For anyone who's interested....
How far do the sources support the idea that Germany’s military build-up showed that she was preparing for war in the years 1899-1914?
When war began in 1914 Europe was thrown against itself with the two opposing power blocks of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entendre. However it is widely viewed that preparation for war began many years previously, from around 1899 and the ‘cause’ (the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination) was merely a trigger.
Source one, written by Prince Von Bulow, takes a very obvious German view of Europe in 1899. As the German Chancellor Von Bulow was in a very important position his opinions and comments, along with the Kaiser’s in source four, are particularly important. The source indirectly supports the argument of Germany’s military build-up by defending Germany and making her appear as a martyr, the “slave of humanity”. Von Bulow portrays Germany as a country of “good fortune and power and prosperity” that suffers a lot of “envy”. This picture is used to defend Germany’s military build-up “without a strong army and a strong navy, there can be no welfare for us”. The source emphatically supports the statement that, in 1899 Germany was preparing for war and therefore was building up her armed forces. The source clearly links to source four as both are written by men of power and both excuse Germany’s military build-up by deflecting the blame on other countries.
Source two, taken from 1814, is in the position of having experienced the previous fifteen years of military build-up from Germany. And is therefore presumably knowledgeable of Germany’s preparations between 1899 and 1914. However the source largely ignores any build-up and instead focuses on the repercussions of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This therefore shows an element of naivety on the part of the paper, that they were unaware of Germany’s military build-up. This could be because the paper is Socialist and would therefore have been very pacifist towards all military action. On the other hand the source could support the argument that there was no build-up at all. The statement “fearful warning” also supports this and suggests that the Triple Alliance were unprepared for war. The source doesn’t comfortably fit with any of the others, as there is too much of a sense of naivety about it. However it does contrast with most of them because of this, particularly source three which shows that Germany were ready for war.
Source three again looks at the Austro-Hungarian pre-war reaction. As it is a source written by an English man its authenticy must be taken into account. Nevertheless the source supports the idea that preparations were put into effect before Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in 1914. The war was described as “inevitable which suggests that both Austria-Hungary and its puppet-master Germany were thoroughly prepared for war after military build-up since 1899. This source contrasts with both sources one and four in that it doesn’t excuse Germany’s military build-up nor blame it on anyone else. This is most probably because the author is English and therefore would not like any blame to be suggested against Britain.
Source four links very clearly to the first source in that it is written from a distinctly German perspective. Obviously Kaiser Wilhelm II had a virtually totalitarian rule over Germany and therefore he would be solely responsible for any pre-meditated preparation for war. The words “secret memorandum” are highly significant, particularly in association with source one, in that, whilst they don’t guarantee complete objectivity, they show the writer was being honest in their judgements. Source four could be seen as having more value than source one as it is both probably honest and the Kaiser’s own thoughts. Alternatively source one does show Germany’s preparations for war in 1899 whereas source four comments on the inevitability of war in 1914. The Kaiser is very defensive of Germany’s preparations for war and deflects the blame onto Britain and France saying their “ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany” this is used as the excuse for starting the Naval race with Britain, just as source one does. Because the source is so defensive and makes the Kaiser appear as a martyr it would appear to be very genuine and makes the Kaiser seem very naïve in his leadership.
Source five is excellent at showing the attitude of Germans in 1914. Because of its form as a poem it contrasts with the other sources as it is written by an ordinary man. Because it is a poem it is open to literary exaggeration which must be taken into context. The poem is patriotic and war-like “slaughter thy millions of adversaries” and implores Germany to “hate now!… take no prisoners” but doesn’t shed any information on Germany’s military build-up. It does however presume that Germany, in 1914, was prepared for war “Battalions, batteries, squadrons all forward!” confirming that according to the people, Germany was fully prepared for war. Therefore the source links to most of the sources in showing that Germany were prepared for war.
The statistical source six shows in hard facts the preparation of each of the six major countries, the results are obvious in that between 1899 and 1914 there is a marked increase in expenditure, mainly for Germany but also Russia, France and Britain. The most interesting comparison in the naval spending where Germany tripled their expenditure between 1899 and 1914 to £47.4 million. This fact is important because it shows that between these two significant years Germany was clearly building up its navy for a reason. These figures are quite clear in showing that Germany did in fact stage a military build-up, but whether it was in preparation for war is not suggested. Source six supports sources one, three, four and five by factually proving that Germany was building up its armed forces between 1899 and 1914. However it does also prove the points in source one and four that the reason for this was the military build-up of other countries, although they are not to the same extent.
The six sources contribute in different ways to make it clear that Germany was very clearly military minded between 1899 and 1914. However they do not show the reason for this build-up. The sources suggest a mixture of preparation for war, paranoia, greed for power and innocence and so therefore, given the circumstances of the war that we have the luxury of seeing, we must assume that in one way or another Germany was preparing for war.
Richard Andrews
Word Count: 1064
How far do the sources support the idea that Germany’s military build-up showed that she was preparing for war in the years 1899-1914?
When war began in 1914 Europe was thrown against itself with the two opposing power blocks of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entendre. However it is widely viewed that preparation for war began many years previously, from around 1899 and the ‘cause’ (the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination) was merely a trigger.
Source one, written by Prince Von Bulow, takes a very obvious German view of Europe in 1899. As the German Chancellor Von Bulow was in a very important position his opinions and comments, along with the Kaiser’s in source four, are particularly important. The source indirectly supports the argument of Germany’s military build-up by defending Germany and making her appear as a martyr, the “slave of humanity”. Von Bulow portrays Germany as a country of “good fortune and power and prosperity” that suffers a lot of “envy”. This picture is used to defend Germany’s military build-up “without a strong army and a strong navy, there can be no welfare for us”. The source emphatically supports the statement that, in 1899 Germany was preparing for war and therefore was building up her armed forces. The source clearly links to source four as both are written by men of power and both excuse Germany’s military build-up by deflecting the blame on other countries.
Source two, taken from 1814, is in the position of having experienced the previous fifteen years of military build-up from Germany. And is therefore presumably knowledgeable of Germany’s preparations between 1899 and 1914. However the source largely ignores any build-up and instead focuses on the repercussions of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This therefore shows an element of naivety on the part of the paper, that they were unaware of Germany’s military build-up. This could be because the paper is Socialist and would therefore have been very pacifist towards all military action. On the other hand the source could support the argument that there was no build-up at all. The statement “fearful warning” also supports this and suggests that the Triple Alliance were unprepared for war. The source doesn’t comfortably fit with any of the others, as there is too much of a sense of naivety about it. However it does contrast with most of them because of this, particularly source three which shows that Germany were ready for war.
Source three again looks at the Austro-Hungarian pre-war reaction. As it is a source written by an English man its authenticy must be taken into account. Nevertheless the source supports the idea that preparations were put into effect before Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in 1914. The war was described as “inevitable which suggests that both Austria-Hungary and its puppet-master Germany were thoroughly prepared for war after military build-up since 1899. This source contrasts with both sources one and four in that it doesn’t excuse Germany’s military build-up nor blame it on anyone else. This is most probably because the author is English and therefore would not like any blame to be suggested against Britain.
Source four links very clearly to the first source in that it is written from a distinctly German perspective. Obviously Kaiser Wilhelm II had a virtually totalitarian rule over Germany and therefore he would be solely responsible for any pre-meditated preparation for war. The words “secret memorandum” are highly significant, particularly in association with source one, in that, whilst they don’t guarantee complete objectivity, they show the writer was being honest in their judgements. Source four could be seen as having more value than source one as it is both probably honest and the Kaiser’s own thoughts. Alternatively source one does show Germany’s preparations for war in 1899 whereas source four comments on the inevitability of war in 1914. The Kaiser is very defensive of Germany’s preparations for war and deflects the blame onto Britain and France saying their “ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany” this is used as the excuse for starting the Naval race with Britain, just as source one does. Because the source is so defensive and makes the Kaiser appear as a martyr it would appear to be very genuine and makes the Kaiser seem very naïve in his leadership.
Source five is excellent at showing the attitude of Germans in 1914. Because of its form as a poem it contrasts with the other sources as it is written by an ordinary man. Because it is a poem it is open to literary exaggeration which must be taken into context. The poem is patriotic and war-like “slaughter thy millions of adversaries” and implores Germany to “hate now!… take no prisoners” but doesn’t shed any information on Germany’s military build-up. It does however presume that Germany, in 1914, was prepared for war “Battalions, batteries, squadrons all forward!” confirming that according to the people, Germany was fully prepared for war. Therefore the source links to most of the sources in showing that Germany were prepared for war.
The statistical source six shows in hard facts the preparation of each of the six major countries, the results are obvious in that between 1899 and 1914 there is a marked increase in expenditure, mainly for Germany but also Russia, France and Britain. The most interesting comparison in the naval spending where Germany tripled their expenditure between 1899 and 1914 to £47.4 million. This fact is important because it shows that between these two significant years Germany was clearly building up its navy for a reason. These figures are quite clear in showing that Germany did in fact stage a military build-up, but whether it was in preparation for war is not suggested. Source six supports sources one, three, four and five by factually proving that Germany was building up its armed forces between 1899 and 1914. However it does also prove the points in source one and four that the reason for this was the military build-up of other countries, although they are not to the same extent.
The six sources contribute in different ways to make it clear that Germany was very clearly military minded between 1899 and 1914. However they do not show the reason for this build-up. The sources suggest a mixture of preparation for war, paranoia, greed for power and innocence and so therefore, given the circumstances of the war that we have the luxury of seeing, we must assume that in one way or another Germany was preparing for war.
Richard Andrews
Word Count: 1064
