Germany Deserves some Blame for the Cause World War I?

I'm not going to go as far as to say that Germany deserved most of the blame for WWI. I'm not a historian with decades of in-depth research sufficient enough to know all knowledge required for determining the cause of WWI, and the historians themselves don't stand confirmed either. My opinion won't be an opinion- it would be an assumption based on what I can find out, meaning that I can't ally myself with any interpretations by any historians' logic.
 
World War I was obviously the first world war, a major type of war that involves the most influential and powerful nations within multiple continents. I'm going to place a little more blame on Germany, solely based on my knowledge of prior events. Germany's creation was a glorious one involving military strength and skillful alliances maintained by Otto von Bismarck. With Germany as a fairly young state, the national pride (nationalism) became a driving force and a result of its increase in military strength, imperialistic endeavors, and industrialization. Such sudden increase in strength and position gave it enemies, such as France after the Franco-Prussian War. Its self-sense of duty to compete in imperialistic endeavors also made it rivals with other nations, and Bismarck created quite a few alliances to ensure the balance of power in Europe largely in fear of a two front war encircling Germany. Of course, Wilhelm II removed Bismarck and drastically changed the policies. Germany was soon to be an aggressive imperialist nation in the spotlight, which would potentially be a drive for their paranoia. And by paranoia, it should be noted that Germany even had plans to defeat France and Russia right at the beginning of war. Why would one be so agressive in subduing mere "potential" enemies if it was only about an assassination while knowing that it would escalate fast? Bismarck isn't entirely without fault either, as the Triple Alliance was truly unnecessary. It has to be noted how Italy joined the alliance in anger at the French and for competition to seize foreign colonies. This ambition can sum up the motives of Bismarck, fueled by a salvageable conceived rivalry in Europe. It was because of this alliance that the Triple Entente was created, and the absence of Bismarck's policies left high tensions inevitable.

The beginning of conflict itself would still be manageable if Germany wasn't so aggressive in supporting its ally. To allow Austria-Hungary to start the conflict while knowing very well Russia's alliances was difficult for me to understand, but Germany's declaration of war against both France and Russia was no longer surprising. Even if Germany miscalculated Russia's reaction, the absence of Bismarck made WWI inevitable at this point. With whatever glory or national pride the Germans had, they definitely triggered the patriotism of other nations. As I stated before, a world war also involves other continents. If the European war wasn't to be considered a world war yet, Germany certainly did drag Britain in with the blatant attack on the neutral country Belgium. With Britain being the most important overseas colonizer, the conflict amongst German and British/French colonies would make the war multi-continental. Another blatant plan to attack the USA with Mexico dragged the major power from another continent into war. Even Japan entered to oppose Germany's colonies. Without Germany, the war wouldn't have escalated to the entire Europe, and again without Germany, the entire world.

"My Daily Journal" Journal of Pvt. Donald Fraser (1915-1916)

This is excerpt of a Canadian soldier serving in WWI, whose name was Donald Fraser. The text recounts his experiences of heading into the Western Front, including a high amount of detail ranging from various tasks and equipment to the notable deaths of each comrade beside him. Trench warfare was a stalemate, only that most individuals only felt loss. The trenches were where the soldiers resided between the intervals of charging across “No Man’s Land”. Despite it being their only place of half decent security, the overall environment was nothing short of a hole dug in a war zone terraformed by bombs, steel, and chemicals. If there were any other species, it had to be mice. Other than how loud the artilleries and explosions were, how unsanitary the holes were, and how there were limited food rations, it was either all this or a chance at death just a head away from the trenches. Now assuming that one was a survivor for at least a month, he would be help carrying sandbags and digging trenches the majority of the time. If the trenches weren’t enough to break a man’s soul, the charges across “No Man’s Land” ought to. If knowing that you were to die any second while charge straight forward to increase that probability wasn’t terrible, very little else would be. The fact that the opposition were usually already firing at the beginning of the trenches told how low the survival rate was. The collection of dead, torn-apart bodies in the cold, humid atmosphere became the icing on the cake. The transition from life to death was brief. But all of these, according to Fraser, applied to the majority that died early off in the frontlines. There were a minority, often safe within the trenches that were even rewarded with medals due to their survival rate.

The British in India

How were sentiments of the various authors in the primary sources (from the Seminar) reflected in the actions of the British?

The British sentiment to exploit and expand their own market onto India well reflected the "Foriegn and Colonial Speeches" by Joseph Chamberlain. Unlike other primary sources on Britain, this compilation of speeches focused more heavily on economy and the creation of a new market. The dominion of India greatly helped, as British abused its raw materials to sell manufactured products back while prohibiting Indians to sell products of any kind outside of Britain. The source even directly tackles Britain's Indian dependency.

How did the British maintain control in India and what were the biggest barriers to control? How did Britain’s exercise of control change over time?

The most difficult barrier was the lack of cooperation and the abundance of violence and rebellions in correlation with Indian nationalism. The unrest within the dominion was to be expected from this one-sided situation going to the benefits of only Britian, although it took the British a long time to grasp this simple concept. It wasn't until boycotting and a period of violence when the British finally made concessions.

To what extent did British imperialism encourage Indian nationalism? 

Indian nationalism can very much be compared to Italian nationalism during the course of its unification. It was the united feeling of threat, anger, emotion, and inequality that managed to encourage the Indians to long for their own nation with their control over it. They believed that the British were destroying their culture, their basic rights, and their ability to develop, all of which were fundamental things a citizen would have in his or her ideal nation. This threat managed to unite them and long for their own nation.

Motivations for Imperial Expansion

 

 

(Note: You'll have to zoom in or click the image.)

Political Change and Nationalism (Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Empire)

 



Austro-Hungarian Empire

• Political Change: 8
• With the creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire came about the new governmental system of a dual monarchy. Capitalism was introduced, bringing about industrialization which strengthened the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s economy, allowing them to be the 4th biggest machine-producer prior to World War I. Austria and Hungary had extensive trading, further strengthening their economy.
• Nationalism: 9
• Nationalism was an incredibly significant driving force for political changes. Many nationalist revolutions occurred, forcing the old governmental system out of place. As a result, a new government (dual-monarchy) was brought in, and so did the rest of the political changes.

Ottoman Empire

• Political Change: 6
• One of the factors involving political change includes the amount of reforms. As a part of Muhammad Ali’s Modernizing Program, and Rifa’a al-Tahtawi was sent to study in France. He became known as one of the first reformers in the Arab world, showing an open mind to European society. His emphasis on education for both boys and girls was carried on by several other reformers. Muhammad Abdul was one of the most revered reformers, and his influence allowed for the creation of many schools for a wide variety of ethnic groups. Politically however, the Ottoman Empire didn’t undergo major changes throughout the 19th century, although it represented their decline with loss of unity, land, and power.
• Nationalism: 3
• There was some degree of nationalism within the Ottoman Empire. The ideal of identity based on nationalism instead of religion contradicted with the Ottoman Empire itself, and secret societies consisting of high intellectuals that meet to discuss key political issues with their identity as a whole. The immediate political effect was nonexistent, as the Ottoman Empire remained in power with the same focus on religion until World War I. It however did contribute to the fall of the empire with different ethnic groups coming to realize their identity and their will to become their own nation.

 

Russia

• Political Change: 4
• Bukhara became a popular trading center which reaped vast amounts of profit with foreign countries. Zemstvo’s were created as a district assembly for rural areas to give the people some local control. It was responsible for education, medical care, veterinary service, insurance, local roads, and food supplies. Other towns were given similar benefits but in the form of limited democracy, with representatives elected by rich property owners. These reforms were all taken back. The judiciary became a separate branch of the government with bureaucratic secrecy removed. The czars ended with the arrival of Communism at the beginning of the 20th century.
• Nationalism: 6
• The wide variety of ethnic groups, such as Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, White Russians, Bulgarians, Poles, and Byelorussians eventually led to conflict with nationalism for Russia. While Peter the Great’s reign did bring a degree of modernization and nationalism, it did not emerge until the emergence of the Soviet Union. It’s important to note how this nationalism refers to Russia, and how there were an abundant amount of nationalism for specific ethnic groups that didn’t break away until the fall of the Soviet Union. The lack of nationalism for Russia as a whole led to the Revolution of 1905.

 

 

Reforms for Labor Conditions

It's about time we, as the government of the people, and you, as the people, finally step up once again into action to support our struggle for financial success for all, which would be the better economy for Great Britain. For a long time the government as a whole supported trade and business for the people, and you the people have enhanced our economy with your competitive nature within this changing society. We have created roads and canals for transportation of goods and raw materials, we have developed our navy to dominate overseas and bring in more valuables, and we have supported private business. But we have not fully supported the people, and how are we forgetting the driving force of this revolution? The working people, struggling to survive, working for our benefit, have not benefited from this so called improvement to our society. Work is to be expected from us to improve, but we cannot have women and children bent down under machines, working like slaves, treated like slaves, can we? Important men of society, remember this is not just a step up to competition for profit- this is an enlightened society. Years of history has clouded our minds, but if you look up at your ancesters and look down at the weak and the poor:

"I have seen my master, Luke Taylor, with a horse whip standing outside the mill when the children have come too late.........he lashed them all the way to the mill." John Fairbrother, an overlooker, interviewed in 1819.

"Sarah Golding was poorly and so she stopped her machine. James Birch, the overlooker, knocked her to the floor. She got up as well as she could. He knocked her down again. Then she was carried to her house.......she was found dead in her bed. There was another girl called Mary......she knocked her food can to the floor. The master, Mr. Newton, kicked her and caused her to wear away till she died. There was another, Caroline Thompson, who was beaten till she went out of her mind. The overlookers used to cut off the hair of any girl caught talking to a lad. This head shaving was a dreadful punishment. We were more afraid of it than any other punishment for girls are proud of their hair." An interview in 1849 with an unknown woman who worked in a cotton factory as a child. 

What we are, are brutal savages with technology to fascilitate this competition. We help these people, then we will help society. We help the workers, then we will get more quality products. We help improve the lives, and our only path would be forward. Shorter work hours mean lower wages but more employment for more people. The less fatigue the people have, the high the quality, and so selling price. The fact that more people get employed would mean more can buy, and so the quality raise will also come with a justified price. It should be expected of all decent human beings to not torture any employees, as they are not slaves. When everyone's standards of life improve, so will yours.

To what extent were the revolutions in America and France successful democratic revolutions?

When it comes down to popular belief and a brief glance at these two revolutions, an average person may call the American Revolution more successful than the French Revolution, and therefore more democratic. It is true that these revolutions were started for democratic values, but they underwent a different process and had drastically different results. It's not just that they had different democratic values- they were not and never aimed for a democracy at the end. The American and French Revolution went intended for some democratic values and implemented some of them in either the process or the end of each revolution, but were hardly a democracy, due to the fact that they both failed to achieve equal representation and rights for all citizens, and were only even considered similar at first due to how they opposed the monarchy. It's important to state what exactly a democracy is, then to analyze each revolution from the process to results. With that being said, the two revolutions at the very most only utilized democratic ideas, but not democracy itself.

One of the biggest differences between the goals of the two revolutions and monarchies is the citizen participation within the government. Democratic ideals are supposed to give all citizens equal representation within the government. All citizens would be equal under laws and consequences, and all citizens would have the same amount of rights. In representative democracy, free elections will also be available to all citizens to choose their representation within the government. (Manning, Democracy) No matter if it's parliamentary monarchy in Britain or absolute monarchy in France, these factors were limited to privileges for religious people, nobles, or royal families. However, even the democratic ideas failed to address the inequalities during the time periods of the two revolutions, such as racial tensions and male dominance in society. With these factors in mind, only the process and results can judge how democratic the two revolutions are. Granted, it takes time to improve a political system closer to an idealistic level (which we still have trouble doing), the democratic values aren't held very high in different areas of each revolution. Just to give a perspective, the US is and has always been a "republic", meaning that it doesn't even need to implement all democratic ideals.

The American Revolution was fought between the British colonies in America and Great Britain itself. The famous reason for war was the fact that the colonies had no representation within the Parliament, and so endured with whatever law that was imposed on them. A little before the revolution, the British started milking any profit it can obtain out of the colonies by taxing a high variety of exports to the colonies. The tensions increased after several provoking actions from the two sides, and shots were finally fired. But why was the war fought? The leaders of the revolution held their ideas thinkers such as John Locke, and literally stated what he stated. "Freedom and liberty for all. Proper representation for the citizens within the government, and even creating a new government if necessary." While these quotes weren't exact, they existed within the "Declaration of Independence". These documents at the beginning of war stated how the government failed to represent the people, and so how the people deserved independence. While it holds some democratic values, it has however, never specified what "people", and in failing to do so imbeds old values within these ideals. These "old values" include gender inequality, racial inequality, and the failure of representation of the general people- even most white men.

The process of the American Revolution didn't include surprising or impressive innovations to politics. It was merely a war for independence, and the creating of the government didn't begin until after the colonies' victory. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1778 to form the republic, and the government strived to hold several democratic values for some people. It was however, obviously not a democracy, and nor was that ever stated within the Constitution. The democratic values came mainly from the Bill of Rights, which within the First Amendment included the "Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly." In terms of democracy, this gave the people their part within the government, but it stops around there. The people didn't have equal participation rights within the government. First of all, unlike democracy, it's obviously a representative elected by the people to represent the people. Even then, only white males meeting age and property requirements could vote, leading to only 10-16 of the population voting. (Rowen, US Voting Rights) Since slaves are considered property, they don't get basic human rights and aren't protected by the government ether. Considering the fact that the US relied in slavery for its economy, democratic values were suppressed. On the long term, abolitionist groups were founded as early as 1775, the year the revolution started. These events also sparked the eventual push for gender equality, as women were seen absolutely necessary for education, and so the idea of a republic. Some of the earliest changes within the government ties with "Freedom of Religion"; the state will be separated from religion. The Anglican Church of Britain was obviously shut down after the revolution. (Societal Impacts, U.S. History) The revolution wasn't democratic, as the outline for the government wasn't made until after the war. The result wasn't very democratic either, as the people didn't have equal participation within the government, didn't have equal rights, and the government didn't fully represent the population either. No republic would ever make all citizens equal like democracy.

The French Revolution took place during the reign of Louis the XVI, after its involvement in the American Revolution and the Seven Years War. These wars increased the amount of debt, and Louis the XVI's poor decisions didn't deal with these problems or even acknowledge them. The centralized monarchy and nobles lavishly spent on luxuries. France at the time kept to old traditions, such as separation of the population into three estates. The first estate consisted of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church while the second estate consisted of the nobles. The third estate included everyone else, representing 97% of France's population. (Ramírez, Susan E., Peter N. Stearns, Samuel S. Wineburg, and Steven A. Goldberg, 196-197) Since it's an absolute monarchy, the king is able to do whatever he wants, and that absolutely did not include granting rights and freedoms to the people. In order to pay the debts, the king needed to tax the people. The nobles resisted, and so the target went to the third estate. It doesn't take much to sympathize with the third estate with most of them living in terrible, unfair conditions, already paying high taxes to the first two estates and the monarchy, heavy labor, starvation due to a recent drought, and having little power over their lives. Needless to say, some people looked at the American Revolution, realized they can make a change, and decided to take action. The first act with democratic values includes a request on reform on voting procedures on the meeting of the three estates. The third estate wanted more representation within this assembly since they made up the majority of the population. With disapproval from the king, the third estate created the "National Assembly", and declared that the true government of France. The "Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen" has very similar democratic content to the Declaration of Independence. They both sought for freedom and equal rights in all, resistance to government if they don't support the citizens, and equal representation with citizens within the government. While these are very democratic goals, common knowledge of the French Revolution was enough to prove that many of these values didn't keep up.

France turned into a republic after the end of the monarchy, and the first two estates lost all their privileges. Things took a drastic turn due to the high influence of the radical representatives. Famous events such as the "Reign of Terror" proved how the freedom of speech, opinion, press, and to oppose the government were suppressed. The representation of the people within the republic was low. The members of the National Convention weren't there due to an election available to all people, and any opposition to the dominant radicals were destroyed and slaughtered. (Robespierre, Use of Terror) This effectively shut down most of the rights promised by the "Declaration of the Right of Man and the Citizen", other than the equality given to nearly everyone. While one had much protected rights, everyone had the same amount. There were no more privileges to some people, although there were still gender inequalities. Olympe de Gauges, an advocate of women's rights, was also sent to the guillotine. The French Revolution also dechristianized the nation. While it removed the freedom of religion for Christianity, it opened up the freedom of religion for others due to the fact that the Catholic Church will no longer ever have a tight control on France again. (Dunn, Secularizing the Sacred) After the revolution when Napoleon took control, he made sure to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, making way for religious freedom on the long term. While the dictator himself held many democratic ideas to gain popularity, those weren't present in the revolution itself. (Hosack, Concordat/French Revolution) People simply wanted peace and stability, and looked away from the direction the revolution took. The democratic ideals were tossed out in favor of extreme actions of paranoid by members of the National Convention, and the use of terror lost the revolution its popularity. There was a rebellion (Bogle, Vendée Catholics) that was fought to preserve Catholic Christianity, proving how separated the people were on this revolution, despite the "representatives" who are really just members deemed appropriate for the National Convention. The revolution was not democratic, and didn't give positive results until Napoleon implemented some democratic ideals.

The American and French Revolution aimed for certain democratic ideals presented by thinkers, which included improved equality and rights for the people, and how the government should protect them. The American Revolution ended up with a successful, surviving republic, but was hindered by many of the old traditions, including gender inequality, racial inequality, and the lack of representation from the population to vote. The government however strived to emphasize on some basic rights, as presented by the Bill of Rights. Much like the American Revolution, the French Revolution started out to eliminate inequalities amongst citizens, including equal rights for all, a government's duty to protect those rights, and the government's duty to serve the people. However, most of these rights listed in the "Declaration of Right of Man and the Citizen" were forgotten, as soon the revolution became a slaughter-fest. The freedom of speech, opinion, and press were all denied while one specific religion was also banned. There were constant internal conflicts and rebellions to this revolution. The result was a popular appeal from a dictatorship, which goes to show how successful this "democratic" crusade turned out. At the end, the American Revolution and the French Revolution weren't very democratic in terms of process and result, although they did set some foundation on the democratic enlightenment ideals on the long run.

Bibliography:

• "Bill of Rights." Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights Comments. Bill of Rights Institute, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/.
• "Declaration of the Rights of Man." Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2014. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.
• Manning, Gareth Andrew. "Democracy." Honors World History. Taiwan, Hsinchu City. 1 Dec. 2014. Lecture.
• Ramírez, Susan E., Peter N. Stearns, Samuel S. Wineburg, and Steven A. Goldberg. Holt World History: Human Legacy. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2008. Print.
• Hosack, Kristen A. "Napoleon Bonaparte’s Concordat and the French." Thesis. Illinois Wesleyan University, 2010. (n.d.): n. pag. Institution Repositories. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=constructing
• Dunn, Justin. "Secularizing the Sacred: The Effort to Dechristianize France During the French Revolution." (n.d.): n. pag. Primary Source. Indiana University. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Current%20Articles/Spring2014/2014%20-%20Spring%20-%205%20-%20Dunn%20Justin.pdf.
• Robespierre, Maximilien. "Justification on the Use of Terror." HistoryWiz. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/justificationterror.htm.
• "Societal Impacts of the American Revolution." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. http://www.ushistory.org/us/12.asp.
• "The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
• "U.S. Constitution." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview.
• Rowen, Beth. "US Voting Rights." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2014. http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html.
• Bogle, James. "Vendée Catholics during the French Revolution." Vendée Catholics during the French Revolution. AD2000, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1996/jul1996p12_799.html.