A Depressed German Is An Angry German

The Great Depression was a global collapse of economies which largely affected the post-war countries which tried to rebuild their nations after the First World War. Depressions have been sporadically evident throughout history, for example the Panic of 1837, a stock-market crash in the USA and the Post-Communist Depressions in the 1970s until the 1990s, which were recessions caused by the break-up of former Yugoslavia, however the most well-known is the Great Depression which started in 1929, and lasted as long as the early 1940’s. During this time, many people lost their jobs, prices went up, and people were impoverished. Of course the most affected countries were those that had participated in the First World War, the losers in particular. Germany’s economy had ground to a halt near the end of World War One, and yet by accepting US loans and foreign investment Germany had started the rejuvenation of their economy. Although there was some improvement in the economy, the Weimar Republic, the German government instated by the Allies was weak and ineffective. This weakness made it easier for radical extremist groups whether they be Communists, followers of the Marxist ideologies, or Nazis, people adhering to racist fascism, to sway public opinion. The issues that undoubtedly followed the Great Depression were alterations in the supply and demand, increased unemployment, inflation and devaluation of the German Mark, currency used in Germany, widespread unhappiness, and of course inevitable radicalization of the public. In addition to these problems Germany was still entangled in the bureaucracy and fiscal conditions ordained within the Treaty of Versailles, such as the extensive amount of reparations to be made, which due to the depression became impossible to pay. Although the Weimar Republic did attempt at improving Post-war conditions as well as reducing reparations, and enacting a passive resistance, it did not meet the demands of the German public who wanted a different government.

Was the Paris Peace Conference a success or a failure in upholding stability in post war Europe?

World War I, a callous and destructive war, and it was a step on the way to the world we know we know it. It was fought between the Allied Forces, consisting of England, France, and the US, and the Central Powers, which was made up of Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottomans. The eventual outcome of the war was a victory for the Allies, and as such retribution for the Central Powers. The Paris Peace Conference, a meeting of the Allied victors, was held on the 18^th of January 1919, and was preordained to negotiate and settle peace terms for the Central Powers, namely Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The conference strived to prevent another outbreak of war happening and as such, placed certain restrictions, took away land, and imposed rules to the defeated countries. Both the economic development, militaristic control, and imperialistic idealism were touched upon. The treaties affected most of the Central Powers and gave rise to new countries and governments. These treaties, put forth within the Paris Peace Conference needed to conciliate to every Allied country’s wishes, without completely destroying the stability and power structure in Europe. But did this treaty uphold the newly secured peace, or was it a failure from the start?

Too fully analyze the successes and failure of the treaties, we have to look at the causes of the First World War.  The spark that started the First World War was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian archduke, by the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group, in 1914. This event led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire declaring war on Serbia, after which other countries were pulled into the chaos of war. This was partly due to the secret alliances between nations, such as Russia and Serbia, or Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This declaration of war on behalf of Austria meant that they were the sole instigators of war, and as such, in my opinion should be held accountable for the war. They were the provocateurs that started the Great War, but Austria-Hungary wasn’t as “gung ho” when it came to fighting their ally, Instead they requested help of the Central Powers and let countries such as Germany take charge and fight against the Allies. This shows the weakness in the bonds between the Central Powers. This weakness could have played a major role in the failure of the treaties after the war. After the war had finished the victors also known as “The Big Four”; which consisted of Woodrow Wilson the President United States, Georges Clemenceau from France, Vittorio Orlando from Italy, and David Lloyd George the Prime Minister of England, gathered at Versailles to negotiate the peace terms, they however put most of the blame on Germany and as such forced heavy reparations and restrictions on it. The treaties that were agreed upon at the Paris Peace conference, forced defeated nations to take responsibility to pay for the damage done by war, reduce territory and military numbers, and cut ties between hostile nations that could try to retaliate. Germany was supposed to agree to the War Guilt Clause, a signed agreement by Germany claiming they they were the sole cause for the war and that they would have to pay most of the reparations. And finally the defeated nations were compelled to sign the treaties, agreeing to the harsh terms.In charge of the Paris Peace Conference were “The Big Four”. They tried to appease each other and come to a consensus. This however was  difficult as the leaders each had their own agenda. Wilson was the most easy going, trying to open trade and keep up Germany’s economy. Furthermore he wanted Germany to act as a buffer zone against the rising communist government of the USSR. Lloyd George was more moderate, he believed that Germany had to pay but hoped to prevent hatred among the German people. Clemenceau on the other hand was radical, he wanted to completely distinguish Germany’s economy, and demilitarizes its armies. They treaties were based around Wilson’s 14 points, Wilson’s hopes of progressivism, a change or reform through political and economic means.  The treaties written up the Paris Peace Conference were the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Saint-Germain, the Treaty of Neuilly, the Treaty of Trianon, and finally, the Treaty of Sevres, which was later revised and resigned as the Treaty of Lausanne. These treaties pertained to Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire respectively. Each of these treaties set restrictions and rules that were imposed by the Allies, and they supported self determination, economic freedom, demilitarisation, and an all out strife for peace. 
The Treaty of Saint Germain en Laye addressed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it  forced the separation of Hungary from Austria, and forced certain reforms unto Austria to pay back for the damage caused by World War One. The Austrian Empire was already heavily weakened but the Allies wanted to secure and prevent the possibility of Austria  retaliating. During this separation land was given to Italy (Dalmatian Islands), Romania (Bukovina), and of course Hungary, after its independence. Furthermore Austria was forced to minimize its military to a maximum of 3o,ooo volunteers. This greatly affected the ability to protect themselves, and make them more prone to attack. I thinks this treaty was the best the world leaders could do, and that it had its advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage was the creation of new countries. The treaty brought forth a new Hungarian state as well as adding land to the collected Slavic countries, named Yugoslavia. The issues were that the army was demilitarised to a point where the possibility of attack was large, and Romania did take advantage of this, and tried to regain land they believed was theirs. Furthermore by not allowing the annexation of Germany and Austria, the Allies split groups of Germanic peoples. Other ethnic minorities were scattered over different countries and some couldn’t settle in the new countries and adhere to the new cultures. Minorities such as the Jews and Slavs were discriminated against, often they were used as a scapegoat and blamed for the countries problems. This could have been the start of the feelings leading up to Hitler and the Holocaust. Also the prevention of annexation allowed hate feeling towards the Allies to persist. Hitler later made use of this hatered and manipulated people’s feelings to provoke the Second World War. The loss of land, reduced the size of agricultural, and industrial land and as such affected the economy of Austria. The aforementioned reasons are why I believe the treaty to be too harsh and aided in the rise of Nazism, and the Second World War.

Factors That Led To The German Loss Of World War One

                Germany was little but a wreck after the war. The Allies, namely Britain, France and Russia had succeeded in winning the war . There were many reasons to why Germany lost the war. Some of the reasons were the failure of the Schlieffen plan and the German military, the weakness of the German Economy and its geography, the ineffectiveness of the Alliance Systems, as well as the entry of the United States of America. But as the war started, all started to go wrong for Germany.

                First of all, Germany had to fight on two fronts, being the Western Front, consisting of France and the Eastern Front, namely Russia. To prevent this, Germany wanted to annihilate France as quick as possible. Then turning on Russia, as they were supposedly slow at mobilising. Unfortunately for Germany, the Belgians put up quite the resistance while the BEF, or British Expeditionary Force, a force sent into France, mobilised rapidly. Furthermore Germany did not expect Britain to involve itself within European affairs. These were all reasons why the Von Schlieffen plan, a plan to invade France through a neutral Belgium, failed. Primarily the invasion of Belgium, created sympathy throughout the world and rallied support for the Allies. The Belgians, contrary to German predictions resisted and made use of guerrilla tactics, a hit and run if you will, to hamper the German advance. Additionally French resistance was tough and the Maginot line was heavily fortified. France wanted vengeance on Germany as they had gained Alsace-Lorraine when France lost the war in 1870 against Germany. In addition to the French perseverance, the British, who Germany had underestimated as only a naval superpower, were in fact a  well trained army. Likewise the Russians had mobilised faster than expected, and Germany was quickly enveloped in chaos. In addition to this the leadership This war of ongoing attrition wore down both the German supplies, as well as their troops. The lack thereof meant a decline in the German Economy.

                Germany entered the war as a booming nation, with a strong economy and bountiful  resources. The continuing war needed a considerable amount of money. And soon the war had drained Germany’s economy to a standstill. Due to the war the regions which housed the factories, the Rhineland, German territory to the west of the Rhine river, were inaccessible. Thus the production rate went down. Furthermore the British navy had enacted a naval blockade on Germany’s shoreline, preventing trade and militaristic ventures. Without the trade and the renewal of the resource supplies Germany spiralled into oblivion. Mass inflation and economic instability was caused by the devaluation of the Deutsche Mark, the German currency, which was needed to pay for the war. This debt, as well as the requisitions of the Treaty of Versailles later on have only just recently been totally paid off . Unlike Britain, Germany did not have a system like the British, D.O.R.A, or Defense of the Realm Act, a policy in which gave the British government power over any and all matters for the sake of the war. This allowed the British government to make full use of all the resources, manpower, as well as money. Germany did not have official tax system either, meaning that the war was funded by the rich and wealthy.  Many of whom had fickle loyalties.

                Another reason was the weakness of alliances and the erratic loyalties. Germany had allies who impeded their goals rather than aiding the Germans. Austria-Hungary was weak, they constantly needed backing from the  German military. This took the shape of monetary aide, troop reinforcements, as well as supplies and resources. Furthermore the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was not as active as the Axis  Powers had hoped. Britain on the other hand had strong allies some of which were colonies or former colonies. For example, Canada and India provided great manpower and supplied resources and food.  Italy, one of the main powers within the Triple Alliance, an alliance consisting of Germany, Austria Hungary, defected and joined the Allies. This opened a new front to the south of Germany, and completed the encirclement of the Axis powers save for the Ottoman Empire and the nation of Bulgaria. The Ottomans were struggling with internal conflict and could do little to affect the war on a major level. Another reason for this was that these countries were disconnected from the rest of Western Europe. Contrary to the weakness of Germany’s allies the Allied Powers had the backing of the USA  

                In 1917, U.S.A joined the war which provided the needed support and gave access to necessary resources. Their entry was caused by two events, among which the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram. To break the Allied naval blockade Germany set up a policy called “Unrestricted Submarine Warfare”, this policy stated that the Germans would sink any and all ships found in the English channel. They used U-boats, or submarines and harassed ships travelling through the English channel and was quite effective at first, but as the war went on, the Allies introduced counter-measures such as; anti-submarine weapons and convoy systems. Depth charges and sonar helped locate the submarines. Convoy systems were introduced in which the freight ships were enshrouded in a circle of battle cruisers, giving them the protection they needed. The advancement of aviation and radar also furthered Allied control over the Western Front.  A German U-boat sunk the Lusitania, a ship said to have been carrying weaponry, but also carried American passengers. The other reason was the Zimmermann telegram, a telegram  suggesting a German-Mexican alliance. If Germany won then Mexico would be allowed to reclaim lost territories such as New Mexico and Texas. The U.S could do little but join the war on the side of the Allies. This telegram reflects the desperation of Germany at this point. It also shows the lack of thought they put into the war, as Mexico was in the middle of a civil war. It was not limited to those mistakes that led to the downfall of the German Empire. Poor leadership, high risk attack plans, and the weakness of the German propaganda machine also impacted the outcome of this war.

               

                One of the major mistakes made by the Germans was to underestimate the power and effectiveness on propaganda. Britain had an organised office specialised in propaganda, and as such they had one view and opinion. On the other hand Germany had a couple of smaller groups printing out the propaganda, and thus they could not unify the country and its men. English propaganda made themselves look better than the Germans, while the Germans made it seem like the Brits were weak and ill prepared. This backfired when the British did not turn out to be as weak and poorly trained as the propaganda had suggested. This lowered morale and made soldiers lose hope in their nation.  Propaganda was another reason why the Germans lost the war.

                 Looking at all these mistakes which Germany made, it isn’t really that surprising it all went wrong for Germany. The events that occurred both before and during the war, all contributed to the decline of the German Empire and the loss of the war. There was no great man, like Churchill or Hitler, to lead the country and as soon as the Kaiser abdicated the governmental structure fell apart. Chaos, poverty, and unrest engulfed the Nation and this would later pave the way to Hitler’s election.  So all in all, it was a disastrous war for Germany.

Works Cited

           "First World War.com - Encyclopedia - Snipers." First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/snipers.htm>.

           "First World War.com - Weapons of War: Machine Guns." First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://firstworldwar.com/weaponry/machineguns.htm>.

           "First World War.com - Weapons of War: Rifles." First World War.com - A Multimedia History of World War One. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/rifles.htm>.

           "The History of Machine Guns up to WW1." Advantages/Disadvantages of Machine Guns in WW1. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://machinegunww1.blogspot.com/2009/03/history-of-machine-guns-up-to-ww1.html>.

           "Machine Guns." History Learning Site. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/machine_guns.htm>.

           "Maxim Gun." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun>.

           MaXimus, By. "World War One - Weapons." History on the Net Main Page. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/weapons.htm>.

           "Snipers." Sniper Central - Mel's Sniper Page. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.snipercentral.com/snipers.htm>.

           "WW1 Heavy Weapons, Allied." Digger History; (ANZAC)  Australia & NZ at War, a History. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/heavy-ww1-allied.htm>.

           "WWI Lewis Light Machine Gun." Deactivated Guns - Arundel Militaria. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/detail/1914_lewis.htm>.

           "WWI Weapons: Machine Guns Used during WWI - by Dan Blade - Helium." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.helium.com/items/1518913-wwi-weapons-machine-guns-used-during-wwi>.

B. Background

                Before the age of massive armoured vehicles and long range missiles. Before the change from static box-like warfare to the use of guerrilla^[1]-like urban warfare. During the First World War the fighting had come to a stalemate. Both sides had entrenched themselves into the ground and surrounded themselves with barbed wire. The army’s answer to this deadlock ... were machine guns and snipers. The question is what were the successes and failures of these weapons. In order to fully answer this question, we have to put the weapons into the historical context and time period.

                The evidence supports the fact that both the machine gun and the sniper played a major role in the First World War. Although they also had their disadvantages. The machine gun, was a weapon that could fire many rounds a minute and thus claimed many lives. However to have these capabilities it was heavy and so, immobile. Regardless machine guns proved to be efficient and useful on the battle front, being able to cover a wider range, and devastate the opposing forces. This is further endorsed by William G. Dooly Jr.^[2] who stated that “Whenever the French infantry advance, their whole front is at once regularly covered with shrapnel and the unfortunate men are knocked over like rabbits. They are brave and advance time after time to the charge through appalling fire, but so far it has been to no avail… The officers are splendid; they advance about 20 yards ahead of their men as calmly as though on parade, but so far I have not seen one of them get more than 50 yards without being knocked over.” His statement proves that machine guns were indeed an effective and lethal weapon against the stagnant trench warfare.

                Whereas the machine guns were quiescent and motionless the snipers, on the other hand were lighter to carry and could be manned by a single person. This allowed for greater manoeuvrability and versatility. Snipers had a longer range then machine guns and therefore they were advantageous against soldiers within their trenches. The need to constantly be alert and the fear of getting shot, sapped away at the moral of the opposition. Snipers were used to assassinate the officers as to create chaos within the ranks.

                 Both weapons also had their similarities aswell, accuracy for one. The machine gun although some bullets might be wasted, still had the tendency to hit at least one or more soldiers. The sniper too, had great accuracy often shooting anything that moved behind the enemy parapet. Snipers often kept track of their kills, which sometimes went into the triple figures.  Likewise machine guns were often manned by a group of up to six soldiers, among which they shot, fed the bullets, provided the cartridges, and carried the clips. However all six would be capable of actually firing the weapon. The sniper could be commandeered by a lone soldier but was usually accompanied by a spotter^[3]. They could both handle the sniper rifle in the event of another’s death. As provided above these weapons caused great chaos and destruction and made the Great War^[4] a bloody war indeed.

^{[1]- the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregularforces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force.}

^{[2]- British officer who survived WWI and became a writer}

^{[3]-a member of a sniper team, who looks for possible targets and changes in landscape. This role can often be interchangeable with the sharpshooter}

^{[4]- the name given to the First World War} 

^{A. Plan Of Investigation}

     The purpose of this investigation is to establish the extent to which the weaponry, namely machine guns and snipers, were a success or a failure during the First World War. The main body of the investigation focuses on how the weapons were used and their advantages or disadvantages. The machine guns were effective as they had the range, the firepower, and the accuracy needed for trench warfare. The sniper rifle was also a success in my opinion because of its long range, accuracy, and its versatility. The background on the guns, their orgins and their purpose will also be analyzed. Finally two of the sources used in this paper, “First World War”(website) and All Quiet On the Western Front, will be evaluated according to their purpose, value, and limitations.

Transition

"The industrial advancements allowed these countries to take advantage of Africa because of the backwardness in these African countries, and strengthened the naval superiority of Britain and Germany.  "
original quote~


The industrial advancements allowed these countries to take advantage of Africa because of the backwardness in these African countries, and strengthened the naval superiority of Britain and Germany.  This sent countries into a downward spiral in which nations fought for control of armies, navies, colonies and railways.
improved quote~

Internal Assessment Essay Topic

What were the successes and failures of snipers and machine guns during the First World War?

What Was the Major Cause of the First World War?

              New weapons mowing down millions of people, secret contracts, betrayal and trench warfare. This is what we think of when we think of the First World War. The war to end all wars is an important stepping stone in the history of our modern world. To understand the war better we would have to look at the events leading up to the outbreak of war.  I believe that imperialism is one of the leading causes of the First World War. Although Imperialism is not the sole cause, it contributes heavily to the tension and distrust between the nations involved. Some of the chief events that led up to the onset of the war were: Industrialisation , the Agadir Crisis, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway and the general need for more resources, colonies, and revenue. The race for power had begun.

            The Industrial Revolution had brought about many changes. Products were mass produced, and a working class was created. Countries in Europe were rapidly increasing the size and amount of their factories and their economies prospered. However this was unsustainable without the necessary resources. All of the European countries started competing for colonies and their resources, like rubber. The countries started colonizing Africa, with Britain and France getting the larger chunk of Africa, and incidents like the Fashoda crisis in which France and England split Africa between themselves. This created further tensions between the Brits and the Germans as well as the Italians who had lost territory in Abyssinia, what is modern day Ethiopia. The industrial advancements allowed these countries to take advantage of Africa because of the backwardness in these African countries, and strengthened the naval superiority of Britain and Germany.   

           

            The Berlin-Baghdad Railway was a rail way stretching from, as the name implies, Berlin to Baghdad. It traversed the Ottoman Empire and all the riches it contained. The Germans gained control of  the land around the railway, including its wealth, after they paid the debts of the Ottoman Empire. They also asked a certain fee of other countries wishing to make use of the railway. The wealth and monopoly that Germany had in this area angered and made Britain jealous, as this railway gave Germany access to oilfields and limited the British control of German trade. It set Germany and Britain further apart and tensions rose. On the other hand the Ottoman empire and Germany became closer and would eventually sign the Ottoman-German Alliance, which meant that the Ottoman Empire would enter the war on the side of the Central Powers, consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.

            In the late 19th Century many countries around Europe had gone through drastic change and development due to the Industrial Revolution, the Age of Imperialism, and the French Revolution. Most of the great countries of the time, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and even the Netherlands had vast colonies abroad. The countries who were left out, Germany and Russia, felt threatened and jealous, thus demanding more land. Germany wanted to get in on the action the other empires were having, so they tried to conquer a colony in Africa. However Germany was a latecomer and the land left was limited. The envious Germans decided instead to prevent the other countries from occupying any more land. This led to the Agadir crisis in which Germany sent their battle ship SMS Panther, a German gunship, to the Agadir port in Morocco. The excuse the Germans used was that they were protecting German citizens residing in the port town. However this  put pressure on the French, who at the time were attempting to create a French protectorate. Furthermore, it tested the Entente Cordiale, a mutual alliance in which both France and Britain would aid the French and vice versa. On the contrary, the Kaiser’s Plan to prevent France from making Marocco a protectorate caused the Agadir Crisis and strengthened the ties between France and Britain. It also emphasized the potency of the Entente Cordiale. After the crisis the English signed a contract with France stating that the Royal British Navy would protect France’s northern coasts from German offensive forces. The Anglo-French relations further isolated Germany and all the remaining ties would culminate at the beginning of World War One.

                        In my opinion militarism can be categorised within the imperialism category due to the fact that to have imperialistic expansion, one would need a large military force. Thus I believe that militarism was also a cause of the First World War. Industrialisation was also a major factor of militarism, and was essential for the inception of the first world war because it allowed for the advancement in weaponry and equipment, as well as the isolation of backward countries . The advance in weaponry meant that the opposing countries vied with each other to create the best weaponry. An example of this is the “Dreadnaught”, a new range of battleships that were heavily armoured and equipped with larger and stronger guns. It was invented by the British, so the Germans felt threatened. This then led to the Tirpitz Plan, which was a strategy designed by Alfred Tirpitz

Another event that I believe was significant for the start of WWI was the Von Schlieffen Plan. This was a plan of attack put together by Von Schlieffen, a German count who was the chief strategist within the German army. It was a plan in which Germany would prevent a war on two fronts by defeating France first and afterwards put all their forces against Russia, who was known to be slow at mobilising. The arrangement was to go through neutral Belgium and attack France encircling the Maginot line, a line of fortresses and artillery guns meant to foil incoming attacks, hold back the enemy until the main army could muster their forces, as well as serve as a base to go on the offensive, when the chance came to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine, a region in France which had German speaking citizens.  I think that the Von Schlieffen plan was the spark which put nearly every country in the world against the Germans because Belgium was both small and neutral. This event led to Britain joining the war on the Allied side.

           

            That alone did not make for the First World War. Nationalism and secret alliances between countries and governments also contributed to the deterioration of European relations into war. Alliances like the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance, alliances between Britain, France, in addition to Russia and German, Austria-Hungary, as well as Italy respectively, meant that if any one country was involved in an incident the whole alliance would be involved dragging other countries into the tumult and chaos of war. Furthermore nationalism was roused within the European countries. Not only to increase the number of colonies but also to increase the number of voluntary soldiers, and revolts against governments, such as the Boxer Rebellion, in which a nationalistic terrorist group set about expelling European influences from Asia. 

All of the above incidents and happenings contributed in a small or larger way to the magnitude and the complexity of the First World War. But I believe that the real trigger for this war was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. When Princip, a member of the Black Hand terrorist group, pulled the trigger he did not just kill the Ruler of Austria-Hungary, he shot the world into chaos and destruction. Into the war to end all wars.