Freeston History

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Whose fault was it that World War One broke out in 1914?

In August 1914 the Great Powers in Europe went to war. Four years later over 10 million people had been killed. Who was responsible for this disastrous war? In 1919 the winning powers met at Versailles and decided that Germany had been responsible for the First World War. Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles declared that Germany was guilty of causing World War One.

These claims were echoed in the 1960s when the German historian Fritz Fischer asserted that German had planned a 'lunge for world power'.His research into German government archives led him the following conclusion; "The official documents afford ample proofs that during July 1914 the emperor (Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German military leaders and the foreign ministry were pressing Austria-Hungary to strike against Serbia without delay, or alternatively agreed to the despatch of an ultimatum to serbia couched in such terms as to amke war between the two countries more than probable, and in doing so they deliberately took the risk of a continental war against Russia and France." This so called 'blank cheque' given by Germany to Austria-Hungary was confirmed by the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to Berlin when he reported a conversation between himself and Kaiser Wilhelm II; "The Kaiser told me we might rely upon Germany's full support. It was the Kaiser Wilhelm's opinion that action must not be delayed. Should war break out between Austria-Hungary and Russia, Germany would stand at our side. Kaiser Wilhelm would regret it if we don not make use of the present situation which is all in our favour."

Other historians suggest the war was an accident, that it was not planned at all. The British historian AJP Taylor stated; "Nowhere was there a conscious determination to provoke a war. Statesman miscalculated. They used the instruments of bluff and threat which had proved effective on previous occasions. This time things went wrong. The deterrent on which they relied failed to deter; the statesmen became the prisoners of their own weapons. The great arm,ies, accumulated to provide security and preserve peace, carried the nations to war by their own weight."

Other people were prepared to point the finger at Great Britain and at the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Sazonov, claimed that Britain could have prevented the war if they had taken a a firm stand; "In 1914 Sir Edward Grey should have made a clear statement that Britain would stand by France and Russia. I insistently asked him to do this but he refused. He could have saved humanity from that terrible catastrophe."

Who was to blame for the outbreak of World War One?

Have a look at the debate on School HistoryForum http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/studentforum/index.php?showtopic=3439

Listen to this podcast on the causes of the First World War Read this account of the start of WW1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/audio/history/ From the menu choose International relations; Causes of WW1

http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm

Look at this website

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

Watch this video clip

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/underlyingcauses_video.shtml

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Neville Chamberlain - Saviour of the Nation or Fool of the Decade?

The Munich Agreement was signed on 29 September 1938, by Britain, France, Italy and Germany. It was an agreement that allowed Hitler to annexe the Sudetenland, which was part of Czechoslovakia. Hitler had demanded the Sudetenland as it was home to 3 million ethnic Germans. It is seen as a failure of the policy of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain aimed to achieve european peace by appeasing Hitler. By appeasement he meant negotiating with Hitler's reasonable demands in return for concessions. In September 1938 Hitler had claimed "The Sudetenland is the last problem that must be solved in Europe and it will be solved. It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." Was this the bait that lured Chamberlain to Munich? The Munich conference to discuss the future of the Sudetenland was not attended by Czechoslovakia nor the USSR. Hitler's view of the Munich Agreement was that it was "an undreamt-of triumph, so great that you can scarcely imagine it." Chamberlain told cheering crowds, "My good friends.....there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time". He believed that the peace of Europe would be guaranted by a peice of paper, signed by Hitler and himself, promising the two countries would not resort to war in the future." His views were echoed by the Daily Express who opined, "People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. if we must have a victor let us choose Chamberlain, for the Prime Minister's conquests are mighty and enduring - millions of happy homes and hearts relieved of their burden." Daily Express Sept 30 1938 However there were rumblings of dissent in Britain. In October 1938 Churchill offered his appraisal of Munich, "We have suffered a total defeat....I think that you will find that in a period of time Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime. We have passed an awful milestone in our history. This is only the beginning of the reckoning." In December 1938 the Yorkshire Post offered this assessment of the policy of appeasement, "By repeatedly surrendering to force Chamberlain has encouraged aggression.......Our central contention, therefore, is that Mr Chamberlain's policy has throughout been based on a fatal misunderstanding of the psychology of dictatorship." Was the Yorkshire Post right? Had Chamberlain underestimated Hitler. This is the view of the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, he is predicting how Hitler will treat Chamberlain at Munich. "As soon as Hitler sees that old man he will know that he has won the battle. Chamberlain is not aware that to present himself to Hitler in the uniform of a bourgeois pacifist and British parliamentarian is the equivalent of giving a wild beast a taste of blood." Mussolini, Sept. 1938 You need to think about the following

Was Chamberlain right to support British public opinion and to try to avoid war?

What arguments can be used to support Chamberlain's actions?

What arguments can be used to oppose Chamberlain's action?

Did everyone in Britain support Appeasement?

Was Britain wrong not to try and stop Hitler earlier?

Could the betrayal of the Czechoslovakia at Munich, September 1938, be justified?

Look at the following information; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4.htm http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII1_BBCnotes.htm#q2 http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII1_BBCnotes.htm#q2 Watch this video http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/chamberlainandappeasement_video.shtml

Was World War Two Hitler's fault?

"In the end the war was Hitler's war. It was not perhaps the war he wanted. But it was the war that he was prepared to risk, if he had to..........Always one returns to Hitler: Hitler exultant, Hitler vehement.....Hitler playing the great commander........lecturing his Generals, hectoring his Army Commanders, threatening, cajoling and appealing to german destiny. Above all, increasingly in a hurry, always raising the stakes....steadily losing touch with reality......Neither firmness nor appeasement, the piling up of more armaments or the demonstration of more determination would stop him." Donald Cameron Watt (1989)

The argument put forward that Hitler was the cause of World War Two began in the 1950s. Alan Bullock asserted , in his book, 'Hitler : A Study in Tyranny' (1952) that Hitler's basic aim was to rule the world. He portayed him as a demon,devoid of principles or beliefs, but motivated only by a lust for power. Responsibilty for the war lay with an amoral Hitler and his circle of Nazi leaders.

In 1961 the publication of AJP Taylor's, 'The Origins of the Second World War' caused controversy. He claimed that Hitler was not a demon but following traditional German foreign policy, the desire to make Germany the strongest power in Europe. Taylor argues that the origins of the war lay in the peace settlement and the failure of the Allies to destroy Germany.
"The decision which ultimately led to the second World War was taken, from the highest and most sensible motives, a few days before the First World War ended. This was the decision to grant an armistice to the German government." He argues that the Allies failed to irrevocably weaken Germanyin 1918, that the flawed Treay of Versailles was exploited by Hitler, who was an opportunist who took advantage of weaknesses shown by Britain and France. He took advantage of mistakes made by other politicians, he did not plan the Second World War.

Read the overview of the causes of World War Two below.
http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII1_Stellenbosch.htm

Here is a summary of the viewpoint of AJP Taylor.
http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII1_sandiegotaylorthesis.html

What were Hitler' plans and aims?
Read this overview of Germany's Foreign Policy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A828317

Was Hitler a 'reasonable man'? Could he be trusted?http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob78.html

How did Hitler justify his breaking of the Versailles Treaty? How did Hitler criticise and defy the Versailles Treaty?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1000774

http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html

Monday, 25 October 2010

Why was it so difficult to find a political solution to the problems in Northern Ireland in the 1970s?

Have the 'Troubles' created an insurmountable for politicians in Northern Ireland. Is it going to be possible to reconcile the two sides in Northern Ireland. Can the Catholics who identify with the Irish Republic reach an agreement with the Protestants who identify with the United Kingdom? The problem for the politicians is how do they end the polarization of Northern Ireland -how do they bring the two communities together?

In 1973 the Sunningdale agreement was reached, it gave the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland a veto on the unification of Ireland as long as they were a majority. The Sunningdale Declaration said " The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status. The British Government solemnly declared that... if in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish."

The agreement was met with hostility by the extreme politicians, especially Ian Paisley who feared that the unification of Ireland would be seen as surrendering to the Roman Catholics. He claimed "(Sunningdale) will fail for the Unionist people are determined that they will never submit their necks to the heel of a Southern parliament."

The British government wanted to restore power to a devolved government in Northern Ireland, to end the period of Direct Rule that began in 1972. For it to work the two communities would have to work together to restore peace. Power sharing was proposed, this would end majority rule in Northern Ireland. The Protestant and Loyalists would be placated with the promise that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom , as long as the majority there voted for it. The Catholic and Nationalists were offered an Irish dimension, the government in Dublin would have a say in the process. In 1974 power sharing failed, it collapsed in the face of continued IRA violence and the strike action called into being by the Protestants and Unionists.

Under what circumstances would the people of Northern Ireland be prepared to share power. How does the peace process move forward? Why was it possible to reach the Good Friday Agreement in 1998? Think about these issues;