In this essay I will argue both sides of this argument using sources to back up my points, however ever maintaining the fact I agree. German aggression can be seen as being responsible for the outbreak of a General European war due to the Schlieffen plan. This plan devised by General von Schlieffen would give Germany the option of fighting a war on two fronts with the French and the Russians. Both sources 1 and 2 agree that this plan was aggressive and therefore agree with the statement herein. Source 1 state’s that ‘as early as 1906, Germany had in place a plan for an aggressive war.’ Suggesting that the plan was put in place to start a war when the time was right.
Contrastingly, James Joll suggests that Germany’s defensive offensive war rooted from a fear of encirclement from the countries that it borders, and so presents the opinion most opposing to that of the question. L.F.C Turner’s opinion arises somewhere between the two other historians’ arguments, and states that Germany was aggressive during Europe’s last month of peace before war, but there were other factors that should be considered equally. On the one hand, it was German aggression that was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. One example of suggested German aggression can be seen in their long term foreign policy, ‘weltpolitik’ (world politics), which had been implemented in 1897. The aim of this foreign policy was to spread German influence throughout the world, the meaning of which is interpreted differently by different people.
(2) The laws of war cannot be precisely deduced from history for the obvious reason that history never exactly repeats itself. Certain teachings in the school of history remain constant, but because of change theories of the future are thoroughly presumptive. (3) History helps the strategist ask the right questions to define the problem. The questions, suggested by the history of war and diplomacy, are: What is it about? What is the proper way to go about it?
Strategic Studies What were Clausewitz’s most important and/or enduring contributions to the theory of warfare? Clausewitz’s intended On War to be a practical military philosophy, for a commander, on ideas about strategy to help him understand war and to successfully achieve his purpose in war (Bassford, P11). Some of the theories and strategies he presented in On War are both important and enduring contributions to the theory of warfare and made him a leading figure in the pantheon of strategic thinkers. Clausewitz applied scientific methodology to analysing strategy in a systematic fashion as he believed that the purpose of theory is not to uncover fixed laws or principles, but rather to educate the mind. Of all the ideas and theories Clausewitz presented in On War, my belief is that the most important and enduring elements are his idea that war is an extension of policy, his analysis of strategy, the trinity theory and his explanation of the components of war including friction in war, the fog of war and his centre of gravity theory.
Shortly after assuming the title of German führer in 1934, Hitler moved to consolidate his rule by controlling the German people through carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns. • Erwin Rommel (1891-1944) In January 1944, Rommel was made commander in chief of all German armies from the Netherlands to the Loire River. Some themes that I can connect from this event is, in the face of evil and destruction soldiers remain soldiers. This means that even with war in their face, soldier will remain strong and they preserver through. Another theme that can connect with this event is war can only can pain and suffering.
This should allow one to reach an informed conclusion. In order to answer the first part of the question, this paper will now proceed to explain the causes and major events of the cold war according to the revisionist approach. In this, the focus must be on the revisionist approach first, and not the, to be discussed events. In the revisionist approach USA is seen as driving force of Cold War. The Soviet Union is seen defensive in its actions and its policies are argued to be a response to those of America (Lundestad, 2010:9).
In his introductory statement, Rose preludes that the jury “is the essential component of the American Democracy”. Personalizing his argument by stating that “ on election day, we vote”, Rose alludes to the central conflict that needs to be Resolved within his play. Brick by brick, Rose builds up his prose throughout the longevity of the Jurors tension strung debacle. Sole voice of authority and unbiased opinion, Rose presents the foreman (Juror 1) as the gavel that regulates the conflict of the jury’s opinions. Initially his voice of reason implores to the conscience of the reader to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully”.
Stoessinger also calls out five presidents that helped America be torn apart; Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Stoessinger’s book is set up in a close proximity to chronological order. Stoessinger also clearly defines his thesis and personal opinion about each war, then follows with prime sources about the events. In regards to World War I, Stoessinger clearly states he believes the German Kaiser Wilhelm was to blame on the large outbreak of war. Stoessinger states that humans make the choice to go to war based on fears.
To what extent did events in the final year of the Second World War turn wartime allies into Cold War enemies? I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, I, my brother and our cousin against our neighbour, all of us against the foreigner. This Bedouin proverb strikingly summarizes the transition from wartime allies to enemies in 1945: it is the compulsion to fight the enemy that glues together even the most unlikely of allies. The reason why the USA and UK fought alongside the USSR during the Second World War was their common will to defeat Nazi Germany. This was also the motivation behind Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill’s cooperation during the Yalta conference of February 1945, as the war against Germany, although in its final stages, was still raging.
Modern European History, John R Barber, Ph D Ball State University, HarperPernnial A division of Collins Publishers pg230 ) that Germany got involved in the war in the first place. Under the Dual alliance ‘The central powers (Austria and Germany) promise to defend one another against if either country was ever attacked while under the Triple alliance Italy and Austro-German