- This topic has 5 voices and 19 replies.
-
Posts
-
In my reasearch and readings I came across this:
It is a delusion to suppose that examiners have no sadistic tendencies, but it would be a remarkably uninhibited sadist who set the question 'What caused the First World War?'1
1 Journal entry found on Questia by Robert Pearce, "The Origins of the First World War".I'm doing a paper on this, and one of the questions asked by the professor is "What are the major long range causes of the war?"So is the professor a sadist? (he's a tough grader!) Or does he exempt himself when he says "major" causes? 😀
Well I would really wonder why the author says they're sadist who ask that question. Does he think the answer simply too complex?
Well I would really wonder why the author says they're sadist who ask that question. Does he think the answer simply too complex?
It IS complex! 😮 Where do you start?
I agree with the overall complexity angle; the textbooks list all the basic premises; militarism, nationalism, the alliances (ad nauseum[sp]), and imperialism... we could add inbreeding as all the monarchs were related by blood or marriage (or both) to Queen Victoria... a family feud then?Seriously, there were many conflicting issues that made this war almost a given; the Congress of Vienna could only keep a lid on classical liberalism for so long. starting point then is the big four issues listed above.
I do feel I have to go back to at least the Franco-Prussian War in order to be thorough as far as long range causes go. It's difficult to summarize all that, though, in a short paper.
Remember this one was about Bismarck testing the Catholics as much as anything else; he was very concerned with unity and doubted their loyalty to German. Too, he wasn't interested in getting Austria into the fold as he considered them a mongrel nation.
Colonialism and entangling alliances are the primary culprits. Once the race for Africa was over, the only thing left to do was fight over spheres of influence, and this required interlocking alliances. Add in some jingoism, Darwinianism, and ethnocentric racism, you get a cauldran full of reasons why World War I was inevitable. Political Scientists like Hans Morgenthau would say World War I was inevitable because the balance of power tipped out of kilter which set off a chain reaction by one side wishing to restore the balance. Historians and Political Scientists see two very different processes at work, but both arrive at a very similar conclusion….socio-economic inertia led to the war. World War II was simply a continuation of the first war's inconclusive results. I could go on and on about this, but as was said above, it's terribly complex.
….World War II was simply a continuation of the first war's inconclusive results. I could go on and on about this, but as was said above, it's terribly complex.
Treaty of Versailles really helped promote round II... MacMillan's Paris 1919 really lays it out well.
What originated as a basic outline has now been transformed into a spider-web matrix. All these connections, oy! :-If anyone has any questions on European history from 1870-1914, ask away.
What originated as a basic outline has now been transformed into a spider-web matrix. All these connections, oy! :-If anyone has any questions on European history from 1870-1914, ask away.
Tell me the importance of Schleswig and Holstein.
Prussia and Austria took S-H from Denmark; then fought over it. Prussia wins…. [Guess I have to remember to bring the book home from work, eh?]
I was only kidding about the questions.Wasn't there some question about the throne?And Bismarck convinced Austria to go to war with them. Not sure if that was before Schleswig(?) became part of the North German Confederation or after (did they even become part of it?) but it was likely he wanted naval supremacy in the North Sea. Britain wasn't exactly thrilled with that.
S-H was another shatter zone; grew more Germanic all the time (customns and language but was part of Denmark and the Danes were wanting to enforce it. Good nationalist cause for Bismarck.Austria was part of the German Confederation (1815) but not part of the Zollverein (formed in 1834) and was showing signs of wanting to become the most powerful Germanic state... the flap over how to administer S-H was the opportunity for Bismarck to take them down a peg or two, get them out of the Conferation, and get sway over the other Germanic (Confederation) states with an eye toward unification. This was the Seven Weeks' War. This was the tune up for the Franco-Prussian War (six weeks duration); Napoleon III was taken prisoner and France was forced to pay $1 billion and give up Alsace-Lorraine. [See any bad blood brewing?]Enter the Second Reich....
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
