Q. To what extent can Germany be held responsible for causing the two World Wars? Discuss critically. [UPSC-2015]
Ans:World War I and World War II are the most brutal and destructive wars the world has faced in all of its histories. Several countries were involved and its effects were felt throughout the world. Although both wars were caused by many different factors, a common aspect of both was the involvement of Germany. Due to its involvement in the long-term causes of both the first and second world wars, Germany is to a great extent held responsible for causing them.
Responsibility of Germany for WW1:
- Bismark policy of alliances led to creation of tension and disturbance in European balance of power. It ultimately led to division of Europe in two armed groups Triple alliance and triple entente. Which created larger background behind ww1. ©crackingcivilservices.com
- However, many historians think this explanation is not convincing; there had been many crises since 1904, and none of them had led to a major war. In fact, there was nothing binding about these alliances.
- When Russia was struggling in the war against Japan (1904-5), the French sent no help nor did they support Russia when she protested at the Austrian annexation of Bosnia; Austria took no interest in Germany’s unsuccessful attempts to prevent France from taking over Morocco (the Morocco and Agadir Crises, 1906 and 1911); Germany had restrained Austria from attacking Serbia during the Second Balkan War.
- Italy, though a member of the Triple Alliance, was on good terms with France and Britain, and entered the war against Germany in 1915.
- No power actually declared war because of one of these treaties of alliance.
- However, many historians think this explanation is not convincing; there had been many crises since 1904, and none of them had led to a major war. In fact, there was nothing binding about these alliances.
- Humiliation of France after Franco-Prussian War (1871) cause French resentment towards Germany.
- In 1890, new emperor of Germany, Kaiser William-II was very ambitious and believer in forward policies.
- He was a great imperialist and had a vision of creation of great colonial empire. He wanted German hegemony over world politics. It led to Colonial rivalry in Africa and the Far East.
- the argument that German disappointment with their imperial gains and resentment at the success of other powers helped cause the war is not convincing. Although there had certainly been disputes, they had always been settled without war.
- In early July 1914 Anglo-German relations were good: an agreement favourable to Germany had just been reached over a possible partition of Portuguese colonies in Africa.
- He pursued highly aggressive foreign policy and expansionist policy.
- He focused on militarism and made efforts to build massive navy. It led to naval rivalry between Britain and Germany
- However, early in 1913 the Germans had actually reduced naval spending in order to concentrate more on strengthening the army. As Winston Churchill correctly pointed out, in the spring and summer of 1914, naval rivalry had ceased to be a cause of friction.
- His policies were known as “welt-politik” (Literally ‘world policy’)
- He was a great imperialist and had a vision of creation of great colonial empire. He wanted German hegemony over world politics. It led to Colonial rivalry in Africa and the Far East.
- Many historians say that Kaiser William-II gave blind cheque to Austria in her conflict with Serbia.
- It is significant that Germany restrained the Austrians from declaring war on Serbia in 1913, but in 1914 encouraged them to go ahead. Germany promised to help without any conditions attached.
- Marxist historians points to the theory that the desire for economic mastery of the world caused German businessmen and capitalists to want war with Britain, which still owned about half the world’s tonnage of merchant ships in 1914.
- But critics of the theory point out that Germany was already well on the way to economic victory; one leading German industrialist remarked in 1913: ‘Give us three or four more years of peace and Germany will be the unchallenged economic master of Europe.’ On this argument, the last thing Germany needed was a major war.
- Some Historian believed that the German plan for mobilization, known as the Schlieffen Plan, was extremely risky and inflexible and deserved to be seen as the start of disaster both for Germany and Europe.
- The Schlieffen Plan assumed that France would automatically join Russia; the bulk of German forces were to be sent by train to the Belgian frontier, and through Belgium to attack France, which would be knocked out in six weeks.
- Once generals Moltke knew that Russia had ordered a general mobilization, he demanded immediate German mobilization. As Schlieffen Plan involved Belgian, It led to involvement of Britain in war too.
- However, Doubt was cast on this theory by some historians.
- They argue that the Schlieffen Plan was only one of at least five alternatives being considered by the German high command in the years after 1900.
- It was only after the war that the Germans tried to blame their defeat on the rigidity and the constraints of the Schlieffen Plan, which had, in fact, never existed in the form they tried to make out.
- Some historian claimed that Germany deliberately planned for, and provoked war with Russia, Britain and France in order to make Germany the dominant power in the world, both economically and politically, and also as a way of dealing with domestic tensions.
- In the elections of 1912, the German Socialist Party (SPD) won over a third of the seats in the Reichstag (lower house of parliament), making it the largest single party.
- Then in January 1914, the Reichstag passed a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor, Bethmann, but he remained in office because the Kaiser had the final say.
- A victorious war seemed a good way of keeping people’s minds off the political problems; it would enable the government keep power in the hands of the Kaiser and aristocracy.
[For a quality content, focused preparation and Quick updates, Join our new telegram channel]
Other players and factors responsible for ww1:
- Austria: The immediate cause of the war was the bitter enmity between Austria and Serbia in the Balkans leading to murder of Archduke Francis. It was the quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia sparked off the outbreak of war.
- Some also believe that German pressure and promises of support were not important – the Austrian leaders made their own decisions
- The Great War of 1914 was the culmination of the developments that had been going on for more than a generation. Its causes are to be sought in the conjunction and intermingling of various forces and tendencies which had been at work for a long time among the nations of Europe.
- Nationalism: It inflamed the racial pride of the people, stimulated them to exalt their country above all others.
- Imperialism:
- Russia was the first to order a general mobilization, and it was this Russian mobilization which provoked Germany to mobilize.
- Some historians suggest that the Germans may not have deliberately provoked war and that, in fact, war was not inevitable. The war was actually caused by a ‘tragedy of miscalculation‘. Most of the leading rulers and politicians seemed to be incompetent and made bad mistakes.
- The Austrians miscalculated by thinking that Russia would not support Serbia.
- Germany made a crucial mistake by promising to support Austria with no conditions attached.
- Politicians in Russia and Germany miscalculated by assuming that mobilization would not necessarily mean war.
- The generals, especially Moltke, miscalculated by sticking rigidly to their plans in the belief that this would bring a quick and decisive victory.
Perhaps the most sensible conclusion is that Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary all must share the responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914.
Responsibility of Germany for WW2:
- During and immediately after the war there was general agreement outside Germany that Hitler was to blame.
- By attacking Poland on all fronts instead of merely occupying Danzig and the Corridor, Hitler showed that he intended not just to get back the Germans lost at Versailles, but to destroy Poland.
- Martin Gilbert argues that his motive was to remove the stigma of defeat in the First World War: ‘for the only antidote to defeat in one war is victory in the next’.
- Hugh Trevor-Roper and many other historians believe that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning. They argue that he hated communism and wanted to destroy Russia and control it permanently. In this way, Germany would acquire Lebensraum, but it could only be achieved by a major war.
- The destruction of Poland was an essential preliminary to the invasion of Russia. The German non-aggression pact with Russia was simply a way of lulling Russian suspicions and keeping her neutral until Poland had been dealt with.
- Evidence for this theory is taken from statements in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and from the Hossbach Memorandum,
- As per this theory, appeasement cannot be blamed as a cause of war, except that it made things easier for Hitler. Hitler had his plans, his ‘blueprint’ for action, and this meant that war was inevitable sooner or later.
- Adam Tooze’s theory is that Hitler was afraid that the longer he delayed the inevitable war, the greater the danger that Britain and France would overtake German rearmament.
- Germany had been steadily rearming. From 1936, when the Four Year Plan was introduced, until 1939, no less than two thirds of all investment in industry was for producing war materials. In 1939 about a quarter of the industrial workforce was employed on military orders, ‘a figure unmatched by any other state in Europe’.
- Further, aggressive foreign policy and war was the essence of the Nazi system. Militarism and Social Darwinism was also inherent to it.
- It was reflected in repudiation of treaty of Versailles, Locarno treaty, occupation of Czechoslovakia etc.
Other players and factors responsible for ww2:
- Historian like A. J. P. Taylor believed that Hitler did not intend to cause a major war, and expected at the most, a short war with Poland.
- According to Taylor, Hitler’s aims were similar to those of previous German rulers – Hitler was simply continuing the policies of leaders like Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Stresemann; the only difference was that Hitler’s methods were more ruthless.
- He has pointed out to the inconsistent approach of the British and French as to support Poland (where his claim to land was more reasonable) after giving way to him over Czechoslovakia (where his case was much less valid).
- Thus, for Taylor, Hitler was lured into the war almost by accident, after the Poles had called his bluff. ‘The war of 1939, far from being premeditated, was a mistake, the result on both sides of diplomatic blunders.’
- However, very few historians accept Taylor’s theory that Hitler had no long-term plans for war.
- Some historians also blamed the Versailles Treaties for filling the Germans with bitterness and the desire for revenge.
- However, It is worth remembering also that by the end of 1938, most of Germany’s grievances had been removed: reparations were largely cancelled, the disarmament clauses had been ignored, the Rhineland was remilitarized, Austria and Germany were united, and 3.5 million Germans had been brought into the Reich from Czechoslovakia. And Germany was a great power again.
- The League of Nations and the idea of collective security have been criticized because they failed to secure general disarmament and to control potential aggressors.
- The world economic crisis was also a major factor, since without it, Hitler would probably never have been able to come to power.
- Some historians have suggested that appeasement was largely responsible for the situation deteriorating into war.
- They argue that Britain and France should have taken a firm line with Hitler before Germany had become too strong: an Anglo-French attack on western Germany in 1936 at the time of the Rhineland occupation would have taught Hitler a lesson and might have toppled him from power. By giving way to him, the appeasers increased his prestige at home.
- Further, the war in 1939 was declared by Britain and France on Germany, and not the other way round.
- British and French policy before 1939 was governed primarily by national self-interest and only secondarily by moral considerations.
- The British and French, just like the Germans, were anxious to preserve or extend their power and safeguard their economic interests. In the end this meant going to war in 1939 to preserve Franco-British power and prestige.
- The USSR has been accused of making war inevitable by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany on 23 August 1939, which also included a secret agreement for Poland to be partitioned between Germany and the USSR. It is argued that Stalin ought to have allied with the west and with Poland, thus frightening Hitler into keeping the peace.
- However, Russian historians justify the pact on the grounds that it gave the USSR time to prepare its defences against a possible German attack.
Thus, the two world wars were caused by several different factors and many countries participated in it. Several arguments exist as to who should be held responsible for the wars. However, the contribution of Germany in both wars constitutes clear evidence that it should be the main country blamed for the wars. The significant involvement of Germany in the long-term causes of the First World War and the Second World War proves that Germany should, to a large extent, responsible for causing the two conflicts. ©crackingcivilservices.com
