| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ORIGINS WORLD WAR I": |
|
|
Origins of World War I, 2007.
This paper looks at the history of World War I and describes its origins.
1,469 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that many factors initiated the start of World War I, but specifically it could be said that the origins of World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. The writer maintains that this was the symbolic beginning of the war, although there were deeper rooted problems that may not have been as publicized. The writer then looks at how different countries became entangled in the war. The writer concludes that it was a needless war that should have been resolved between the two arguing nations diplomatically. Further, the writer maintains that militarism and alliances entangled many countries which should not have been part of this war. This paper uses footnotes but does not append a bibliography.
From the Paper
"By racing for control of the free world, countries naturally made enemies. Following the assassination of Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary's heir to the throne, an ultimatum was issued to Serbia, who was believed to be responsible. The ultimatum called for the Assassins to be brought to justice. Displeased with the compliance by Serbia, on July 28, 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia."
"This immediately entangled about 15 countries in the war. Russia, who was bound by treaty to Serbia, declared war on Austria-Hungary, which caused Germany, an ally to Austria-Hungary, to declare war on Russia. With recent tension between Germany and France, France, allied to Russia declared war on Germany and brought Britain and Japan with them."
| |
|
The Origins of World War I, 2005.
"This essay is an analysis of the debate over the origins of the First World War. Three historians have used different way to approach the question of...
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay analyzes the debate over the origins of the First World War. The paper presents the views of three historians who have used different way to approach the question of who was guilty for the beginning of World War I (WWI). All three use arguments and put forward evidence to support their conclusions. This essay examines their approaches, arguments and conclusions and assesses their claims.
From the Paper
"The origins of World War I This essay is an analysis of the debate over the origins of the First World War. Three historians have used different way to approach the question of who was guilty for the beginning of World War I (WWI). All three use arguments and put forward evidence to support their conclusions. This essay examines their approaches, arguments and conclusions and assesses their claims. The first historian, Fischer argues that no European nation is free of some responsibility for this war, but that Germany gets by far the greatest share of blame. "
| |
|
The Origins of World War I, 2005.
A discussion into the causes of the outbreak of World War I.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 10 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the origins of the First World War, which can be traced to a number of political and diplomatic causes, such as militarism, imperialism, and European great power rivalry. The paper also discusses the views of most historians who agree that entangling alliances among the great powers of Europe were the most important factor.
From the Paper
"Introduction to History of International Relations The Origins of World War I: The origins of the First World War can be traced to a number of political and diplomatic causes, such as militarism, imperialism, and European great power rivalry. These factors all helped to cause the war, but most historians agree that entangling alliances among the great powers of Europe were the most important factor. These alliances were intended to be defensive and were seen as a way to prevent a major European war, but ironically, they contributed to the outbreak of the war instead of preventing it. (Hamilton 551)"
| |
|
The Origins of World War I, 2002.
A look at historiographic debate over the reasons for World War I.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay will argue, through an analysis of the historiographic debate, that the three historians are not seeing the forest for the trees. As a close reading of their arguments makes clear, the structural forces of European politics, and not personalities, play a predominant role in the origins of the First World War.
| |
|
Origins of World War I, 2008.
This paper provides an outline of Chapter 2 of "Origins of the War" by Sidney B. Fay.
982 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper reviews Chapter 2 of "Origins of the War" by Sidney B. Fay entitled "The System of Secret Alliances, 1871-1890: Domination of the Eastern Empires". The paper looks at Fay's analysis of the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War, the allegiance of Russia, Austria and Germany known as the League of the Three Emperors and its dissolution. The paper also outlines Fay's perspective on the Austro-German Alliance, the recreation of the Alliance of the Three Emperors, the Russo-German "Re-Insurance Treaty," the Triple Alliance, Romania Alliance and Franco-Russian Alliance. In addition, the paper looks at how Fay highlights the end of the Eastern Empire domination and the wheels being set in motion toward World War I.
Outline:
Consequences of the Franco-Prussian War
League of the Three Emperors, 1872-1878
Near Eastern Crisis, 1875-1878
Austro-German Alliance of 1879
Alliance of the Three Emperors, 1881-1887
Russo-German "Re-Insurance treaty," 1887-1890
Triple Alliance of 1882
Romania Alliance of 1883
Breakdown of the Wire to Russia in 1890
German Relations, 1871-1890
From the Paper
"In this section, Fay discusses how Germany had remained politically and socially weak from the time of the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth century, and was subject to French policy, which was determined to keep Germany weak and divided. Germany dealt with the problem directly and expelled Austria from its rule by the Prussian victory at Sadowa, and established the North German Federation, although under Prussian rule. France was now the underling and Germany was the strong enemy. Bismarck was highly criticized by the French for the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, however, Fay's view is that Bismarck was just doing what is common during war and after victory. Nonetheless, Fay surmises that this decision was so pervasive and so angered France that it became one of the main underlying causes for World War I. In essence, Fay lays the fault of World War I right on the doorstep of Germany."
| |
|
"The Pity of War: Origins of World War I", 2002.
This essay consists of a summary and a critique of the first six chapters of Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War: Origins of World War I".
2,612 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Examination of Fergusons book in which the author examines the events leading up to the outbreak of the First World War and the factors which caused that war. It explains how this is a work of revisionist history inasmuch as Ferguson dismisses as inadequate or misleading previous attempts by historians and others to explain the origins of the war and offers his own formulation of the causes thereof. Its great strength is the comprehensive manner in which the author deals with the interrelationships among the diplomatic, military, political, economic and social developments of the period and his insights into the internal dynamics in various nations which helped bring on the war. The paper discusses how the author's overall conclusions are, however, poorly supported. They involve leaps in logic and in some cases retrospective speculation, including the questionable use of counter factual scenarios which sometimes border on fantasy, and assumptions which display his own peculiar set of biases.
From the Paper
"World War I was a great calamity for European civilization. The widespread disillusionment with its consequences has generated a large number of varying historical explanations as to why it occurred. Ferguson states at the outset that he is profoundly dissatisfied with previous explanations of the war's origins. In Chapter I, he deals with the belief that the war was the inevitable product of "cultures of militarism," especially Prussian militarism. He says that "in both Britain and in Germany the advocates of increased military preparedness enjoyed only limited success, and certainly failed to win over the majority of voters" (15). He convincingly demonstrates that public opinion in Great Britain was divided on the need for large expenditures on armaments during the 20 years prior to the summer of 1914 and that the Liberal Party, which dominated British politics after 1905, was committed to domestic reforms. He points to the many sources of Germanophilia in Britain, but concedes there was general agreement across party lines on the importance of ensuring the supremacy on the high seas of the Royal Navy.
Although he acknowledges the powers of the Kaiser and the armed forces in Germany were greater than in Britain and France, he argues that "only a minority of Germans were militarists, and a minority of them were Anglophobes" (25). His overall conclusion was that "militarism . . . was far from being the dominant force in European politics on the eve of the Great War. On the contrary: it was in political decline, and not least as a direct consequence of democratization" (28)."
| |
|
The Causes of World War I and World War II, 2002.
A comparative analysis of the origins of the two World Wars.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper identifies the major causes of World War I and World War II. The causes of both wars lay in the political and military rivalries and consequent alliance building among major European powers. However, the rise of fascism and the Great Depression put World War II in different contexts. The scale of destruction is greater in World War II, but major changes in Western ideas emerged from the destruction of World War I.
| |
|
England and Germany After World War I, 2006.
An analysis of the conditions in England and Germany after World War I.
3,550 words (approx. 14.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies the conditions in Europe after World War I, which ultimately led to Second World War. The paper focuses on England and Germany as countries representative of the Allied and Axis powers. The paper begins by examining the Weimar Republic of Germany, which had inherent weaknesses that, when combined with economic strife and early political challenges, created a high level of instability. The paper shows how the Nazi Party exploited the Republic's weaknesses. The paper examines in detail Hitler's rise to power, and the culminating impact of world events. Next, the paper turns to Britain, which like Germany was showing signs of great economic stress after World War I. The paper discusses high unemployment coupled with a shrinking export market, which contributed to the downward spiral. The paper also studies the psyche of the British public, which believed that that World War I was the last war -- a belief that was reflected in the government's decision to cut military spending. The paper concludes with an assessment of the U.S.'s Land-Lease program and its positive impact on the economic and military recovery of England.
From the Paper
"The conditions in countries where many of the Allied forces resided were similar to those of the Axis forces. One country for each of the allied and axis forces whose history following World War II are similar to the other members of each group will be examined. The British are a good representation of the Allied forces and Germany for the Axis, especially in the European theater. What occurred in each of these countries following World War I laid the foundation for what were to follow in World War II. Each holds some very interesting events, which set into motion what would occur in the future. Mussolini first coined the term "Axis" in a speech he gave in Milan, Italy on November 1, 1936. In this speech, he referred to the Rome/Berlin alliance as an Axis in which all European countries would revolve around. This alliance, however, was a result of forced isolation from the rest of Europe, rather than a sincere Italo-German partnership of mutual respect."
| |
|
World War I and Consciousness, 2006.
A discussion regarding the impact that World War I had on the world.
952 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of World War I. Specifically, the paper discusses how World War I transformed the consciousness of Europeans. According to the paper, the world changed politically, socially and economically after World War I.
From the Paper
"The consciousness of what was possible changed, too. World War I was a time of great technological change. Aircraft joined in warfare for the first time, and many new weapons, such as tanks, grenades, and flame-throwers came into use. The population's consciousness changed after the war because technology had made them aware of the many things that were becoming possible in the modern world. More people were working in factories, but even more importantly, more people could afford modern technologies, such as automobiles, early appliances, and other non-essential goods. The population became more mobile, and because of this, they could travel more easily. They became more conscious of other countries, other people, and other lifestyles, and broadened their own consciousness. "
| |
|
World Wars I and II, 2002.
A discussion of the cause and effects of both World Wars I and II.
1,305 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the causes of World War I and World War II were not one cataclysmic event but were a multitude of causes that basically derived from Nationalism and Imperialism. It shows how these two factors led to the turmoil in Europe and growing tensions and how the outbreak of World War II is an indirect link to the ending of World War I, which led to many years of chaos in Europe. It analyzes how the resulting economic depressions were a cascade of many more economic issues that Europe and America still face today and how the most radical affect was the Cold War, a war that plagued fear upon the American population for forty five years.
From the Paper
"The first cause of World War II was the intense anger over the Versailles Treaty. This Treaty was signed on June 28, 1919 and basically held Germany responsible for creating this world war. The Versailles Treaty ordered that Germany pay for all the damages that the Allies and their governments endured as a result of this war. Germany was then ordered to cut their army down to 100,000 soldiers, as well as their navy, and do away with their air-force. Germany was also angry that their territory had to be reduced as well. The territory of Alsace and Lorraine was ceded by France and certain sections of Prussia went to present day Poland. Germany felt that this treaty was ?dictated peace? and they proceeded to refuse this treaty. In doing so, the future affects would be another war. "
| |
|
Accountability for World War I, 2007.
A discussion of whom should be held accountable for the World War I.
1,628 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Germany's involvement in World War I and why she was held responsible for the damages that occurred in Europe, through the eyes of three historians. The paper explains that Germany had rejected the attempts of mediation made by Britain and that it was the miscalculations of German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg that caused all of Europe's superpowers to engage in a World War. The paper looks at how the three historians; Fritz Fischer, Gerhard Ritter and H. Jarausch discuss whom should be held accountable for the World War. In conclusion the paper shows that it is Fischer's persuasive arguments and ample evidence that clearly identifies Germany's faults in the causation of World War I.
From the Paper
"According to Fischer, Publicist Victor Naumann, who was an adviser of the German Foreign Ministry, engaged in a discussion with the permanent head of the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry, Count Hoyos, about German aggression for the war in Berlin. He stated that the triple alliance of Italy, Austria-Hungary and Germany was powerful and that Britain would remain neutral because of the Anglo-German settlement in Africa, therefore stating that an attack against Serbia would be best if executed immediately. Ritter criticizes Fischer for bringing forward Victor Naumann as a witness to the Berlin Agreement as he was only a journalist and not a diplomat and therefore questions Fischer's credibility. However, Fischers claims are proven true when Count Hoyos met with the Austro-Hungarian ambassador, Szogyeny in Berlin on July 5th, 1914 and presented him with two documents: a memorandum that stated the situation of the monarchy and a proposal that insisted the only way to save the monarchy from being swallowed in the "Pan-Slav flood" was to "eliminate Serbia"."
| |
|
World War I, 2007.
This paper outlines the causes and effects of World War I.
849 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper details the events that led to the start of World War I. The paper relates what factors influenced the United States' decision to enter the war. The paper portrays how World War I had a major impact on the world; it brought about WWII with many more deaths. The paper illustrates how what most thought would be a short-lived and inconsequential war ultimately killed millions and changed the course of history forever.
From the Paper
"When World War I first broke out in August of 1914, in Vienna, Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg and London, people cheered and showed their huge support for the war. Thousands of reservists went off eagerly, many afraid that the war would be over before they even had an opportunity to become involved. Everyone thought there would be a few battles and all would be home for Christmas. Few expected that it would go on for four years and millions of people would be injured and killed. With hindsight, it is known that no one was prepared for entering this war throughout Europe and the United States joined for still questionable reasons, according to some historians."
| |
|
World War I, 2005.
This paper discusses that the primary cause of World War I was economics.
960 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that World War I was "the war to end all wars"; however, it was just the beginning of a century of both infighting and violent destruction of homes, property and the utter disregard for the sanctity of life, which continues into the present century. The author points out that the wide open spaces and the emerging consumerism, which economists could see in Russia, led France and Britain to ally themselves with Russia. The paper relates that another major cause of World War I and its aftermath was the unhappiness and uprising of the lower working classes, which was fanned by communism and socialism.
From the Paper
"What is most frightening, in retrospect, a disastrous scenario that has been played over and over again, is that the lives of millions were in the hands of some of the most inept politicians who regarded themselves as statesmen. Senility was surely a factor in the push toward war, incited by the French Clemenceau and Britain's Lloyd George. This would be similarly acted out by Frances' Daladier and Britain's Chamberlain in the late 1930s. Again, we need to realize that nationalism, ethnic claims of superiority, political maneuvering, expanding colonization in Africa and Asia all led to one true cause of World War I and its aftermath: the dollar, the franc, the mark, the ruble, the schilling: It was economics. Not to make light of the situation, but one is reminded of the sign in Bill Clinton's office as he was running for President: "It's the economy, stupid!""
| |
|
World War I and Canadian Unity, 2008.
A discussion of how World War I helped to forge a sense of Canadian unity.
2,760 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 14 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how World War I involved a shared experience capable of galvanizing a Canadian unified identity. The paper describes accounts of nurses, gunners and others, who served in Europe and explains that Canadian achievements abroad were a source of particular pride. Finally, the paper tells of Canadian veterans, who have remained a generation remembered in many Canadian family stories as well as in Europe, and describes Canada's pride in its reputation as a country of military knowledge.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Canadian Participation
World War I as Remembered
Wars and Identity
Something to be Forgotten
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Anthony Smith is a sociologist of the London School of Economics who is devoted to the study of nationalism and ethno-nationalism. He has long stressed the role of warfare and its experiences in forging cohesive identities. (1981) The experiences of war have a way of forging distinct groups whose self-images are made different from others, often in a cohesion not there before, or not in the same way. Jonathan Vance Reading commented on the lasting memory of the Great War that affected perhaps every Canadian family, and certainly, every community, an understanding of the horrors of the trenches of World War I part of national consciousness as much as awareness of what Canadians had achieved. (1997) If one is Canadian or feels a strong connection to Canadians or their sufferings in the World Wars, one may be surprised by one's reaction to signs of something Canadian that is not properly recognized. For instance, when preparing an assignment that addressed Major John McCrae MD (1872-1918) and his poem In Flanders Field, for a different university course, it was intriguing to discover a personal reaction of anger at a poem sometimes claimed by the British and Americans, a short reference made to 'a Canadian doctor'. His poem, now memorized by generations of Canadian school children and a strong symbol of the Canadians in World War II and the veterans of both World Wars 'feels' Canadian and he was not a mere doctor but a remarkable man."
| |
|
The Causes of World War I, 2007.
An analysis of the causes of World War I according to four separate documents.
2,488 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses various opinions on the factors causing the outbreak of World War I. It compares and contrasts four documents that discuss World War I. It then critiques the material that was used in sources and examines the opinions expressed in them to determine whether they are generally accurate, or whether they have ideas and beliefs in them that are not generally accepted among historians.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Comparison and Contrast of Source Material
Critique of Source Material
From the Paper
"The United States tried to stay away from the War, but it finally became involved late in the game. United States troops worked with the other countries to force Germany to back off from the problems that it was causing, remove troops from other countries, and give restitution to many of the countries that it had wronged through its actions. The Treaty would have given much to all of the countries, including the United States, but it was not to be. Eventually, the United States Senate rejected the treaty of Versailles because it was fearful of becoming involved in European wars. In addition, the treaty was rejected because there was a great deal of Republican resentment when it came to Wilson's close wins of the elections of 1912 and 1916. Because of this, the United States chose not to enter into the League of Nations, which weakened it very much (Americanization, 1925)."
|
|
|
