet and you look out over the brutal fighting, that it all comes flooding back. The pain, the fear and the horrific sights all remind you that this is not a dream and the utter hell we are going through is real. I’m not certain of when this will end, but I pray

Critique of the historical debate on the Versailles Treaty

2005-05-01T01:05:22-04:00

The treaty of Versailles that closed the First World War was set up as a way to ensure peace. It was hoped that the treaty would ensure that the first world was had been ‘the war to end all wars’however this was not to be and the treaty became the subject of much scrutiny pretty much from the get-go. Many of the youthful insiders from the American and British delegations claimed immediately after the conference that Wilson had abandoned his earlier plans and had in effect betrayed his supporters. Others felt that Wilson had kept his main objective in mind; peace while others had tirelessly sought other benefits from the treaty, mostly revenge and money. The level of hostility towards the treaty by many historians and veterans of the conference set a standard that was to continue of heightened emotion where the treaty was concerned. The unsympathetic ruling of the treaty against Germany and the strongly different opinions that emerged after it was finished set the scene for the abundance of hostile debate that was to follow for some years to come on the various issues surrounding the treaty. The first and most famous critic of the Versailles peace treaty was John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was the senior treasury official sent as a member of the British group to the Versailles peace conference. Keynes did not agree with the terms laid out in the conference especially those related to the reparations payments that Germany was expected to begin paying. After his later resignation and possibly due in part to his annoyance at his suggestions for the reparations repayments being ignored he wrote an extremely controversial book entitled ‘The economic consequences of the War’ within which he outlined his disagreements with the treaty and claimed that not only was it not possible for Germany to pay the reparations given their economic situation but and even more controversially that the issue of reparations would eventually cause further conflict in Europe and possibly the outbreak of another war. Keylor in his article ‘A re-evaluation of the Versailles Peace’ reflected that Keynes’ strong opinions on the peace settlement may have been due to his personal sense of guilt at having served in government during the war while his pacifist friends objected to it and regularly expressed disapproval at his position. This, Keylor believed may have given him feelings of guilt thus giving him

To what extent did the Versailles Treaty contribute to the crisis faced by the Weimar Government?

2004-11-15T09:07:59-05:00

The Versailles Peace Treaty, signed by Germany in 1919, can only be partially held responsible for the crisis faced by the Weimar Government. In 1923, the Weimar Government reached a terrible crisis point in which it sank into chaos, facing serious problems both politically and economically. Politically, the Weimar Government encountered extreme opponents from both the right and left wing; however, not all political threats faced by the Weimar Government were due to the Versailles Peace Treaty. Economically, the Weimar Government were also faced with severe difficulties. Before the end of WWI, under the Kaiserreich, Germany was already carrying the burden of trade deficits and war economy so the cause of all the economic problems can not be limited to the Treaty though the Treaty was indirectly linked to the problems of hyperinflation. The Weimar Constitution, another contributory factor of the crisis, was not at all a result of the Versailles Peace Treaty as the set up and contents of the constitution was never stated as a term in the Treaty. The Versailles Peace Treaty should not be responsible for the establishment of the Weimar Constitution. The Weimar Constitution was a very weak written composition of the Government that tried to set up a democratic system. Article 17 of the Constitution stated the voting system which was known as proportional representation. Proportional representation is where a party that gains 20 per cent of the vote will also gain 20 percent of the seats in the Reichstag. This kind of system proved to be a problem, as argued by historian Geoff Layton. He said that the introduction to proportional representation encouraged the formation of new and splinter parties; this made it even harder for any one party to gain the 50 % of votes required to become government. The only way for a party to gain that extra percent of votes needed to become the government was to befriend other parties. This was even more of a complication because there was a lot more compromising due to the different ideas and policies. Another weakness of the constitution was Article 48 where it stated that in the case of an emergency the President may suspend civil rights and take whatever was needed to restore the country. Geoff Layton said that the flaw of this article was that in the cases of emergencies the President could just overthrow the government and simply rule

The Battle of the Somme

2004-10-26T02:52:21-04:00

The Battle of the Somme started in 1916 following the battle at Ypres in 1915. After it went on over a long period of time, it was to become one of the most famous battles of the First World War. It was a protracted engagement, which resulted in appalling carnage. The Battle of the Somme is proclaimed to be such a great battle because of the certain strategies and the specific objectives used, the tragic results of the battle, and the consequences of the battle concerning the many conflicting powers. The Battle of the Somme began to support Belgium after Germany attempted an invasion on them. Many strategies and objectives were conceived and used to defeat the German forces at the Somme. As the battle began on July 1st, 1916, it was planned as a joint French and British operation, this included Canada as they fought along side Britain. The British saw their opportunity to be the saviors of the moment, as Germany invaded Belgium when they were declared neutral, which was known as the Schlieffen Plan. The French Commander in Chief, Joseph Joffre, who intended it to be a battle of attrition, devised this plan of attack. The aim of the offence was to drain the German forces of reserves, however territorial gain was the second aim. This plan was soon approved by the British Commander in Chief, Sir Douglas Haig. One element of the agreed plan was to have an offence of primarily French troops, although after the attack on Verdun at the beginning of 1916, in which the Germans took many French casualties, Haig and Joffre were forced to compose the offensive troops of predominantly British soldiers instead. This resulted in Haig receiving responsibility of the operation, which would be used at the Somme, and authority to formulate his own plan. With help from General Rawlingson, Haig came up with a strategy of an eight-day preliminary bombardment of the German lines, beginning on June 24th. He believed this would conquer their original aim of destroying German forces, letting the attacking British troops virtually walk across “no mans land” and take charge of the German front lines, as the German soldiers would be to exhausted to put up a fight. The attack was commenced upon a thirty-kilometre front with the Somme

Why was Germany defeated in 1918 rather than 1916

2004-03-21T09:49:22-04:00

There are several reasons why Germany was defeated in 1918 rather than 1916. By 1916, a stalemate had developed along the western front. Both sides were dug in and little advance was made by either side. General Hague, the British Commander decided that a massive attack would be made to break the deadlock. The plan was to make a massive bombardment to destroy the German trenches and barbed wire and to kill their soldiers, thus making it easy for the British to advance. However, the Germans knew what was happening and so moved all of their soldiers into deep dug-outs away from the front line where they were protected. After a huge bombardment lasting from the 24th June to 1st July 1916, the allies advanced towards the enemy lines expecting little resistance, but were instead mown down by German machine gun fire.60,000 allied soldiers were killed/wounded on the first day. The same pattern was repeated until the end of the battle in November 1916.By this time both sides were exhausted and 620,000 allied and 450,000 Germans were dead or wounded. Tanks were used for the first time in 1916 but were very unreliable and got stuck in the mud. Planes were also used for observation of the enemy but had little real impact. In 1917 America declared war on Germany and started sending troops to fight, but by March 1918 there were still only 84,000 American troops in Europe.The Germans knew that they had to attack the allies before more American troops arrived and on 21st March 1918, began a huge offensive against allied lines.This was initially very successful, and over several months the Germans advanced as far as the River Marne. However, their advance was too quick and they were unable to keep up their supply lines. In August 1918, the allies hit back.By now American numbers had risen to 1,500,000 which proved a decisive factor. The allies also used new improved tanks (Whippet, Mark V) which were much more reliable and effective on the battle field. Aeroplanes were also used to much greater effect, being used for machine gun and bombing raids. Over the next few months the allies pushed the Germans back as far as the Hindenburg Line. The German army collapsed. Morale among the German soldiers was destroyed. They had little food, were exhausted and in despair and knew that they were defeated. Back home in Germany, the German

Why Germany was defeated in 1918 rather than 1916 (Somme)

2004-03-03T19:29:58-05:00

Personal Response to "Disabled" by Wilfred Owen

2004-02-19T13:53:18-05:00

The image of a “wheeled chair” implies that he is disabled and probably dependent on others. Legless, sewn short at elbow” further implies the disability of the persona. The words “waiting for dark”, “shivered” and “ghastly suit of grey” imply his loneliness. “Voices of boys rang saddening” reminds him of the old times when he used to be like them, playing and enjoying himself. In the second stanza, the poet expresses the gaiety and liveliness of the town as compared to the first stanza filled with empty thoughts and coldness. The phrase “before he threw away his knees” seemed to mock at him sacrificing his legs. The fact that he would never feel “how slim girls’ waists are” showed that he had lost the privilege of being a typical man. “Touch him like some queer disease” implies that the girls probably stayed as far away from him as possible, avoiding much contact. In the past, artists liked to draw his face as he did not look his age. It is different now as he looks older than his age. Irony is used here. In the first stanza, it is known that he had already lost his legs and that that affected his whole life. In the fourth stanza, we are presented with a scene from before the war when he had felt proud to sustain an injury while playing football on the field. Then, he was worshipped and celebrated like a hero. He joined the army partly because of his vanity. The phrase “he’d look a god in kilts” showed that he thought he would look good and impressive in his army uniform. He also wanted to display his manliness to impress the girls. He had lied about his age to join the army. It implied that he was probably underage. He probably knew that he was too young to be accepted and therefore the lie. The fifth stanza showed mostly portraits of his dreams. For example “daggers in plaid socks”, “smart salutes,” “care of arms”, etc. He did not even experience any fear – “no fears of Fear”. This showed that he was rather ignorant and had many illusions of good life in the army. However, his army career was soon over and he was “drafted out”. “Some cheered him home” showed that he did earn some respect for sacrificing himself and joining the army. However, this cheering was not as much as

WW1

2002-11-28T13:00:00-05:00

Introduction:

Then I heard an excited exclamation from a group of sisters behind me, “Look!Look! Here are the Americans!” This was said by an overwhelmed British nurse. This is when America entered WWI. They helped the Allies out a great deal. During WWI a lot of new weapons evolved(machine guns and airplanes), countries got spilt apart, Women became more evolved in men's regular work. In the end of WWI an entire generation of Europeans were killed, dynasties fell in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. The League of Nations was made up to promote peace. Because of WWI, WWII occurred. This is why I believe WWI was more important then the Gulf War. The new weapons that evolved during WWI were machine guns, and airplanes. The machine guns fired its ammunition automatically. With the use of a machine gun, you could literally wipe out dozens of people at a time. Now for the airplanes. This was an amazing ordeal for a plane to be used in war, or any type of combat for that matter. The planes were a big advantage. They played numerous roles. We also became smarter about the use of airplanes today. When Russia had a second revolution the communist leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin gained power. Lenin deiced to end his country’s involvement in the war. Well the first thing he did was make a truce with Germany. From this the Russian government had to give over Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to Germany. Even after the war when the treaty became invalid, those countries gained their independence. If this had not happened those countries would not be independent today. Maybe this is a good thing because if Russia still had those countries they would be more powerful and one day might deiced to challenge the U.S. During WWI when the men were at war the woman took on the mans everyday job. This included factories, shops, offices and so on. Woman all of a sudden were constructing, farming, even running hospitals. Something back then men thought was impossible for them to do. As well as working their everyday jobs, they would help the war men with food, clothing and supplies. It was like the woman became the dominate role. They went to work and then would come home and tend to the children and housework. After the war when the men returned, peoples views changed. I think that had a

Australian and American female nurses in the armed forces

2002-10-27T13:00:00-04:00

To what extent were Australian and American female nurses treated as professionals in the armed forces?

“We have made partners of the women in this war; shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and not to a partnership of privilege and right?” U.S President Wilson, September 1918 My research for this essay showed that although there were similarities between American and Australian attitudes towards female nurses serving in their armed forces, some elements of the American War Department were more reluctant in allowing female nurses to serve as part of the armed forces in World War One. The different types of sources consulted were useful for different purposes. For example, the Australian Defence Department website (See Web Reference 3) although very detailed, suffers the expected bias due to it being written and published by the nursing corps of the current Australian Army. I also discovered that it was essential to distinguish between different parts of the armed forces because in some instances, like the case of the US War Department and the US Army, they had conflicting views on female nurses serving in World War One. This essay shows that there was a temporary marked change in each country towards the attitude of female nurses participating in the armed forces as the war progressed. However, after the conclusion of World War One, whilst they had earned respect for the nursing profession, their contribution was still not enough to admit them into the armed forces on a permanent basis. The establishment of the Australian Army Nursing Service in New South Wales in 1898 (Adam-Smith, 1984, 16), and in America the creation of the Army Nursing Corps in 1901 (Bullough & Sentz, 2000, 77) opened the door for women to take part in some areas of the military, but only slightly. The outbreak of World War One was the major factor in the change of attitude towards nurses participating in the armed forces. Nurses were to become the most significant section of American and Australian women that directly took part in the war away from home. World War One was the most significant opportunity for nurses and other groups of women to have direct involvement in public, national affairs and not just indirect private family matters as it used to be. World War One was the first time on a large scale that gave women the opportunity to choose either direct or

Causes of WW1

2002-10-19T14:00:00-04:00

I think that the First World War was the product of long-standing rivalries rather than a badly mismanaged Balkan Crisis because it was these rivalries that led to the Balkan Crisis. The Balkan Crisis may appear mismanaged because previous crises such as those in Morocco in 1905 and 1911 did not result in war. In the July Crisis Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) despite not having conclusive proof. Austria-Hungary asked for German support to “eliminate Serbia as a power factor in the Balkans”. Germany agreed, offering her full support for Austria- Hungary to start a war with Serbia, and this became known as the “blank cheque”. Austria-Hungary and Germany could not have failed to realise the possibility of Russian intervention and a European war, suggesting to me that war was their objective. Austria-Hungary issued an impossible ultimatum to Serbia, which was likely to provoke a war. Serbia was given only 48 hours to reply, so was forced to think quickly, or other countries would be mobilized and ready to attack. Serbia accepted all but one point of the ultimatum. Consequently war was announced. If given more time Serbia could have discussed the issue further in a conference. The British foreign minister, Grey suggested a conference, but this was rejected by Germany and Austria-Hungary, suggesting that they had deliberate aims for war during the Balkan Crisis, rather than the Balkan Crisis being mismanaged. There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia’s influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria’s closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia’s Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist

The Humane Work of Nurses & Voluntary Aid Detachments during WW1

2002-05-04T14:00:00-04:00

The dictionary describes the word “ humane “ as … “…humane adj. Kind, compassionate, merciful.” and this was indeed so in the case of the volunteers who worked tirelessly to ease the suffering of the wounded soldiers of all combatants in the fields of northern France and Belgium, during the First World War. In the early days of the war, army nursing was strictly a male preserve, until it was necessary to recruit female nurses from the ranks of middle and upper class ladies. The warm summer days preceding the outbreak of war lent an air of adventure to the proceedings, and the feeling was that the coming conflict would be fought in a similar fashion to the previous cavalry and infantry- based battles of the nineteenth century. A few months intensive combat would be sufficient and everyone would be back in time for Christmas dinner. Similarly, these ladies were caught up in the initial fervour of patriotism, and being prohibited from fighting at the Front, were keen to “do their bit” for their country and their soldiers. Tired of knitting items of clothing destined for the trenches, they wanted to do something a little more substantial. The concept of `noblesse oblige` was suddenly revived as many stately homes and country houses opened their doors to wounded officers in need of convalescence, and everyone wanted to be seen in a nurse`s uniform. Indeed there were many well- connected aristocratic ladies who set up their own private ambulance groups, much to governmental consternation. The Dowager Duchess of Sutherland, through her contacts and single-minded determination, assisted the wounded at Namur, and used the fact that she was previously acquainted with both the German commandant and aide-de-camp to pester them for safe passage to Maubeuge. She wanted to get through the enemy lines to tend the Allied troops, but the commandant of Maubeuge put an escorted charabanc at her disposal and sent her to Ostend. The Millicent Sutherland Ambulance reached Renaix where the officer in charge sent them with a military escort to Brussels, where the American Ambassador, arranged for an American journalist to escort the party, with two German soldiers, to The Hague and thence Flushing and home. The publicity generated by her escapades set up an efficient and much- needed Red Cross hospital outside Calais. Women especially were keen to take up “the great adventure” because, for them, that` s exactly what it

How did the War change attitudes about how big a part a government should play in people's lives?

2002-03-04T13:00:00-05:00

“War” declared Trotsky, “is the locomotive of history” (Bourne, 1989,p. 191) When considering the attitude of the people towards the change governmental intervention had in their lives, one must consider a number of different aspects. The scene must firstly be set by ascertaining the mood of the people upon the outbreak of war, and this Bourne eloquently describes: “The British urban working class was the oldest industrial workforce in the world. Its class-consciousness was very strong. It was well organised. It had a sharp awareness of its industrial strength. It was quite remarkably strike-prone. It was also riven with divisions, petty snobberies and subtle distinctions. It was disciplined and deferential, conformist and hedonistic, patriotic and loyal. It showed little interest in radical ideologies. It had a vast fund of goodwill towards Britain` s national institutions, especially the monarchy and parliament. From the point of view of a hard- pressed government in time of war, the working class was far from intractable. There was, however, a sticking point. This was `fairness`, a concept deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture. Government could ignore `fairness` only at its peril. (Bourne, 1989, p. 204) These were the people the government were given the task of cajoling into acquiescence, people that had become accustomed to Free Trade, private enterprise and minimal governmental interference. Despite this scenario however, political Liberalism was seen to be evolving in response to social problems and the rise of labour, and the war became “the locomotive” which accelerated the change in British politics and society. It was only when the pressures of war were brought to bear, that the government gradually abandoned its laissez faire principles in favour of direct control. The goal was to fight a war, but simultaneously preserve the living standards of the civilians, so as to uphold morale on the home front and in the factories needed to supply the military front. Bourne suggests that: “The nature of this interference was characteristic. It involved a series of ad hoc responses to specific problems. These were made of necessity and not through choice. There was no overall plan and no philosophy of action.” (Bourne, 1989,p. 192) The desperate need for munitions was an early realisation of the need for state control, which later extended to shipping in 1916, food in 1917,coal in 1917, and food rationing in 1918. Both Lloyd George and Asquith` s ministries were reluctant to affront public opinion, especially the trade unions, consequently

The Treaty of Versailles

2002-03-03T13:00:00-05:00

Despite Woodrow Wilson’s plan for peace near the end of World War I, he failed to gain Congressional support for the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was intended to be a peace agreement between the Allies and the Germans. However, once the negotiation of the Treaty, the Allies found they had conflicting ideas and motives surrounding the reparations and wording of the Treaty. The Treaty formally placed the responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies and imposed on Germany the burden of paying the debts of war. In addition to foreign opposition, Wilson couldn’t even gain support for the treaty in the United States. Because of weaknesses in the treaty, domestic opposition, and failure to compromise, the treaty gained very little congressional support. The Treaty of Versailles was very controversial. Some countries opposed the treaty due to multiple weaknesses. For example, the Treaty humiliated Germany. The war-guilt clause forces Germany to accept sole responsibility for World War I. And although German militarism had played a major role in igniting the war, other countries in Europe had been guilty of provoking diplomatic crises before the war. Another weakness in the Treaty was that Russian government felt that the Treaty ignored its needs. In the Treaty, Russia was excluded from the peace conference, even though Russians had fought with the Allies for three year, and suffered higher casualties than any other country. There was also much dispute concerning the distribution of territory in the Treaty. The Treaty of Versailles established nine new countries, and changed many boundaries, and there was debate about the fairness. There was also much opposition to the treaty in the United States, which is what Woodrow Wilson faces when he returned with the treaty. Some people, including Herbert Hoover, believed it was too harsh. Others didn’t think the treaty really did any good because it shifted the set of colonial rulers to another set, instead of eliminating the imperialism. Also, some minorities objected to the treaty because the new boundaries it established for some countries didn’t satisfy their demands for independence. For example, Wilson hadn’t tried to obtain Ireland’s independence from Great Britain. Most of all, the opposition to the treaty in the United States was the debate over the League of Nations. A few opponents believed that the League of Nations threatened the U.S. foreign policy of staying clear of European affairs, the Monroe Doctrine.

Great War - changes in people's attitudes about government

2001-12-10T13:00:00-05:00

How far did the Great War change people's attitudes about how big a part a government should play in peoples's lives?

Causes of World War One

2001-09-07T14:00:00-04:00

World War One or ‘The Great War’ as it became known, occurred due to many causes, some of which still remain unexposed today. The obvious trigger for the war was the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on 28th June 1914. The assassination occurred during the Archduke’s visit to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Archduke was targeted due to the general feeling amongst Serbians that, once appointed to the throne, Ferdinand would continue the persecution of Serbs living within the borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just moments after the two had been shot; authorities arrested the culprit, Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian student, who was believed to have been linked to the Serbian terrorist organization, The Black Hand. Causes of the war also dealt with such ideologies as Nationalism, Imperialism and militarism along with the prominent alliance systems in Europe all strongly affected the outbreak of the war. All of these factors where established in many of Europe’s ‘Great Powers’ which consisted of Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. During the late nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries, Nationalism was a prominent movement that had spread itself across Europe. All major powers had strong feelings toward the concepts of supporting their own nation. Nationalists believed that their own nation’s needs must be met before that of other nations. These strong beliefs sometimes became obsessive as nationalists became so proud of their nation that they strived for it to become richer and more powerful than any other. This wave of national pride became a major problem for the Austro-Hungarian Empire as they attempted to maintain a form of order and control within the annexed area of Bosnia. This power was placed under threat due to the Slavonic peoples dislike of their Austro-Hungarian superiors and there desire to attach themselves to Serbia and create an independent state to be known as Yugoslavia, or ‘The Land of the South Slavs.’ This was seen as the reason for the assassination of Ferdinand and his wife. The assassination gave Austria-Hungary the ideal excuse to declare war against Serbia. An ultimatum was issued to Serbia stating that it must agree to all terms described in the ultimatum in order to avoid war. Austria-Hungary gave Serbia 48 hours to reply and clearly stated that all terms must be met and complied with. Serbia agreed to all terms

Cause of WWI - European Alliances

2001-05-29T14:00:00-04:00

The main cause of WWI was the European alliances. To what extent do you agree with this statement Before 1914 the five Great Powers, Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia controlled Europe. In 1914 World War One broke out in Europe. Historians have debated the causes ever since. As a historian it will be difficult to conclusively establish a single cause – a number of significant causes is a far more helpful outcome. Although the European Alliances were certainly a cause of WWI, there were many other causes as well. Along with the European Alliances there was Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism, and of course the physical conflicts leading up to the war. All these issues blew up the balloon of tension, which just needed a tiny pinprick to burst into war. The European Alliances had a major part in beginning WWI. After the build up of tension from Nationalism, Imperialism and Militarism, the Powers were worried about being attacked by each other. To counter this alliances were formed. Germany made a secret alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879. Three years later Italy joined this Dual Alliance to form the Triple Alliance because it was annoyed with France for stopping its plans to colonise North Africa. The rest of the Great Powers became increasingly worried about the strength of the Triple Alliance. Believing they could be defeated by Germany, Austria and Italy acting together. France and Russia agreed to help each other if attacked. Britain was worried because it had no allies among the Powers, but it was not prepared to ally with Germany after the Boer War. In 1904 France and Britain were prepared to forget their previous quarrels and enter an agreement. Finally in 1907 France brought all three nations together to form the Triple Entente. The Alliance System was definitely a prominent cause of WWI. If Germany hadn’t allied with Austria the war might’ve been averted. For example if a conflict occurred just between Germany and Great Britain the rest of Europe would not be pulled into it. World War One spread because of the Alliance system, even with the tension build up it would’ve still been just another European war. Nationalism was the next major long-term cause of WWI. Nationalism involved all those who shared a common language, history and culture. It was a strong feeling of support for one’s own nation. Nationalists believed that the needs of their nation were

Long and Short Term Causes of WWI

2001-05-13T14:00:00-04:00

There were several long-term events that led to the outbreak of World War One. The most prominent factors include: nationalism, militarism, imperialism, the Balkan and Morocco crises, and the alliance system. Ironically, these things were either started in response to, or upheld because of, one of the other factors. The alliance system was one of the last factors to emerge before the war. Consequentially, the contributions of this system to the beginning of the Great War have to be considered. Although the alliance system was a main cause of the First World War, it arose because of several other factors, and did not cause the war single handedly. Nationalism, the love and support of one's country, has always existed. In this era, however, it was to take part in the creation of one of the most famous wars in history. Since so much pride was devoted to countries, it made the possibilities of peace between past rivals less probable. It also meant that most nations, especially the great powers, would rather fight a war than back down from a rival's diplomatic provocation. In effect, nationalism was also a contributing factor to the alliance system. No country feels comfortable being in a war alone, and with the growing militaries in almost every country, allies provided much comfort. The supreme present of militarism, "a policy of aggressive military preparedness" , in this period of time gave all countries great reason to feel the heavy weight of an oncoming war. Great Britain's naval policy (to always be twice as big as the next two largest navies put together), along with the predominate feeling of war provided countries with a strong reason to try and create an incredibly strong military force. This led to an arms race, which made the impending war seem inevitable. The military planning in some countries also caused an increased fear of war. Since military machines were being developed, each country was appointing a general staff of experts. The greatest problem with this was that there was a fear that "some chief of staff, in order to maintain the schedule on his 'timetable', might force an order of mobilization and thus precipitate war." These two factors also led, in part, to the alliance system. If two or more countries are allied with each other then they have a better chance of defeating their common enemy if war is declared. They also have

Wilson's 14 Points vs. the Treaty of Versailles

2001-05-13T14:00:00-04:00

When the peace processes were to start after the finishing of World War One, there were four people who were major components in the treaty of Paris: Clemenceau, George, Orlando, and Wilson. Clemenceau wanted revenge on the German's by punishing them through the treaties because he believed that they were at fault for the war; George was in agreement with Clemenceau although he did not feel that Germany should suffer severe punishment; Orlando who wanted the irredenta to be re-established; and President Wilson of the United States of America wanted to create a mild peace with Germany in a fair way. In view of this, Wilson created fourteen points that he wanted accomplished in full as a result of the peace treaties. His fourteen points were his plan for a world peace and included plans for the end of secret treaties, freedom of the seas, free trade, arms reduction, the just settlement of colonial claims, the establishment of a League of Nations, and the evacuation of occupied territories and national self-determination. Many of his points were carried out in the Treaty of Versailles, although not all of them were successful or followed completely. Wilson's fourth point in his plan was the reduction of national armaments. He stated that there should be "adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments [would] be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety." In the Treaty of Versailles, it was stated that the German army was to be limited to 100,000 and that Germany was not allowed to draft its citizens or to have an air force. Also, Germany was no longer allowed to operate submarines because of the unrestricted submarine warfare that they had displayed during the war, and their naval ships were limited in size and in the amount that they were permitted to own. Furthermore, the Rhineland was to be permanently disarmed and occupied by the Allies for fifteen years to ensure that there would be no attacks against France that might start another war. In addition to this, it was stated that Germany would never be allowed to unite with Austria because they would form an incredibly strong fighting force. This resulted in much complaining by the Germans on the account that they believed they were being left without a military force significant enough to protect themselves. Also, the treaty did not require any of the other countries to perform

Was the Alliance System Responsible for the Outbreak of WWI?

2001-04-26T14:00:00-04:00

The importance of the alliance system that developed in Europe in the decades before World War I as a cause for it is still an important topic of debate and argument between modern historians. Some argue that the alliance system was a direct cause of the outbreak of war between all major countries in Europe while other historians prefer to state that the alliance configuration we observe before the war started was simply a symptom of the conflicts and disagreements, fears and envies that had been accumulating since the Bismarck system of alliances collapsed, and even before then. This last opinion is becoming more accepted as the one that describes the true importance of the actual alliance system as a cause of the war. In order to determine the importance of the alliance system as a cause for the war we must first explore the origins of these alliances. We will take high-point of the Bismarck system in 1878 as our starting point as the Franco-Prussian war is a key factor for the development of this system. The alliance system ideated by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck kept peace in Europe but its main aim was, however, to forestall the possibility that, in the event of war, Germany would have to fight it on two fronts (basically France and Russia). This was achieved by diplomatically isolating France so that its dream of recapturing its lost provinces of Alsace-Lorraine couldn’t be fulfilled. This was done by, firstly, the creation of the League of the Three Emperors or Dreikaiserbund. It was first projected as a meeting of the monarchs of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia in 1872 and confirmed the following year, the 22nd of October 1873. Here, the very general and formless agreement was given a more solid form by military agreements promising to help any country attacked by a fourth party. And all this even though that there was mutual rivalry between Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. This proved to be a concrete way to isolate France for as E. Eyck mentions, “the League ensured that neither Austria-Hungary nor Russia was available as an ally for France”. At this point, Bismarck didn’t consider Britain as a potential French ally as they had a long history of rivalry. Secondly, in 1887 the Reinsurance Treaty was signed with Russia in which it promised to support Russia’s claims to the strait and to

Article 231 of the treaty of versailles

2001-04-26T14:00:00-04:00

Firstly, we must proceed to explain the nature of Article 231 in order to be able to analyse its judgement about Germany’s responsibility for the war. After the war had ended, Europe’s, especially France’s economy was devastated. There was also a general desire for such a war never to repeat itself, as the first proof of modern warfare proved to be ruinous. To deal with this two issues the allied powers made Germany sign the “war guilt clause” which made it accept all the guilt for the war and because of this, pay reparations to the affected states. In this way France’s economy would theoretically recover faster while Germany was kept economically weak so it could never attempt to cause a war again. Even though at the time most non-German historians went along with this, while German historians were not happy with this interpretation for obvious reasons, after a few years opinion began to move away from only blaming Germany and accepted that other countries should also take part of the blame. However, in 1961 a German historian called Fritz Fischer proposed the idea that after all Germany should take most of the responsibility. These two points of view have been a cause for debate for historians and a final agreement has not yet been reached. While most historians accept that the key decisions for war in July 1914 were taken in Berlin, other factors such as German foreign policy (“Weltpolitik”) and the alliance system remain still as the grounds of discussion. To analyse in depth Germany’s guilt for the war we must first look at the most distant events and work our way up to the July crisis. To understand Germany’s actions that lead to war we shall look first at its foreign policy, specifically from the point were Bismarck’s policy ended in 1890. After Bismarck’s dismissal the Kaiser and his advisers were convinced that the most likely wars in Europe were Germany against France of Austria-Hungary against Russia and in neither case could Russia and Germany be on the same side because of the existing alliances. This meant the rupture of the Russo-German friendship and the starting point were the two fronts that battled in the Great War started to shape up. Another example of a failed attempt of alliance was that of with Britain. Kaiser Wilhelm inherited her mother’s admiration for English liberalism and the accepted view of

The Assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand : Trigger for War

2001-04-22T14:00:00-04:00

Bosnia and Herzegovina were provinces just south of Austria, which had, until 1878, been governed by the Turks. The Treaty of Berlin, in 1878, settled the disposition of lands lost by the Turks following their disastrous war with Russia. Austria was granted the power to administer the two provinces indefinitely. Many Bosnian-Serbs felt a strong nationalistic desire to have their province joined with that of their Serb brothers across the river in Serbia. Many in Serbia openly shared that desire. On October 6, 1908, Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina directly into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The reasons were complex. Annexation would remove any hopes Turkey might have for reclaiming the provinces. Full inclusion into the empire would give Bosnians full rights and privileges. It may have been an act of will by the Austrians, just to show that they were still an active, sovereign power. Two days later, many men, some of them ranking Serbian ministers, officials, and generals, held a meeting at City Hall in Belgrade. They founded a semi-secret society, Narodna Odbrana (National Defense), which gave Pan-Slavism a focus and an organization. The purpose of the group was to recruit and train partisans for a possible war between Serbia and Austria. They also undertook anti-Austrian propaganda and organized spies and saboteurs to operate within the empire's provinces. Satellite groups were formed in Slovinia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Istria. The Bosnian group went under the name Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia). Narodna Odbrana's work had been so effective that in 1909 a furious Austria pressured the Serbian government to put a stop to their anti-Austrian insurrection. Russia was not ready to stand fully behind Serbia should things come to a showdown, so Belgrade was grudgingly forced to comply. From then on, Narodna Odbrana concentrated on education and propaganda within Serbia, trying to fashion itself as a cultural organization. Many members formed a new, and again secret, organization to continue the terrorist actions. Ten men met on May 9, 1911 to form Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Union or Death), also known as The Black Hand. By 1914, there were several hundred members, perhaps as many as 2500. Many members were Serbian army officers. The professed goal of the group was the creation of a Greater Serbia, by use of violence, if necessary. The Black Hand trained guerillas and saboteurs and arranged political murders. The Black Hand was organized at the grassroots level in 3 to 5-member cells. Above them

Causes of the Great War

2001-04-17T14:00:00-04:00

The impact of the First World War is still with us. In many respects the events of modern Europe are a direct result of what happened during World War I. Adolph Hitler himself was a product of the First World War. World War I also gave Russian communists opportunity to overthrow the government in Russia and proclaim communism. The events that took place in "No Mans Land" definetly had an impact on the wars to come. The First World War had many causes. The spark of the Great War was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, soon to be at the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife by a Serbian nationalist, while traveling through Sarajevo. The Archduke was chosen as a target because Serbians feared that after he was at the throne, he would continue the persecution of Serbs living within the Austria-Hungary Empire. The Serbian terrorist organization, the Black Hand, had to carry out the assassination. The Arms Race is the second cause. Britain at that time was the largest empire in the world, and it also had the largest navy. The navy was so big and strong because the British needed to protect their empire and maintain the sea routes between the different colonies. Kaiser William of Germany hated and envied Britain for having a stronger navy than his. He increased the German navy and built many warships. Britain responded with building more ships and increasing its navy too. This started a race for building more and better warships and it created tension and competition between those two countries. The system of alliance were another major cause of the War. There was a feud between France and Germany about controlling the colonies, which leads to a greater conflict, the Great War. Europe at that time was divided into two rival alliance systems: Triple Entente that included Great Britain, France, and Russia and the Triple Alliance, which included the Central Powers of Austria- Hungary, Germany, and eventually the Turkish Empire. In order to balance the power, France and Russia signed an alliance. Russia saw itself as the 'protector of Slavs' in the war, and immediately mobilized. When the war began, the German decision that if they were going to have to fight Russia and France, they would strike at France first according to the Schlieffen Plan, and then turn West to Russia. Germans believed that Russia at the time was

League of Nations

2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00

What were the League of Nations and the peace Treaty of World War I? The League of Nations was an alliance created to unite all indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere into one confederation. It was Woodrow Wilson’s attempt at unity, peace and prosperity in Europe. It lasted from the 1920s to 1946. The League of Nations pushed for “peace without victory.” Woodrow wanted to redraw the map of Europe so that each nationality had its own country. He also wanted freedom of the sea and an end to secret diplomacy. The treaty of Versailles was what set the League of Nations in motion. The duty of the League of Nations was to enforce the Treaty of Versailles as well as other treaties. The League succeeds in many areas. One of them was settling Swedish-Finnish dispute over the Aland Islands, guaranteeing the security of Albania, rescuing Austria from economic disaster, settling the division of Upper Silesia, and preventing the outbreak of war in the Balkans between Greece and Bulgaria. In addition, the League extended considerable aid to refugees; it helped to suppress white slave and opium traffic; it did pioneering work in surveys of health; it extended financial aid to needy states; and it furthered international cooperation in labor relations and many other fields. However although it had its success’s it also had its failures. Most of the failures behind the League of Nations was due to the fact that the United States did not join. The Paris Peace Conference adopted the constitution of the League of Nations in April 1919. The League's headquarters were in Geneva and its first secretary-general was Sir Eric Drummond. As a result of the decision by the US Congress not to approve the Versailles Treaty, the United States never joined the League of Nations. Within years of its creation, the League of Nations had many disagreements in which member withdrew. France saw the League mainly as an instrument to maintain the territorial settlement and arms restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I. The Germans resented the League because it seemed to them, too, that this was the League's real purpose. British leaders saw it as a meeting place for powerful nations to consult in the event of a threat to peace. Japan withdrew from the League in 1933 because the League refused to recognize its conquest of Manchuria. Germany, admitted to the League in 1926, withdrew

What sparked WW1, How Did it End?

2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00

World War I was a war that took place I Eastern Europe during the years of 1914- 1918. This war involved the countries of Austria-Hungary and Serbia. The Serbians sparked these wars. In 1912, several Balkan states attacked Turkey. This sparked wars over these lands. Economic tension was also present. As international tensions grew, the great powers expanded their armies and navies. This gave the possibility of wars emerging at any time. Fear of war also gave military leaders great influence. British and German generals and admirals received the respect of the people and funding to build their forces. Serbia also wanted a South Slav empire, at this they would not stop for. A terrorist group called the Black Hand planned to kill the Archduke of Hungary Francis Ferdinand who planned to visit Sarajevo. On June 28th Gavrilo Princip assassinated Francis. Since he was under 20 years of age he was not executed. Instead he was sentenced to life in prison. He died in 1918 of tuberculosis. This severely angered the Austrians. They issued the Serbians an ultimatum. In it Austria stated to avoid war Serbia must end all anti-Austrian agitation and punish any Serbian officials involved in the murder plot. It must even let Austria join the investigation. Serbia agreed to most of the terms in the treaty, but not all. On July 28th Austria declared war on Serbia. Austria might not have declared war on Serbia if not for its longtime ally, Germany. In Berlin, Kaiser William II was horrified at the assignation of Francis Ferdinand and advised Francis Joseph to take a stand against the Serbia and assured him of German support. Instead of urging restraint, Germany gave Austria a “blank check.” Serbia sought support from Russia. From St. Petersburg Nicholas II telegraphed William II. The czar asked William to urge Austria to soften its demands on the ultimatum. When this plea failed, Russia began to mobilize its troops. Russia then appealed to its ally, France. In Paris, nationalists saw this as a chance to avenge Frances defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Italy remained neutral while Britain had to decide whether they should back their ally, France or remain neutral. Germany then decided to join the Russians and quickly defeat France in order to avoid a war on both sides of the country. This was their biggest fear. To quickly invade France, German armies had to march through

The Effects of World War One on Canada’s People

2000-04-27T14:00:00-04:00

When Britain called on Canada to help in World War One, Canadians dutifully volunteered. Many Canadians thought that this would be a glamorous adventure that they could not miss. However, Canadians were in for a rude awakening as this glamorous adventure turned out to be more than they bargained for. This was a new kind of war, one that cost Canadians dearly. Poor organization among troops, appalling war conditions Canadians endured and lack of effective leadership that did not support the best interests of Canadian troops all contributed to the pointless suffering Canadians endured in this supposed glamorous adventure. In the beginning, the poor organization among the troops resulted in some of the mishaps that occurred in battle. In particular, soldiers were all very inexperienced and needed a great deal of training. “Many recruits had only two hours of target practice a day-not nearly enough to prepare them for battle” (Newman 139). These green soldiers went into battle only knowing the basic necessities of combat. Without these vital techniques and lack of practice, the basic Private stood a slim chance of survival in the front lines. Poor organization was also evident when equipment was being outfitted for the Canadian troops. “On one occasion a load of boots arrived, all for the right foot” (Newman 139). As well, when Canadian troops were given equipment, it was often found to be inadequate. A Canadian soldier commented, “We have been given new black boots, magnificent things, huge, heavy ‘ammunition’ boots, and the wonderful thing is they don’t let water in. They are very big and they look like punts, but it’s dry feet now.” (Newman 140). In this, we are given the impression that the Canadian troops were provided with adequate boots; however they did not fit properly. The evident lack of organization caused unnecessary anguish for Canadian troops and their misconception of the war. Canadian soldiers endured much pointless suffering through the appalling conditions they encountered. The worst experience for Canadians was in the trenches. These endless zigzag trails were the soldiers’ home for as long as they were assigned duty to them. The trenches were often infested with “rats and lice… ‘There are millions! Some are huge fellows, nearly as big as cats…’ The soldiers often went weeks without washing or changing clothes, and most were infested with body lice” (Newman 141). Conditions were so wet and dirty and the men

The End of World War I

2000-02-17T13:00:00-05:00

As the news of the individual surrender spread, fellow Germans saw that they were losing the war and started mutinies. Many people told the Kaiser to seek an armistice with the allies. However, he did not show any intensions of giving up. With the end so close, many American newspapers started to create rumors that the armistice had signed been signed by the Germans. They assumed that our leaders were suing for peace. They were still only considering signing an armistice. The American armistice was based on Woodrow Wilson's fourteen-point plan. He did have a hard time convincing the other allies that the fourteen-point plan was going to work. Wilson who was wanted peace without actually winning the war. By the time the armistice was signed, the people of Germany were happy that the war had ended. The treaty was signed at Rethondes, France at 5:00 pm on November 11 1918. Two days earlier Kaiser Williams of Germany had abdicated and fled to the Netherlands. Prince Max of Beden had immediately accepted defeat. The word quickly passed along the front and at 11:00 the battles should stop. Many notes had passed between Prince Williams and President Wilson in the days that led to the armistice. All of the matters were discussed through notes although a representative was sent to explain the idea behind the fourteen point and other American theories that led to the formation of the armistice. After the armistice was signed and the war ended many of the Americans flooded the towns located near the front, they celebrated. Many sang their national anthem. The streets were crowded with people. The town center was so filled that you could hardly see anything. Church bells ringed through out Europe to praise the end of the war. Many people even sung huge flags of either America or France. Many of the soldiers just stared and wondered what was going on. They had seen all the death and did not realize why the men celebrated. Many people endorsed the fourteen-point plan. Some even thought that he would win the noble peace prize for his work during the tragic war. Many Americans believed that their president their war hero had ended the war with the fourteen points for peace. Many of the allies wanted to put and end to the war by claming victory and puncture the economy of Germany forever. However, Wilson said

How Nationalism in the Balkans Contributed to the Outbeak of WW1

1999-03-31T14:00:00-04:00

Nationalism in the Balkans helped contribute to the outbreak of WWI. Beginning in the late 19th century, the social unrest in the Balkan States became the focal point of many European powers. The Balkan peninsula was that of great importance due to its territorial and economic significance; however, the Balkan States consisted of many proud ethnic cultures who did not wish to be ruled by any authority other than themselves. The unification of other countries and strong patriotism fueled the desires of the Slavs, Greeks, Montenegrins, Rumanians, and Bulgarians to gain independence and revenge for the occupation of their lands by the Turks. This revolution sparked by strong nationalistic views led to the second largest war in human existence. Up until the early 20th century, the Balkan States were controlled by the Ottoman Empire; however, due to the decline of their power and prestige, the Balkan States found an opportunity to gain independence. The unification and formation of Italy and Germany as countries encouraged the Balkan revolt of 1875-8. The revolt spread like wild fire through the Balkan peninsula and with the aid of Russia, Turkey was defeated. Through this, the Balkan States: Serbia, Montenegro, and Rumania, gained increases in their land; thus, resulting in a stronger patriotic pride. Turkey, however, still controlled parts of the Balkans and this angered Balkan nationalism because they now felt capable of governing themselves. In 1885, the Bulgarian population of Eastern Rumelia revolted against Turkish rule and declared its union with Bulgaria . The Serbs became furious and proclaimed war because they felt threatened by this act. Surprisingly the Bulgarians proved to be a greater match for the Serbs and in the battle of Slivnitza, they were defeated. Britain agreed to the unification of Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria and the Balkan States again gained more power through their nationalistic ideologies. Religious tensions in Crete added to the possibility of war with a revolt in 1897 against Turkey. Due to the murders of both Muslims and Christians on the island, Crete and Greece declared war on Turkey. They were swiftly defeated within two weeks; however, because of the intervention of European powers, Turkey was forced to give up its possessions on the mainland. The Cretan revolt added to Balkan nationalism in this era and led the way for the formation of the Balkan League. The Balkan League was formed in 1912 by Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro. Their

The Causes and Effects of World War I

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

World War I was a military conflict from 1914 to 1918. It began as a local European war between Austria - Hungary and Serbia on July 28, 1914. It was transformed into a general European struggle by declaration of war against Russia on August 1, 1914 and eventually became a global war involving 32 nations. Twenty - eight of these nations, known as the Allies and the Associated Powers, and including Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and the United States, opposed the coalition known as the Central Powers, consisting of Germany, Austria - Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. The immediate cause of the war between Austria - Hungary and Serbia was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, at Sarajevo in Bosnia by Gavrilo Princip, a Serb nationalist. (Microsoft Encarta, 1996) On July 28 Austria declared war against Serbia, either because it felt Russia would not actually fight for Serbia, or because it was prepared to risk a general European conflict in order to put an end to the Greater Serbia movement. Russia responded by partially mobilizing against Austria. Germany warned Russia that continued mobilization would cause war with Germany, and it made Austria agree to discuss with Russia a possible change of the ultimatum to Serbia. Germany demanded, however, that Russia demobilize. Russia refused to do so, and on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia. (Microsoft Encarta, 1996) The French began to mobilize on the same day. On August 2, German troops invades Luxembourg and on August 3, Germany declared war on France. On August 2, the German government informed the government of Belgium of its intention to march on France through Belgium in order, as it claimed, to prevent an attack on Germany by French troops marching through Belgium. The Belgian government refused to allow the passage of German troops and called on the witnesses of the Treaty of 1839, which guaranteed the justice of Belgium in case of a conflict in which Great Britain, France, and Germany were involved, to observe their guarantee. Great Britain, one of the witnesses, on August 4, sent an ultimatum to Germany demanding that Belgian justice be respected. When Germany refused, Britain declared war on it the same day. Italy remained uninvolved until May 23, 1915, when, to satisfy its claims against Austria, it broke with the Triple Alliance and declared war on Austria - Hungary. In September 1914, Allied

The Versailles Treaty

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

In the peace settlement Germany was forced to accept sole responsibility for causing World War I. This was a totally justifiable demand on the part of the victorious powers. The Treaty of Versailles was enacted into history in June 1919 with Germany forced to accept sole responsibility for causing World War I. Since then there has been considerable debate concerning the war but even today historians still cannot fully agree upon the causes. Some support has been given to the theory that Germany was totally responsible for the war however substantial evidence does not support that view. Therefore the insistence by the victorious powers to include in the Treaty that Germany accept total blame cannot be justified. This essay examines certain events and actions prior to the July crisis. These caused tension and hostility among nations but did not have a direct bearing upon the war. Also it has been determined that there were decisions and courses of action taken by several nations following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand heir to the Austrian-Hungarian throne which did have a direct bearing upon World War I. Development of political and military alliances caused tension and hostility among nations leading up to World War I. Two major alliance systems developed due to conflicting national interests which had been evident during the past two decades throughout Europe. These were the "Triple Alliance" of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy and the "Triple Entente" of Britain, France and Russia. Also several smaller countries became indirectly involved in the alliances which effectively divided Europe into two "Armed Camps". Russia pledged to support Serbia in order to prevent further Austrian-Hungarian expansion into the Balkans. Germany stated its support for Austria-Hungary and Britain had given its support for Belgium's neutrality in 1839. However while these political and military alliances existed there is no direct evidence to indicate that any nation declared war on that basis. There had been several 'crisis' during the period 1905-1913. First the Moroccan crisis involving France and Germany during 1905 and 1911. No wars eventuated only tensions and fears regarding Germanys aggressive expansionist policies. Britain supported France being involved in Morocco and France conceded some territory in the Congo to Germany. Second the 1908 Balkans crisis eventuated because of the collapse of the Ottoman [Turkish] Empire. Austria-Hungary annexed the provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Serbia was insensed and sought Russian assistance. Germany became involved and Russia backed down. Finally

Veering Point

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

What were the causes and effects of World War I? The answer to this seemingly simple question is not elementary. There was more to the onset of the war then the event of an Austrian prince being murdered in Serbia, as is what most people consider to be the cause of World War I. Furthermore, the effects of the war were not just concentrated to a post-war era lasting for a generation of Westerners. No, the effects of the war were widespread throughout the world and can be traced to generations after the war.. It is not a rare occasion that when a person is asked what the causes of World War I were, that they answer with the simple comment of an Austrian Prince being shot in Serbia. However the assignation of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie , in Sarajevo was not the main cause of the Great War. Rather, it was the breaking point for Austria in its dealings with Serbia. The truth of the matter is that several factors played a role in the outbreak of the catastrophic war the engulfed the nations of Europe for over four years. World War I truly was the result of building aggressions among the countries of Europe which was backed by the rise of nationalism. To add to the disastrous pot, there was also imperial competition along with the fear of war prompting military alliances and an arms race. All of these increased the escalating tensions that lead to the outbreak of a world war. (Mckay, pg. 904) Two opposing alliances developed by the Bismarckian diplomacy after the Franco- Prussian War was one of the major causes of the war. In order to diplomatically isolate France, Bismarck formed the Three Emperor's League in 1872, which was an alliance between Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. Then in 1882 , Bismarck took advantage of Italian resentment toward France and formed the Triple Alliance between Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungry. In 1890 Bismarck was dismissed from his office and France took the opportunity to gain an ally, therefore , in 1891 the Franco- Russian Entente was formed. Then in 1904 Britain and France put aside their conflicts and formed the Entente Cordiale. As a result , the Triple Entente , a coalition between Great Britain, France , and Russia, countered the Triple Alliance. Now Europe was divided up into two armed camps.(World Book Encyclopedia,

Wartime Propaganda: World War I

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The Drift Towards War "Lead this people into war, and they'll forget there was ever such a thing as tolerance. To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fiber of national life, infecting the Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street." It is one of history's great ironies that Woodrow Wilson, who was re- elected as a peace candidate in 1916, led America into the first world war. With the help of a propaganda apparatus that was unparalleled in world history, Wilson forged a nation of immigrants into a fighting whole. An examination of public opinion before the war, propaganda efforts during the war, and the endurance of propaganda in peacetime raises significant questions about the viability of democracy as a governing principle. Like an undertow, America's drift toward war was subtle and forceful. According to the outspoken pacifist Randolph Bourne, war sentiment spread gradually among various intellectual groups. "With the aid of Roosevelt," wrote Bourne, "the murmurs became a monotonous chant, and finally a chorus so mighty that to be out of it was at first to be disreputable, and finally almost obscene." Once the war was underway, dissent was practically impossible. "If you believed our going into this war was a mistake," wrote The Nation in a post-war editorial, "if you held, as President Wilson did early in 1917, that the ideal outcome would be 'peace without victory,' you were a traitor." Forced to stand quietly on the sidelines while their neighbors stampeded towards war, many pacifists would have agreed with Bertrand Russell that "the greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of violent collective excitement." This frenzied support for the war was particularly remarkable in light of the fact that Wilson's re-election had been widely interpreted as a vote for peace. After all, in January of 1916, Wilson stated that "so far as I can remember, this is a government of the people, and this people is not going to choose war." In retrospect, it is apparent that the vote for Wilson cloaked profound cleavages in public opinion. At the time of his inauguration, immigrants constituted one third of the population. Allied and German propaganda revived old-world loyalties among "hyphenated" European- Americans, and

Comparison of German and French Soldiers' experiences

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The First World War was a horrible experience for all sides involved. No one was immune to the effects of this global conflict and each country was affected in various ways. However, one area of relative comparison can be noted in the experiences of the French and German soldiers. In gaining a better understanding of the French experience, Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est was particularly useful. Regarding the German soldier's experience, various selections from Erice Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front proved to be a valuable source of insight. A analysis of the above mentioned sources, one can note various similarities between the German and French armies during World War I in the areas of trench warfare, ill-fated troops, and military technology. Trench warfare was totally unbiased. The trench did not discriminate between cultures. This "new warfare" was unlike anything the world had seen before, millions of people died during a war that was supposed to be over in time for the holidays. Each side entrenched themselves in makeshift bunkers that attempted to provide protection from the incoming shells and brave soldiers. After receiving an order to overtake the enemies bunker, soldiers trounced their way through the land between the opposing armies that was referred to as "no man's land." The direness of the war was exemplified in a quotation taken from Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front, "Attacks alternate with counter-attacks and slowly the dead pile up in the field of craters between the trenches. We are able to bring in most of the wounded that do not lie too far off. But many have long to wait and we listen to them dying." (382) After years of this trench warfare, corpses of both German and French soldiers began to pile up and soldiers and civilians began to realize the futility of trench warfare. However, it was many years before any major thrusts were made along the Western front. As soldiers past away, recruits were ushered to the front to replenish the dead and crippled. These recruits were typically not well prepared for the rigors of war and were very often mowed down due to their stupidity. Both the French and Germans were guilty of sending ill-prepared youths to the front under the guise that "It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country." (380) Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est is a prime example of this

How the Treaty of Versailles Effected Germany

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

When World War I ended on November 11, 1918, peace talks went on for months due to the Allied leaders wanting to punish the enemy and "dividing the spoils of war." A formal agreement to end the war was made and called the Treaty of Versailles. The issue that took the most time were the territorial issues because the empires of Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman, and Germany had collapsed. These fallen empires had to be divided up and America's President Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau of France, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, and David Lloyd George of Great Britain, were the main deciders of this deal. During 1918, Russia was knocked out of the war due to military defeats and the Bolshevik Revolution. Even though Russia had not been part of the Central Powers, Germany seized much of western Russia. After many months of arguing, the four men had made western Russia into the nations of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland. The Treaty of Versailles was either a treaty of peace or a vengeance for the Germans. In April of 1919, Germany was previously captured and made to wait in a small house that was surrounded with barbed wire. The Allied, who captured Germany, wanted to make a peace treaty to end the fighting. The Germans agreed, but they wanted a treaty that was based on the Fourteen Points but obviously they were not going to get it because of the way they were treated; the barbed wire was unnecessary and "should have tipped them off to what lay ahead." When the treaty was first introduced to the Germans, they declined to sign it. It forced the Germans to accept full responsibility for the war and strip themselves of its colonies, coal fields, and the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. It also made them pay outrageous reparations to the Allies. Nevertheless, on June 28, 1919, the Germans reluctantly signed the treaty because the Allies refused to change one word. Out of the $33 billion dollars the Germans had to pay for damages, the country was only able to pay $4.5 billion of it. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles helped set the stage for another world war less than 20 years later because the Allied wanted to stop Germany from ever becoming imperialistic again and still have them pay the war reparations. Germany opposed these actions and was the most effected by the terms of the

Social, Political and Economic Effects of WWI

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

"Everywhere in the world was heard the sound of things breaking." Advanced European societies could not support long wars or so many thought prior to World War I. They were right in a way. The societies could not support a long war unchanged. The First World War left no aspect of European civilization untouched as pre-war governments were transformed to fight total war. The war metamorphed Europe socially, politicaly, economically, and intellectualy. European countries channeled all of their resources into total war which resulted in enormous social change. The result of working together for a common goal seemed to be unifying European societies. Death knocked down all barriers between people. All belligerents had enacted some form of a selective service which levelled classes in many ways. Wartime scarcities made luxury an impossibility and unfavorable. Reflecting this, clothing became uniform and utilitarian. Europeans would never again dress in fancy, elaborate costumes. Uniforms led the way in clothing change. The bright blue-and-red prewar French infantry uniforms had been changed after the first few months of the war, since they made whoever wore them into excellent targets for machine guns. Women's skirts rose above the ankle permanently and women became more of a part of society than ever. They undertook a variety of jobs previously held by men. They were now a part of clerical, secretarial work, and te! aching. They were also more widely employed in industrial jobs. By 1918, 37.6 percent of the work force in the Krupp armaments firm in Germany was female. In England the proportion of women works rose strikingly in public transport (for example, from 18,000 to 117,000 bus conductors), banking (9,500 to 63,700), and commerce (505,000 to 934,000). Many restrictions on women disappeared during the war. It became acceptable for young, employed, single middle-class women to have their own apartments, to go out without chaperones, and to smoke in public. It was only a matter of time before women received the right to vote in many belligerent countries. Strong forces were shaping the power and legal status of labor unions, too. The right of workers to organize was relatively new, about half a century. Employers fought to keep union organizers out of their plants and armed force was often used against striking workers. The universal rallying of workers towards their flag at the beginning of the war led to wider acceptance of unions. It was more

Why Australia Joined World War I In 1914

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

In 1914, Australia joined the First World War. Although it was seen as a European war, the Australia government decided that Australia should support its 'Mother Country', Britain. The prime-minister at the time, Joseph Cook, stated Australia's position : "Whatever happens, Australia is a part of the Empire, right to the full. When the Empire is at war, Australia is at war." Many Australians objected to the country's involvement in the war, but the majority of the population agreed with the government's decision. Australia joined the war for many reasons, but two main reasons were : Australia (as a counry) felt a loyalty towards the 'mother country', Britaain and that the war would be a good opportunity to improve Ausrtalia's international reputation. Many individual Australians also joined the war for a variety of reasons. Some felt a strong loyalty to Britain who had supported Australia, and now, they felt, was the time for them to 'do their bit'. Others enlsted simply to prove they were brave enough to fight, but some enlisted because their friends had. Some simply enlisted because they needed a job, pay, and regular meals, but many enlisted in the army for an adventure, not knowing the true horrors of war. Private A.J. McSparrow (former railway worker from Parramatta, NSW), was one of the many men whwo enlisted because he felt that it was his duty to support the 'mother country' ..."I have (enlisted) ... and I don't regret it in the very least. I believe that it is every young fellow's duty" and "... we are the sort of men who should go."Private Antill enlisted because he needed the money, clothes and food and also because it was easier work than cabinet making ..."I tell you what I have just joined the Australan army ... it's not bad money here 5/- a day and clothes and food that's nearly as good as cabinet making and not half as hard."Lieutenant D.G. Armstrong (former bank clerk from Kyneton, Victoria), thought that the war would be great opportunity to prove his strength and to show that he was not a coward..."I am going to have a try for the war ... I think I ought to go, they want all they can get and ... I think it's the greatest opportunity for a chap to make a man of himself, those that come back from this war will be

Causes of WWI

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The First World War had many causes; the historians probably have not yet discovered and discussed all of them so there might be more causes than what we know now. The spark of the Great War was the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife by a Serbian nationalist on the morning of June 28, 1914, while traveling in a motorcade through Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Archduke was chosen as a target because Serbians feared that after his ascension to the throne, he would continue the persecution of Serbs living within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Serbian terrorist organization, the Black Hand, had trained a small group of teenage operatives to infiltrate Bosnia and carry out the assassination of the Archduke. It is unclear how officially active the Serbian government was in the plot. However, it was uncovered years later that the leader of the Black Hand was also the head of Serbian military intelligence. In order to understand the complexity of the causes of the war, it is very helpful to know what was the opinion of the contemporaries about the causes of the Great War. In the reprint of the article "What Started the War", from August 17, 1915 issue of The Clock magazine published on the Internet the author writes: "It is thought that this war that is been ongoing for over a year, began with the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. However, many other reasons led to this war, some occurring as far back the late 1800's. Nationalism, militarism, imperialism, and the system of alliances were four main factors that pressed the great powers towards this explosive war." According to the article above, the author stresses that the nationalism was one of the primary causes of the war. In the ninetieth and twentieth centuries, especially after the French Revolution nationalism was becoming a powerful force in Europe so people that had the same culture, language wanted their own country. And that was the problem for the government of Austria-Hungary that did not want to lose their power and control. The Slavs in the southern part of the empire were their main concern since they wanted to join up to Serbia. Militarism is the second cause according to the article above, which comes after the nationalism. To understand what the author means by militarism one