Hitler & Mussolini's Rise to Power Comparison

Hitler and Mussolini made use of the great depression during the 1930’s to rise to power. At that time German economy was crushed and Italy was also affected but after a year or so, since their economy did not depend on the global economy. Both were able to come up with solutions to aid the economy and thus attracting the commoners to vote for them and support them in order to fight off the great depression. However they both had different leading causal factors in mind while trying to gain control of their countries. Although these causal factors were influenced by certain events from the 1^st world war, Hitler’s intentions were more nationalistic while Mussolini’s intentions were imperialistic. Though they did have similar goals, Mussolini and Hitler both want to be powerful and controlling, Mussolini wanted to be superior while Hitler wanted to dominate Europe which is also a form of superiority. Their rise to power also scared the French, they were in fear that Fascist powers were becoming too strong, yet they were more fearful of communism spreading which allowed Mussolini and Hitler to abuse that fact and fool France and England.

Hitler’s purposes derived mainly from the Treaty of Versailles and effects of the 1st world war. These influenced the nationalistic intentions of Hitler before and during his reign. He was unhappy with the results of the Treaty, or even disgraced that Germany would accept the war guilt clause even if it wasn’t their fault. Thus he decided to bring back Germany its pride and raise the morality of the people once he took over. This seems rather fair since his auspicious intentions showed no harm to England or France. At first Hitler wanted to blame communists for troubles in Germany, it is said that the Reichstag fire was caused by Nazi’s and they framed a communist man. It was the first steps of spreading fear of communism in Germany. Another successful advantage for Hitler and leading to his rise in power. A series of events occurred after that fire such as the Emergency Decree that was obtained to create a form of security and protect the nation or state. With a few modifications such as getting rid of the civil rights or imprisoning a doubted person without holding a trial. This can be viewed as preparation for getting rid of anyone who would oppose Hitler. Eventually towards the elections Hitler’s impacts on Hindenburg caused the Reich to be dissolved, allowing the Nazi party to rise and take control after gaining 44% of the votes which eventually led to Hitler changing the laws in the Nazi party’s favor and eventually after Hindenburg's death, Hitler becomes Fuhrer. Even though it seems quite harsh the way Hitler proceeded to take over Germany at first and create “German Fascism” by manipulating people. If we think about it now it seems very despicable yet at the same time rather intelligent for a man to choose the right time and plan everything almost perfectly.

Italy’s dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles also led Mussolini to rise and rebel since the previous governments were restricted. Mussolini was the “father of Fascism”, he was the one who created it and wrote the “Doctrine of Fascism” before Hitler. Mussolini also had goals that he wanted to achieve when he took over. His rise to power process took some time and wasn’t as easy as Hitler’s. Even if some people believe that it was difficult, with the events that led to his dictatorship we see the opposite, it was as easy since Italy was almost as weak as Germany may be less but he had just as much advantages as Hitler did. Perhaps we could say that he was less prepared and didn't plan as well as Hitler when trying to take control. Mussolini first formed his Fascist party and became recognized by the government. The governments status was unstable at that time which allowed him to smoothly take over and become the dictator of Italy or as he named himself “Il Duce” which means “the Leader” in Italian. After declaring his dictatorship Mussolini enforced a set of laws to serve him and his Fascist party in Italy. These laws were called the Acerbo Law; these laws provided Mussolini with ⅔ of the sears of the Parliament. Mussolini took the necessary actions to secure his position and control other parties. He restricted them since they were some form of a threat to him and he could be easily overthrown if one was unhappy with his future actions just like all the previous leaders that were unable to control Italy.

As i had mentioned both Hitler and Mussolini had different intentions towards the treaty of Versailles. Even if both of them wanted to make reforms they were to serve different purposes that were somewhat personal but also mattered to the public. for example Hitler viewed the Treaty of Versailles very personally, the fact that Germany lost its pride, lands, rights and was completely weakened by England and France, he wanted to make reforms because he believed the treaty was too harsh on Germany. While Mussolini was more interested in the fact that England and France didn’t fulfill their promises, they didn’t give Italy all the land they were promised prior to the war. Mussolini was offended and it was also a great time for him to occupy lands with resources since Italy was in need of raw material due to the Great Depression. Germany was also having a hard time recovering from the economic crash yet with Hitler’s preparations for a possible war and weapons, it allowed German economy to quickly reform and become self-sufficient. In order for Germany to be able to carry out its plans for reforming the country, they withdrew from the League of Nations and made preparations that were against the Treaty of Versailles. Italy at that time was also going against certain aspects of the Treaty yet they didn’t withdraw from the League like Hitler and they were not punished for their actions either. Though neither was Hitler since the League was too weak.

Another similarity between Hitler and Mussolini is their way of disposing of those who get in their way or disagree with them. In this case their strategies were militaristic. Hitler’s “night of long knives” was a successful attempt to kill any future threat or person who had disagreed with Hitler or was against any of his actions. He tried to get rid of any opponent that could cause issues in the future regime. This mass murder event also included Nazi members that were against Hitler. However Mussolini’s secret police force, the OVRA, killed less people than Hitler did. One of the people who opposed Mussolini was a socialist named Giacomo Matteotti. According to the Italians, Mussolini was responsible for the murder and the public was angry at Mussolini. Since Matteotti was a head of the socialist party, the Socialists protested. This took place before Mussolini took over Italy. However that murder served as a favor for Mussolini to become even more powerful after eliminating one of the important people from an important party in Italy. Just like when two armies are in a war, both fight the best way they can in order for one to win and avoid being controlled by the other. Hitler and Mussolini were fighting their enemies so they are not under another person's control.

Some British historians for example would believe that after the Treaty of Versailles Hitler’s actions were militaristic since he planned and organized everything militaristically, his rise to power and the way he dealt with the terms of the treaty and the aftermath of the events such as remilitarizing the Rhineland. That all depended on Hitler’s militaristic knowledge and attempting to make his military stronger than any other force in Europe. Even before becoming the fuhrer, Hitler was still planning for events such as the Reichstag fire militaristically. However Mussolini was more imperialistic from the start, his intentions were establishing an empire, “assert” Italy’s role in Europe or the world and form foreign policies that will help solve problems in Italy. Basically all he wanted or cared for was getting more land and resources that the Treaty of Versailles didn’t completely give him. French historians would share a similar opinion to the British but with more fear from Germany and despise most likely for both. Since Mussolini and Hitler worked together and during the Munich Peace conference Mussolini helped persuade France and England to give the Sudetenland to Hitler.  They would also be scared from Hitler’s actions before and after his rise of power. On the other hand Russia was more isolated but could have possibly been displeased with Hitler and Mussolini’s actions towards communism. Since they both used the fear of communism to their advantage and exaggerated it then a few years later Hitler signs a pact with Russia and contradicts everything he had previously said.

Hitler and Mussolini gained support from England, France and the U.S due to the fear of communism. The propaganda both of them used to scare the west worked in their favor and the Allied forces were too absorbed into that fear that they were unable to stop the growth of fascism. They couldn’t control Hitler’s or Mussolini’s rise to power or their intentions and at the same time they let them do as they pleased. England and France kept on giving Hitler what he asked for until he realized that he could break all treaties and he had no boundaries. While Mussolini felt the same way, that there was no limit for him especially from the League of Nations, he was simply able to do as he pleased as well. Mussolini invaded Abyssinia and the League did not take any actions against him after he was in total control and his dictatorship was extending to lands and he was modernly imperializing countries. Just like Hitler was taking back his “rightfully owned lands” or lands that were part of Germany before the Treaty of Versailles. The way Hitler saw it was that he was doing something for Germany and not for him; his actions were nationalistic especially if he refers to these lands as part of Germany and disregards the fact that they have become independent countries. He still believes that they are German. Mussolini on the other hand was focused on getting the lands he was promised even if he had to conquer himself and take action, no one could disagree because he wasn't the only one who wanted to control territories and benefit from their resources.

Why were Germany and her allies unsuccessful in WW1?

 Germany was almost destined to lose the First World War due to multiple reasons. Most think that it’s mainly because of the Von Schlieffen plan that seemed to work at the beginning but then somehow cornered Germany towards the end of the war. However that’s not the only causal factor that led Germany and her allies to losing the war. The reason why the Central powers failed during the First World War was because they were economically unstable. They had many internal issues with their economy to the point where it started affecting their military, politics and their culture. No matter how hard the German government tried to avoid that issue they kept on failing. This was a good sign for the French and British since they had a better chance at winning the war now along with the help from the United States. If Germany had a well-structured government that controlled the economy they could have avoided many disadvantages during the war. However we cannot say for certainty that the economy was the reason Germany lost the war. There are other factors that influenced Germany as well as other perspectives that may disagree with economy being the most influential causal factor.

The main factor that led to German downfall during world war one especially towards the final years was the economy of the country. The economy was affected by the geography of the country at that time. Germany was in some form of sandwich between the allied powers, Austria-Hungary wasn’t helping them either and that was weakening the Germans too. The allies shut off Germany from its port after the battle of Jutland. This limited Germany because they were unable to access their colonies or other resources, since their allies were only looking after themselves at that point. At that point the government had little control over their industry. They couldn’t control their economy and fight a war on two fronts at the same time. Some of the government’s mistakes were the way they controlled businesses, the fact that half way through the war only businesses that were making war products were the only ones workings was a terrible idea. They benefited from the government and the loss of other businesses which ended up destroying the economy. Another issue was hyperinflation. That is due to the fact that since there was less production of goods, things became expensive and the government had to print more paper money which resulted in decreasing the value of money and more people would end up starving. Third possible issue was the Brest Litovsk treaty, even though it was beneficial, the government didn’t know how to make use of it. They were pleased to finally have some access to resources but their lack of leadership and planning led them to the failure of making use of these new resources as well as the limited time they had before the Allies would strike. Although from another historians point of view they may believe that economy was not as effective or significant as politics for example. They would believe that politics is the main cause and that economics is a factor affected by it.

The way the economy influenced the government’s politics is that eventually we see the government very laid back and isn’t controlling the businesses much. We start to think that the economy is controlling the government in this case. Once they realized that, the government attempted to set up a poor system that would specify the tasks of each company, the ones that were in charge of making war material and others that were allowed to carry on their business. The fact that women were excluded from working due to political reasons would impact the economy. Since most men were leaving their homes to go fight on either the western front or eastern front. As well as the fact that there were jobs and tasks the government had but couldn’t fulfill because they were short on workers. This leads to the issues between industrial workers who were benefiting from the war while other workers were losing their jobs that slowly created tension between the people of Germany. As mentioned before some companies ended up benefiting from other companies failures and the government failed at stopping this mess. The constitution of the government didn’t impose any taxes on these businesses; they were allowed to do almost as they pleased. That is why the government couldn’t make much money for themselves. *We keep seeing the scenario of the government failing to control its economy repeating over many times and every time it causes more failures and issues for the country and its people. Along with the internal conflicts, German government had also other external political issues that were affected by economic factors. For example they introduced a policy of “unrestricted submarine warfare” in order to be able to fight off its allies as their last resource. This turned almost everyone against Germany if they weren’t already. As well as making relationships between Germany and the U.S worse which affected the Germans economically since they lost their trade partner. Although all these events can also be viewed from a militaristic point of view, Germany is losing the war due to bad militaristic commands that are influenced by the current situation of the economy.

The military was becoming weaker by the day because of the instability the government was going through. The economy was weakening the country and the government was barely able to provide its soldiers with food, ammunition or any other requirements they needed to fight. Even though during the first few years of the war, the German economy had prepared the military with everything they needed. They were able to enter the war fully mobilized and way more prepared than any other country, had the equipment they needed and were ready to fight. However their lack of planning affected them. They didn’t think that they were going to be fighting for a long time that is why they were running out of equipment rapidly and the internal economy was beginning to become limited every day. The von Schleiffen plan didn’t help either, since it was their only one and they had no other back up. They somehow managed to shape the economy around this plan and vice versa. Also during the First World War new technology was developing and the fighting styled changed into trench warfare. This impacted the economy, the sudden changes they had to face to keep up against their enemies and the economy had to change so fast in such little time. They had to form new industries that people had no clue how to work with, that would have impacted the development both militaristically and economically. Military was making the economy change rapidly while the economy was slowing down any advancement for the military other than naval battle. That was the reason why most of the war was basically just advancing for a few days if not more and then retreating. Though all the above issues could be very insignificant. Germany wasn’t failing because of the economic impacts on politics or economy. Why wouldn’t we consider the German culture to be the cause for all these changes? After all according to certain historians culture maybe the most significant causal factor. The fact that the Germans refused the idea of losing the war maybe because of a cultural reason.

According to Germans they didn’t lose the war, they called for armistice however the allied powers took actions rapidly and forced them into a position where they couldn’t take any action. Now if we ask any German, they would say that they didn’t lose. This maybe a nationalistic point of view within the German culture. Or it could possibly be just their pride of the country. After all Germany did suffer greatly during and after the war. Although that’s not the main issue, it’s the fact that the economy affected the culture. Whether it was in the way they ate, dressed or even spoke. The economy was suffering and people had to adjust to the new changes. Since the economy was failing and people began losing their jobs, they were unable to provide for the family, their lifestyles were changed. During the inflation, the middle class had lost almost everything. People who had some money to live off began suffering because eventually things became expensive and they no longer had enough money to live the way they used to. They weren’t able to buy food for a large family. This probably led families to change the way they ate, try different less costly food perhaps and save money. Yet what made culture so significant that it could have been the leading causal factor? There isn’t enough evidence that support this argument so why would a historian consider this aspect in an important event. Culture isn’t as important as economy, politics or military. So why should one even think about how it affected a war. Can culture really cause war?  

Nonetheless we can’t be too sure that Economical issues had really affected the war or the other possible causal factors. The evidence provided can be supportive to any of the other three causal factors that could be considered the main issue that impacted economy, military, politics and culture. After all there could be another causal factor that is not mentioned above which has reasonable evidence that support it. But there is no correct answer since this is after all an opinion or someone’s perspective. So  did the central powers lose? We can’t say for sure that they did but they didn’t win either. However they did surrender in a way by calling for an armistice. They could have possibly realized that they could no longer fight a war without resources. Yet it’s surprising how they managed to hold strong for so long. Which is what could be a counter argument, the fact that Germany could have continued fighting possibly with the same amount of strength as before but they chose not to. There are other parts that could have forced Germany into giving up. For example the U.S joining the Allies side, that could have affected Germany’s decision about the war. That they wouldn’t be able to keep fighting. It is rather unfair that its one country against three others. Once the U.S joined, Germany had to rethink about their situation since their economy now was clearly distorted. Once the economy went down, pretty much the rest of the country did too. People suffered from hunger because of the economy. People lost jobs due to economy. Military was weak also due to the economy. The lack of control the government had led to the downfall of the economy which led to the collapse of Germany and everything else related to that country as well as their allies. Even though we saw that Austria-Hungary had collapsed faster than Germany along with the Ottoman Empire.  

In what way did World War one impact the role of women in any two European countries?

World War one was a life changing event that occurred everywhere. Especially for women, they rapidly integrated into society and became more noticeable. Women were too weak to have a major impact in life before the war, in any country in the world. However that changed around 1914. It’s important to see that if it hadn’t been for the war, women would have been marginalized for a longer period of time, and no one would have known what they were capable of. Even though it seemed that they were in demand more during the war, than before or after. So in what way did world war one impact women’s role in Russia and England? Well apart from the fact that they were nationalistic and were working for their country, they managed to join the army and have more opportunities and rights than they did before. They felt equal for once, that they were capable of doing what men could do and that possibly gave them courage and hope. Even though the idea of being shot or dead isn’t so welcoming it was a step to a better status in society. Today women have more rights and are in better living conditions than before, yet they are still considered weaker and lower than men. However we can’t tell if the war really impacted women’s role or simply made use of women at the time since there was no other options unlike today, we have machines that can do the work instead.  

In Russia, women were looked down upon just like every other country however when the war took place, women became more respected. Women were also nurses during the war. They also had the women’s suffrage act that basically meant that men and women were equal, thus if men had to go to war, so did women. They even had their hair cut off just like men and wore army outfits. Women joined the legion of death or the “woman battalion”. An example of woman history would be Yashka or Maria Bochkareva, a female soldier that had joined the army in 1914. She was very influential that she led the women’s legion of death. She was also for the suffrage act as well as freedom of expression in newspapers. Even though she had a rough childhood with an alcoholic father and several unsuccessful marriages, she was a strong woman that survived in the war  until 1917. For a militaristic point of view, she would have been considered a good soldier but from a woman’s point of view she would be a hero due to all her accomplishments. A fearless female that fought for her country and proved that men and women should be equal.  Another example is Kati Dadeshkeliani, she joined the army in Russia and was an ambulance driver. She was also wounded yet she survived. Sometime after the war, around 1921 she moved to Paris. She wrote a book which was about her experiences in the war. Judging by Kati’s actions and moving to Paris it seemed as if there were barely any drastic changes after 1918, women probably went back to their previous jobs or being housewives taking care of family since men wanted their jobs back most probably. So really the war only raised awareness of what women are able of accomplishing. We don’t see as much change occurring until much later possibly around late 1920’s.

Meanwhile in England women had minor jobs like nursing, teaching or simple “domestic labor”. They also were able to work in factories but they were paid less than men and they had simple jobs. That changed when the war began, as more men left women had to replace them in factories, mines, farms and other jobs. Eventually women became responsible of cooking, storekeeping, printing, machine maintenance, work in clerks and driving trucks or ambulances. Most nurses were taken to the front to serve there and provide the required care. Soldiers were being severely injured that they had little chance of survival if they were to be transported back to hospitals in infected trains. While back in the cities, women working in factories suffered from T&T poisoning which lead to death. The symptoms were cold, headaches, ginger hair and yellow faces. That was a great sacrifice a woman can make for her country, even though she wasn’t being directly shot or out at the fronts, they seemed to do more for their country. The fact that they were eager to help in producing hazardous new weapons while they were still being developed was a great sacrifice that military or political historians need to consider and women should look up to. Around 1 million women worked in ammunition factories and 2 million or 73% of workers by 1917 were women. But what difference did that make?* Working so hard during the war and after, women were back at the start. married women were not allowed to work, and many males were angry with women for taking over their jobs meaning that a large amount of women were fired after in order for these returning soldiers to have their work back. So the war was rather pointless, it didn’t change society that much for women especially not at the end of the war. It seems as if women were being used to carry out daily tasks that government needed which men were unavailable to do. Or maybe in England life after war wasn’t any different from before.

Women in Russia and England played an important role in the war that didn’t really help much afterwards. Yet their roles were completely different. Russia managed to have some form of equality where women also fought alongside men while England allowed women to work at the fronts only as nurses and back at home at any job that required employees. The similarity between England and Russia was that before and after the war women where disregarded. However what occurred during the war was more important. There was more potential for Russia to have an equal society than England due to the suffrage act, but it didn’t make a difference because a cause for the act’s failure was after the war, the women’s battalion was split. Russia females were allowed to be pilots as well; a famous Russian pilot was Princess Eugenie, who was related to imperial family however when the war was over, she was “demobilized” another real reason proving failures of the act, while the auspicious reason was because she had connections to imperial family and October revolutionists didn’t like that. It’s a little challenging to compare the roles of women in two different countries without going into specific details of their work but the idea was that during the war life was different in both countries and at the end it was the same.

In conclusion women suffered a lot during the war. The little things they did and the sacrifices they made was what counted the most. Without their support, in England for example, the factories wouldn’t have been able to produce weapons to defend themselves. Thus Germany or any of the Central powers would have had more chances of winning the war. Likewise in Russia, if the women didn’t join the military and asked to be equal, Russian military wouldn’t have had as much backup forces available since their technology was behind and they lost a lot of soldiers during the war. If it weren’t for these women who risked their lives whether they were out on the fronts fighting or suffocating from a poisonous atmosphere in a weapons factory, they couldn’t have succeeded in the war. So did the war make much of a difference for women? During the war it did but afterwards life went back to normal almost as if nothing had happened. Maybe for the time being there was some change which influenced society to give women a higher status later on in the years. In some way it makes sense, change doesn’t occur straight away, at the time it probably wasn’t as easy to get accustomed to having a work partner that was a female therefore people needed time. It seems that everything women had to go through was rather ineffective in the end but eventually years after the war it paid off. For example the U.S gave women the right to vote sometime around 1920. Even though it’s a different country and a different continent, a woman’s life in Russia or England would have been similar to life in the U.S. The war did change people’s perspectives on women’s abilities yet society needed it’s time to change. 

The outbreak of WW1 1914

World war one broke out due to a series of events beginning with the assassination of the Arch duke of Austria-Hungary on June 28^th 1914. That angered the Austrians and they decided to punish Serbia, causing the war. That’s the first fact we learn whenever we study history. However there were many more factors that affected the outbreak of World War One in 1914, that we don’t pay much attention to while studying a certain topic such as the First World War. We take in facts without really attempting to relate them to each other to see how they impact one another and create something big. Some people believe that the war was destined to occur and I couldn’t agree less with that statement. The events that took place seem to be leading to a large catastrophe that no one wanted to control or attempt to stop; most powers were just “going with the flow” as we say now a day. However the most important cause of the outbreak of the war compared to all other causes would most likely be imperialism. Although how can one prove it while revising history? It is a very opinionated statement that can change according to every other individual who studies the factors and causes of the war. Some may consider the cause to be nationalism; others would think it is militarism and some may believe it’s the alliance system.

What made me believe that imperialism is the most important cause that intrigued the war? Possibly the fact that every European power tried to imperialize another so that they would gain more authority and use the countries resources or even build an empire. However at some point in time things had to change, imperialism wasn’t as easy anymore like it used to be at the beginning especially when the age of exploration began. Eventually imperialism began disturbing the balance of power that France, England, Russia, Austria-Hungary and other central powers had. Thus every power would try to set limits to another so that the other wouldn’t be able to gain more land and vice versa. For example one of Bismarck’s goals was to make Germany a solid power so while forming the country; he takes Alsace and Lorraine from the French and adds them to Germany since the people spoke German. We may think that is a ridiculous reason for taking over two cities but this provided Germany with more land and scared France a little. Who would want a little country that was formed by Bismarck not too long ago to become powerful? They wouldn’t have been able to do that if Germany wasn’t united. However those two cities were not enough for Germany. Most of the European powers had territories in Africa or Asia and Germany wasn’t too happy with that. They wanted some as well so they started messing around with French in Africa. First they tried to get Morocco going after their independence because they deserve it and they shouldn’t be ruled by another authority and they supported them. This goes back to the idea of limiting a power such as France and making them weaker in Africa if Morocco succeeds and becomes independent. Another incident Germany had caused was the Kruger Telegram, even though that was hardly imperialistic, it managed to anger the British for fighting the Boers in Africa. They tried to support Boers during the bore war so that England becomes weaker and loses control of South Africa. Germany always seemed to be looking for whatever opportunity they found that was against England or France to make them become weaker. Nonetheless Germans weren’t the only ones who were unhappy with the unfair division of African lands between France and England. The Italians on the other hand were upset that the French and English just did as they please without consulting other powers and causing Italy to lose its territories in Africa. Italy becomes outraged when France takes over Tunisia, thus starting the Italian-French resentment era. The events mentioned above contribute to one factor that is disturbing the balance of power, an important aspect that contributed to causing the war. One may believe that these arguments might have been somewhat irrelevant or not important enough for a war to begin but if we put them together it makes sense that the anger and despise of one country to the other could cause grudges and revenge in some sense eventually. That’s how imperialism and seeking power caused a war that later on destroyed part of Europe’s economy and in the end the countries that wanted territories or had territories lost most of them. ­­If they could control their greed for power and find rational ways of dividing powers then they wouldn’t have had to face a war.

Imperialism alone couldn’t have caused the war, even though it may be the most important factor, it’s not the only one. Imperialism also impacted militarism. Without a good invasion technique and good weaponry, great powers such as England or France wouldn’t have been able to take over territories in Africa. Militarism doesn’t only mean how the army acts in a war or other specific events. It’s a general form of how the country thinks, how their generals study others “enemies” weaknesses and improve their own and most important how to fool the opponent and take over, in other words one must be smart to come up with good strategies.  Militarism reflects upon the country and its people, the way they think, their actions, how they handle situations and so on. It’s not only about glorifying the countries strength or their brand new high tech auto-piloted airplanes with the new mass destructive missiles that are shot in less than 30 seconds or so. The Ems-telegram may not be a direct example of militaristic actions but the concept behind it is. The fact that Bismarck twisted the words of the meeting in order to offend the French was smart; he wanted them to make the first move against Germany. Thus putting the blame on the French if anything was to happen. It’s very strategic and well thought out because then Germany can learn more about how to irritate the French and know their weakness and when they’ll finally give up and take action. Especially since the Germans had been weakening the French by trying to turn their territories in Africa against them. Even though that was a telegram just like the Willy-Nicky telegram, they both were for different purposes. The Willy-Nicky was to make either Russia or Germany back out of the war but neither did. It’s not very militaristic because it’s just a negotiation with no strategy of destroying one another, they just wanted to let each other be aware that they’ll be going to war together if one doesn’t back out. While the war between Japan and Russia was both militaristic and imperialistic. Japan was becoming more powerful and the Central powers were beginning to fear that another new upcoming power would mess thing even more. Even though Japan had won the war, England decided to give the Russians back their land that Japan took over in order to stop Russia from possibly going after the Balkan lands and causing more chaos. That war was over occupying lands which is an imperialistic factor, and the fact that Russia gets its land back is militaristic because they were trying to eliminate any threats of a war. Another militaristic event would be the von Schlieffen plan. It was designed so that Germany would invade Belgium and attack France since they can’t go through Alsace and Lorraine. That is imperialism in a form of militaristic protection; Germany was at war from two sides against the Russians and the French so they had to go through Belgium and that wasn’t going to happen unless Germany takes over Belgium. That plan would have scared France off and Russia from the other side because it would have shown how strong Germany was. Thus militarism was a concept of imperialism which caused the war, it wasn’t directly linked to the war since it just shows how strong a country can be if they have a powerful army. Like the Dreadnaught, it was a powerful ship that the British had used for 35 years until it became useless when they began fighting the war in 1914. Other than that militarism doesn’t have much of an impact on any wars as a matter of fact. However many people may disagree with this point because they could consider militarism an important factor, since I had mentioned that militarism isn’t only how an army acts.

Nationalism, another cause of the war, occurs due to people’s pride of their own country and despise for another power controlling them and taking over. Imperialism may have began nationalism in some form, since people become rather protective and proud of their country that they are willing to do anything to save it from falling to some imperialistic power that’s trying to take over. However pride isn’t only of the countries resistance to imperialism it’s also based on showing militaristic powers. For example the dreadnaught could be considered nationalistic because the British were proud of their ship that managed to help them win their previous wars. As well as giving England an advantage at sea. We can also see that the Black Hand, a government group formed against the Austria-Hungarian rule over Serbia, were very nationalistic. They wanted to be free from Austria-Hungary. Thus they sent out a man to assassinate the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary which wasn’t a very smart move from them since it just made things worse. They wanted to get rid of the imperialism in their country from Austrians. That event was very relevant because it began a war that Serbia may regret after. The Black Hand group is also similar to Pan Slavism or Pan Germanism. Pan Slavism beliefs are to unify all Slavic countries or ones with common cultural background, a very nationalistic movement since they are proud of their ethnicity. While Pan Germanism’s goal was to unite all German speaking cities or countries, also nationalistic because they’re proud of their language even if their cultures may be different like Alsace and Lorraine. The two cities that the German people’s nationalism caused tensions between Germany and France. Even though nationalism may seem to play an important part in wars at first, it’s not that significant because only ones who are crazy over their countries pride would take it into advantage and commit crimes and say that it’s to protect their country from a potential threat. Nationalism wouldn’t be as strong if imperialism, or any form of invading another country, had ceased to exist.

The final cause that maybe less relevant than the ones above is alliances. Countries who seek alliances are most likely afraid of losing their lands to another power that would come and take over in a form of imperialism. For example When the Fashoda incident took place, France gave up its lands to England and attempted to make an alliance with England in order to not risk losing to England in Africa and Germany in Europe. They were afraid that England would go against them and that would weaken them and allow Germany to take advantage of the situation and occupy more lands maybe. The alliance between England and France was known as the Entente Cordiale of 1904, France took Morocco and British took over Egypt. So maybe France didn’t give up all of its territories to England but the fact that they were afraid of England and Germany shows that they’re becoming weaker and need support from another leading power such as England. But why is it that they made an alliance with England and not Germany? Maybe if they had made an alliance with powerful Germany they could have possibly gotten Alsace and Lorraine back in-exchange of some other lands. Another alliance that France made to protect itself from Germany was with Russia, the Dual Alliance. At this point France is really afraid of Germany and their attempt of attacking France at anytime. Germany’s goal has succeeded into scaring one imperialistic power, Germany may now be considered important and that is why 1905 a secret alliance between Russia and Germany is made. The Bjorko treaty was never really acted upon since Russia already had an alliance with France thus the Tsar didn’t really take it into consideration. The Germans also made an Alliance with Austria-Hungary saying that they will back them up if they go to war with Serbia. This was known as the blank cheque and it was sent out in 1914 after Austria sent the Ultimatum to Serbia. The alliances system was rather complicated that if one country went to war with another, the one with an alliance system would pull another country in and so on. It was almost like a chain reaction. Everyone suddenly went to war against each other even the Tsar and the Kaiser who were cousins.

Even though with all the facts that we have provided about history, how is it possible that we are able to study the past and learn from it? How can we form opinions as well if we weren’t present at that time where a certain event like World war one occurred? We study history to learn not to repeat mistakes but that doesn’t always work. If France didn’t have the support of England and Russian would they have been able to defeat Germany? Based on the facts we have provided it seems that Germany would have taken over France in a week or less if the Russians and British weren’t involved. People form opinions that may be biased according to their emotions most of the time while others who study history deeply may use reason to form opinions. For example based on my emotions I considered the fact that Imperialism caused all the chaos in Europe. I could also say that France, Russia and Serbia caused the war and not Germany due to the people’s nationalistic nature. However I don’t have any other facts to support my opinion other than according to the series of events that took place before the war where Germany was the last country that was forced into mobilizing their troops even though they didn’t want to. I made this assumption based on my opinion using one reason only which isn’t enough. So how could I just make a biased opinion when I barely have enough proof to support it. Let alone the fact that I wasn’t alive back then and I had no idea what went on other than what I had read. History is more than just studying facts, forming opinions or learning from others.

In conclusion the war broke out due to a series of little and perhaps insignificant events that could have been handled if people were willing to. But sometimes people’s greed for power and more territories can be blinding. In the end Europe’s economy suffered greatly especially the one of Germany. Why is it that they didn’t try to stop the war from occurring? They would have saved lives, money and had peace instead of famine and shameful defeat. Just because one may think they’re strong doesn’t mean that there isn’t anyone else in this world that could defeat them. Austria-Hungry thought they could be strong enough with Germany and the Ottoman Empire to fight against England, France, Russia, US and other countries that were slowly being pulled into the war. Imperialism was the most important cause that led to the War in 1914. Fighting over lands in different continents isn’t just ridiculous but it’s pointless, the people who lived in these territories deserved to have their own power just like England or Germany.