Military

The war was between the Triple Entente-? Great Britain, Russia, and France-?and the Central Powers, which was comprised of Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. The vast majority of Americans strongly designated themselves a neutral nation. They believed themselves morally superior to war and viewed it to be an unnecessary, primitive solution. Even President Woodrow Wilson immediately announced America’s neutrality, after recently winning the presidential election in 1916 for his second consecutive term, bearing the campaign slogan “He kept us out of war. However, despite Minimal disapproval of World War l. Many controversial events and certain predictions caused the united States to teeter between the line of isolation and intervention. It was President Willow’s strong guidance and insightful evaluations of foreign actions and domestic reactions that led to America’s involvement in the Great War on April 6, 1917. Right from the start, both Germany and Britain quickly began spreading propaganda, attempting to promote their own country motives and Justify their grounds for being in the war.

Propaganda Is defined as information, Ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, Institution, or nation. Both nations were affecting public opinion, but in the summer of 1915, German doctor Heimlich Albert mistakenly put a halt to Germany’s influence. Albert was a preventative of the German Information Service, an agency that was responsible for dispersing rumors in the United States. As he quickly rushed to board his train, he unknowingly left his briefcase, containing German propaganda.

After It was recovered by an American secret service agent, the documents and their purpose were quickly known throughout the nation, giving citizens a negative perception of Germany. British propaganda was also in circulation, and although this possibility was known by the American population, it was never proved, making it difficult to decipher reliable information from exaggerated. Generally these ideas proposed hat it was German aggression that was responsible for the provocation of the war In Europe, and the Allies-?the Triple Entente-?were simply fighting In defense of collocation gallant tenet Darrell opposition.

Germany was salsa to nave uses “ruthless, militaristic war tactics” and to have an autocratic society, which contested America’s democratic society. In an effort to coax American entry, Britain asserted that the war was unfolding in their favor, and the outcome seemed promising. However, they were actually in financial straits and struggling to survive, but they did not want America to think the war was a lost cause. Ironically, this assurance had an opposite effect on America’s willingness to assist them.

The public proclaimed that if the Triple Entente expected victory, then American intervention would be a pointless waste of money, resources, and lives. Germany’s war tactics and disregard toward the rules of engagement of war also negatively impacted America’s Judgment of them. Early in the war Germany invaded Belgium, a country that pronounced its neutrality as America did, and fought on the soil of an unwilling nation. While occupying Belgium for more than four years, the Germans shot thousands of civilians, dotted and burned towns, and deported civilians, forcing them to assemble weapons and build defenses.

The German chancellor referred too peace treaty written in agreement between the two nations as a “scrap of paper. ” This disrespect to the wishes of Belgium was later called “The Rape of Belgium” and portrayed English- speaking countries as defenders of freedom. To add to Germany’s misconduct, the tactics that they used during the war appalled the American nation. They deployed “dirigible” bombardments on cities, which was combat through a blimp-like airship. This aerial attack would stream poisonous gas over enemy areas, impartially taking he lives of both innocent civilians and soldiers.

An inhumane and deadly technique such as this had previously been unknown to the world. Similarly, the engagement of submarine warfare, with their newly developed U-boats, hurt Germany’s cause in the battle for American support. Germany utilized their new technology of U-boats to destroy both enemy warships and merchant vessels of nonbelligerent nations, some of which contained American citizens, enraging the United States. U-boats were small, slow-moving, and vulnerable, but they were the first submarines the world had ever seen, so defending them was difficult, even for the world-renowned British navy.

The Germans used this stealthy weapon to overcome the blockade that was implemented by the British fleet. The impenetrable fleet effectively prevented all trade ships containing weapons or food from reaching countries occupied by the Central Power, as well as neighboring neutral countries. They also cut all undersea communication cables. The German sinking of American ships the Louisiana and Sussex had the most significant response from the United States. It was after this complete disregard for U. S. Requests that Wilson concluded he could no longer imply ignore Germany’s constant, rebellious insubordination.

He began to realize that war was imminent. In 1915, U-boats sank the American merchant vessel the Louisiana, killing 128 American citizens. Still wanting to maintain neutrality, President Wilson reacted by merely demanding that Germany abide by protocol of restricted warfare, in addition to arming merchant vessels for defense. Germany agreed but then later declared unlimited warfare on all ships, openly admitting that “mistakes will be made. ” In 1917, the U-boats sank another American vessel, the Sussex, killing another 25 Americans.

Although Germany argued that it was difficult to identify the ship, Americans were clearly frustrated with their lack of discretion. Despite this Loosely AT Electroscope, American colleens exclusively continual to remain neutral. I nee reasoned that the few Americans taken by German U-boats were not worth risking the lives of the 100 million Americans that were left. Instead, they criticized Wilson for the tragedy. They claimed that he provoked the attack by being a “silent member” of the Allies through one-sided trade and allowing the expansion of their blockade without a diplomatic challenge.

However, Woodrow Wilson maintained that he was imply learning from the mistakes that led to the War of 1812 and was motivated by neutrality by “trying to avoid unnecessary trouble. ” In fact, when the United States learned of what later became known as the infamous Zimmerman Telegram, it was determined that the attack was offensive and would have occurred even if Wilson had contested the blockade. In January of 1917, British intelligence intercepted and deciphered a telegram sent from the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman, to the German minister of Mexico, von Gerhardt.

This occurred shortly after Germany sunk the Sussex, and it revealed Germany’s true intentions toward the U. S. The telegram offered American territory to Mexico that America won during the Mexican- American War in the late sass’s. In return, Germany requested that Mexico attack the United States if they should enter the Great War on the side of the Triple Entente, and to also request the aid of Japan. This clearly demonstrated that the sinking of the Sussex was an attack intended to lure America into the war, and Mexico, as well, to fight alongside Germany.

Before this document was found, Wilson still chose neutrality in the face of American casualties, saying, “There is such a thing as a man Ewing too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right. ” The telegram, along with encounters with Germany before the Great War, caused Wilson to contemplate intervention. During the Spanish-American War, in 1898, many perceived Germany to be a potential threat to America’s interests and security because of the similarities between the two nations.

Both were Just beginning to establish themselves as great world powers that were rapidly industrialized and seeking overseas markets, naturally creating a rivalry. German interest in the Philippine Islands, West Indies, Galapagos Islands, and Haiti was also unsettling because it posed a threat to the completion of the Panama Canal, which was finished in August of 1914. Germany’s desire to expand to the Western Hemisphere worried President Wilson, and the main deterrent of this expansion, until this point, had been from Britain’s control over the Atlantic.

Wilson, along with many others, feared that if the Central Powers overcame the Triple Entente, Germany would become the new naval supremacy, over Great Britain. This conclusion became known as the “realist appraisal. The realist appraisal proclaimed that British victory was essential to American security, because they were needed by the United States to provide a balance of powers. It was widely agreed that America and Great Britain had paralleled interests. Without this balance of power, Germany would see no resistance if they decided to attack America.

This claim was consistent in many people, including James W. Gerard, the American Ambassador to Germany, who said, “We are next on [Germany’s] list,” if they won the war. With this risk in mind, the Monroe Doctrine quickly became Jeopardized. The Monroe Doctrine was institutionalized by President James Monroe in 1823 and was composed of three main concepts. The first stated that the Western Hemisphere of ten world would a De Innocence Day America, Ana ten Eastern Hemisphere Day Europe. The second and third concepts opposed colonization and intervention.

With these concepts in mind, it is evident that the doctrine is likely to be violated by Germany upon the victory of the Central Powers, because they would intervene in America’s hemisphere. In order to preserve the proclamation, America’s intervention was deed. The night before the United States announced its entrance into the war, the newly appointed secretary of state, Robert Lansing, wrote, The Allies must not be beaten. It would mean the triumph of autocracy over democracy; the shattering of all our moral standards; and real, although it may seem remote, peril to our independence and institutions.

President Wilson desperately struggled to keep peace with Germany in order to save American lives, but his attempts were hopeless. He was aware that an Allied victory was more favorable to American interests, but he also believed that the war would leave Germany weak and unable to pose an immediate threat to America. In the years that Germany needed to recuperate its army and replenish resources, Wilson planned to strengthen the Ana and prepare for a possible war.

However, upon Germany’s denial of Willow’s two peace proposals and the renewal of submarine warfare, which Germany had consistently added to over the last few years, the president’s plan seemed too far away. Germany’s lack of effort to come to peace with America predicted their intention on making America the next target sooner than expected. In addition to the influences by Lansing and future president Theodore Roosevelt, President Wilson realized that an intervention was more necessary than previously assumed, and he knew that he would need the support of his country if he was going to succeed in involving the nation.

Primarily through propaganda, the U. S. Government caused the change in public opinion from isolation to intervention. Most of the nation continuously adhered to an isolationist prospective, but those who held the view of the realist appraisal also happened to be those in Eastern America who had a strong influence on public opinion. On April 13, the Committee on Public Information (ICP) was assembled by President Wilson to conduct American propaganda in the United States and overseas.

George Creel, the selected manager of the committee, called it the “world’s greatest adventure in advertising,” because it essentially “advertised” the war to the American people. The three main themes that were portrayed were unity, the image of a despicable enemy, and the idea of a crusade for peace and freedom. They overwhelmed the press with so much information that it was practically impossible to determine what was exaggerated from what was not. Slowly, intervention began to gain nationwide support. Once Congress accepted a declaration for war from President Wilson, America would officially be in the war.

Wilson addressed Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917, through what has been claimed to “rank among the three or four greatest presidential speeches in American history. ” He argued that in reality, America had been in the war ever since their vessels were sunk by German U-boats. Because of this, it was only logical to officially announce involvement in order to gain any advantages that it might bring. Wilson also emphasized that America was not at war with Germany but at war with the autocratic government instead. The world must be safe for democracy’ was the point that he conveyed, and if the Central Powers won the war, democracy would, in fact, be in peril. Both George Washington Ana I mommas Jefferson warned against “entangling alliances” Ana promoted Isolation to avoid foreign wars. This attitude was maintained and universally accepted since the War of 1812, but this principle was no longer sufficient. Since the war in Europe began in 1914, countless events occurred that warranted U. S. Entry into the war, but they were all rationalized to maintain isolation.

President Woodrow Wilson thoroughly examined what had happened up to that point and carefully calculated the events that would ensue, and he wisely decided to Join Great Britain on the side of the Triple Entente. He unified the nation and created universal support, which led to the Allied victory on November 1 1, 1918, preserving democracy for the world, along with the bright future of the United States. The end of the war marked a new era in history, one that held the United States at the pinnacle of the world’s great powers. Endnotes

America had adopted a policy of isolationism following the events of WW1, stating openly that the US wanted to stay out of world affairs. They believed that they were geographically isolated – sufficiently protected from potential enemies by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They wanted to avoid sending US soldiers on another ‘death march’ and instead focus on US economic problems such as the Depression. They managed to keep their role in world affairs to a minimum by not joining the League of Nations and passing a series of Neutrality Acts after 1935 which made them neutral.

However, they did not suppress their role in world affairs completely. They were still involved in foreign affairs – they loaned money to Europe to help them recover after WW1 and they signed the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928 which renounced war as a means of settling disputes. America’s role in world affairs was minimal – they stayed out of the League of Nations but they were still involved in world affairs, shown by the US investment into Europe to help it recover from WW1.

America’s role in world affairs changed from isolationist when they joined WW2 in 1941, following the Japanese attack on the US naval fleet at Pearl Harbour on December 7 1941. After the attack, it became evident that America had assumed a more prominent role in world affairs, particularly in Europe and in the Pacific. They had taken part in the D-Day landings in June 1944 with the Allies which had led to the surrender of Germany in May 1945 and had governed the end of the war by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

WW2 was an important factor in re-orientating US foreign policy as America had abandoned their policy of isolationism and had intervened in a war. America role in world affairs developed as they emerged from WW2 as a paramount nation that had survived the war with its economy rebuilt and other nations had turned to them for protection from emerging communist countries like the USSR. America had started to play an international role in world affairs when they adopted a policy of containment, announced by Truman in an important speech in March 1947 which marked a turning point in US foreign policy as it was the start of a proactive policy.

He backed this policy of containment with the Marshall Plan announced in June 1947 which would provide economic aid to European countries that had suffered badly as a result of WW2 and were struggling to deal with the damage. America played a part in leading the West in the Cold War. America’s involvement in world affairs increased when they sent forces to Korea, Vietnam and Cuba in an attempt to contain communism, which shows they had a more proactive role in world affairs. The expense of the policy of containment had to be cut as the cost of the arms race was massive.

America wanted to develop friendlier relations with the Communist superpowers during the 1970s; US foreign policy had changed to detente. Nixon visited China in 1972 and the 21 year old trade embargo was lifted. The policy of detente had improved relations with the USSR between 1972 and 1979 – arms reduction agreements such as SALT 1 emerged. However, when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, he was not a supporter of detente and called the USSR an ‘evil empire’ in a speech in June 1982.

He issued SDI (a plan to shoot down Soviet missiles in space) which caused the relations to deteriorate and cause a Second Cold War. In 1985, the new USSR leader Gorbachev and Reagan returned to the policy of detente and the Cold War ended in 1989. In the 1990s, America had become increasingly involved in the Middle East such as the conflicts of Iran and Iraq. America fought in the Gulf War in 1990 to protect oil supplies in Kuwait, as oil was important to the US economy. This conflict showed that America were still proactive in world affairs and were involved in most of the conflicts.

Since 1929, America’s role in world affairs has developed increasingly. They were isolationist and inactive in world affairs in the 1930s. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour forced America to become reactive in world affairs and enter WW2 in 1941. In 1947, America’s role in world affairs had become proactive, attempting to prevent the spread of communism. In the 1970s, America attempted to reduce its role in world affairs by following the policy of detente but the conflicts in the Middle East showed their role to be more proactive in world affairs.

Source A tells me that Chamberlain did not want to go to war with Germany because he thought Germany was a power to be reckoned with, especially since she had Italy’s support. He feared that if it came to war Italy could take advantage of its position in the Mediterranean to attack British territory there (such as Gibraltar) and more importantly stop British shipping to and from her empire, which was very important to Britain. It also shows that Chamberlain thought that if it came to war, Hitler could hurt France where she was weakest.

Because the source is an unofficial, private document it can accurately show us Chamberlain’s opinion, and though it gives us a good idea of his intent, it does not properly show us his official policy. The source shows that Chamberlain did not think Britain’s armaments were strong enough to stand against Germany’s, and that therefore they must buy time to build up arms, just in case. It also tells me that Chamberlain felt that the dictators could still be reasoned with and were not devoid of any honour or reasonableness, and that he still held some hope of coming to an agreement to suit everybody.

He thought that if he appeased Hitler and Mussolini by helping to fix their grievances, they would be happy and the peace of Europe would be assured. 2) Study A and B. In what ways does source B add to your understanding of Chamberlain’s foreign policy? (6) Source B shows me that Chamberlain genuinely believed that even if Britain and France did act, nothing could save Czechoslovakia from being taken over by the Germans if they wanted to do it.

He knew that Czechoslovakia was hemmed in on 3 sides by Germany and believed that Germany had every tactical and military advantage around Czechoslovakia, and Russia could not help either because she was too far away. Source B supports source A in that Source B shows me that Chamberlain still thought that Germany was too strong for Britain and France to take on, and that to protect Czechoslovakia would be tantamount to declaring out-and-out war on Germany, which he was strongly against because he thought that Britain had no chance of an easy and quick victory.

The source shares with source A the idea that Chamberlain was unwilling to risk going hastily into a war against a major power, which would cost British money and lives and if, as he thought, Britain was not ready, it could mean a repeat of the extended conflict of the first world war, which everyone was keen to avoid. Chamberlain makes it clear in his diary (source B) that he did not think that it was all worth it over one small country that he thought could probably not be saved anyway.

Source B like source A is private and unofficial and therefore shows just what Chamberlain is really thinking, more so than A because it is his diary, presumably intended at the time only for him. 3) Study C and D. In what ways does the evidence of these sources help you to understand Chamberlain’s attitude towards Hitler? (10) The author of Source C was a British ambassador and Chamberlain’s main source of information in Germany, and as such Chamberlain must have trusted his views as a high-ranking British dignitary who had been living in Germany probably some time.

However, it is possible that Henderson had come around to the German point of view from living there so long and is writing his own opinion, which is biased, as is apparent from his comment in C about how he dislikes the Czechs. If he really had come round to the German point of view, then it is possible that he felt for Germany and like many Germans, considered that Hitler could ‘make Germany great again’.

If this were true, it would mean either that Henderson actually believed that Hitler was reasonable, or that he deliberately misled Chamberlain about Hitler’s intent. Alternatively, officials he had spoken to in the German government may simply have misled Henderson. The Germans knew that he was Britain’s main source of information and they may have decided to use him to convince Chamberlain that Germany was stronger than she was and that Hitler was open to options other than going to war, thus encouraging him to put off war by appeasement.

In source C Henderson leads Chamberlain to believe that Hitler does not really wish to go to war if he has to, as war would help the opponents of Hitler and Nazism, but it would be disastrous for Germany. He implies that Hitler is reasonable and open to negotiation. If Henderson had not been corrupted by Hitler, then source C contains Henderson’s genuine idea of what Hitler must have been thinking, but as it turned out, his assessment of the situation was wrong.

Henderson’s reports, whether genuinely what he thought or not, must have influenced Chamberlain to think that Hitler was a reasonable man who did not want war any more than Chamberlain himself. This would have simply built upon the view Chamberlain already had that Hitler had some sense of honour. Chamberlain was from a business background in Birmingham and must have found it hard to believe that the leader of a nation could be so duplicitous as Hitler eventually revealed himself to be.

Source D shows us this exact trust Chamberlain had in Hitler – even though he did not like the look of him, Chamberlain still had faith that Hitler’s word meant something and that Hitler’s policies were only directed towards uniting all the German speaking peoples, not just getting all the territory he could. Because Chamberlain believed what he said in source D, and believed Hitler when he said he would be satisfied with the Sudetenland and not ask any more territory in Europe, he convinced France and Czechoslovakia to submit to the German occupation of the Sudetenland. )

Study E, F, G and H. What can you work out from these sources about: i) The demands made by Hitler (6) The very fact that Britain and France were willing to agree to Hitler’s demands at all shows that his first demands (Czechoslovakia handing over to Germany the parts of the Sudetenland comprised of over 50% Germans) were not perceived by the governments of Britain and France to be altogether too much to ask, and that they believed that he was genuine in his insistence that it was all he would take from Europe.

The fact that they were so eager for a reply to the statement in source E and were so ready to give up Czechoslovakia to Germany shows how insistent Hitler was that he got his way. This is corroborated by the fact that Germany put a lot of pressure on Czechoslovakia to agree to Hitler’s demands; this could be the “unheard of pressure” of source F. Chamberlain was so convinced that giving in to Hitler’s demands was the way to peace that Britain and France even refused to support Czechoslovakia at all if she didn’t capitulate completely in the matter of the Sudetenland. However, source G shows us that Hitler was not to be trusted and as soon as Chamberlain had got Czechoslovakia and France to agree, he changed his demands to more unreasonable ones, which Hitler hoped would ultimately insure the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, by taking large amounts of land from her.

These demands were completely unreasonable, even for the peacemaker Chamberlain, and only when Britain and France threatened to go to war did Hitler reduce his demands a little, although his demands mentioned in source G are so unreasonable it could almost be said he was deliberately aiming high so when he was forced to compromise he would get the better deal. Source H shows that Hitler could feel confident about making these demands as Chamberlain was still set upon peace despite all he had seen Hitler capable of.

Chamberlain makes clear in this speech that he thinks all Hitler is after is Czechoslovakia and that Britain will not go to war just to protect one small country. ii) Relations between Britain and Czechoslovakia in September 1938? (6) When Hitler made his first demands of Chamberlain, Chamberlain agreed and then informed Czechoslovakia (source E), even though it would severely weaken Czechoslovakia (a state that Britain had helped to set up). Britain and France practically forced her to agree to Hitler’s demands, going so far as to refuse to support her if she did not.

The Czechoslovak government was not even consulted in the future of its own country, which as source F shows was hurtful to the Czechs. Czechoslovakia could not even defend herself from her enemy because she had been let down by her friends. Czechoslovakia must have felt pressured into agreeing and very disillusioned with and even betrayed by France, its so-called ally; and Britain, France’s ally and one of the upholders of the Treaty of Versailles.

As source G shows, when Hitler came up with his next outrageous demands, Czechoslovakia balked and refused point blank to agree, and the feelings of the Czechoslovak government are expressed to the British government in source G in no uncertain terms. Czechoslovakia may have had some hope in Britain’s support when she promised to support France in a war against Germany, although this soon faded after the Munich agreement.

Source H shows that Chamberlain was still trying to uphold peace despite Hitler’s continually changing demands, and evidently still thought that it was worth sacrificing Czechoslovakia on the altar of peace. ) Study I, J and K. “The Munich agreement was very popular in Britain”. Use the evidence of the sources, and your own knowledge, to explain whether you agree with this view. (8) I agree with this view to a point. The Munich agreement was certainly popular with many people, especially the generations who had been through the Great War. They knew what it was to fight in terrible conditions or to lose a loved one in the war. The First World War was called ‘the war to end all wars’ and nobody wanted to go through it all again.

This view is supported by source I, which is from a quality paper and written by the editor, who is presumably an educated person who knows what they’re talking about. The bad memories of the previous war would put the public in favour of avoiding another war if it could be possibly helped, so the peacemaking Chamberlain with his slogan from Benjamin Disraeli: ‘Peace in our time’ was well received by many. The Munich agreement, which guaranteed that Germany and Britain would not go to war in the future, seemed to sort out everyone’s worries.

Source J shows a crowd outside 10, Downing Street, who look like they are there to support Chamberlain. However this is not really indicative of the agreement’s popularity as photographs can be deceptive, and Downing Street is not actually that wide a street so the crowd appears bigger than it is. Most of the generation who were making the decisions for Britain (the politicians and diplomats) had experienced the war and this may have influenced them and their decisions in favour of appeasement and the Munich agreement.

The government also feared that if war broke out, thousands of civilians could be killed by bombing raids. Also the British army was not strong enough to handle another big war at that time. People like the author of source I did not want to involve Britain in European affairs again, as they thought it was nothing to do with Britain. Many, like Henderson in source K, felt that Chamberlain had done something special in making Hitler agree to peace and so supported the Munich agreement because they thought it was a great feat of negotiation and diplomacy on Chamberlain’s part.

Source K shows that at least one person thought that what Chamberlain did was the only option in the circumstances. Many British people felt sorry for the Germans because the Treaty of Versailles was so harsh and felt that they had been unfairly treated. Many could sympathise with the desire to bring the German-speaking people together. People did not even disagree wholly with Germany claiming the Sudetenland, as it was thought of as practically a part of Germany anyway – both geographically and culturally.

However, being in favour of the Munich agreement was far from universal and it had many critics. They thought that Germany was being allowed to become too powerful, breaking treaty after treaty and getting away with it. They thought Germany would not stop at just Czechoslovakia, and she would eventually become a power strong enough to threaten the British Empire. Winston Churchill was one of the critics of the Munich agreement and appeasement in general. 6) Study all the sources. The writer of source K believed that war was only avoided in 1938 because of the courage of Chamberlain.

Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with this view. (10) I agree with this view to the point that I would say the fact that war was avoided in 1938 was mostly because of Chamberlain. It was Chamberlain’s insistency on trying to appease the dictators at all costs that brought the Munich agreement about. It was Chamberlain who convinced France to support him in encouraging Czechoslovakia to agree to Hitler’s demands (as in source C), and eventually almost forcing them into it by refusing to support Czechoslovakia at all should it come to fighting.

Although Chamberlain says in source D to his sister that he thinks Hitler is to be trusted, and I think he means what he says because it is a personal, private letter, by the time of the Munich agreement he must have had some idea of what Hitler was like as he had broken his word and gone back on their agreement of the 15th of September only days before, which as source G shows was very damaging and humiliating to the Czechs. Yet still he went ahead and in effect signed Czechoslovakia over to the Germans without even inviting the Czechs to join the conference.

Either this is the move of a very stupid and nai??ve man in still believing that Hitler would not make further attempts to get territory for Germany, or Chamberlain was taking a calculated risk to give Britain more time to protect herself from Germany, not caring about Czechoslovakia. As source B shows, Chamberlain was not willing to take the risk of going to war in 1938 just to protect one small country. Source A shows us that as early as January 1938 Chamberlain was thinking about building up British armaments. I think that the lack of war in1938 was due to Chamberlain although I would not call it courage.

He made the agreement because he was convinced that the British public wanted peace more than anything (source J shows that at least some of them did). He was afraid of what another war would do to Britain if she were not ready, especially since the Spanish civil war in which the German Condor Legion decimated the Basque town of Guernica. Chamberlain was excessively afraid of German air strength as he was unfamiliar with the effects of bombing and feared that London could become another Guernica, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

It was thought that the entire German Luftwaffe would head for Britain as soon as war broke out and people greatly overestimated its size and strength. However optimistic Chamberlain chose to be, he must have known that if Britain continued to get involved in Europe’s affairs then sooner or later she would have to fight Germany. Although war was avoided in 1938 it was not avoided altogether and if anything it convinced Hitler that Britain was soft and irresolute and would do nothing by force to stop his further conquest of Europe. This meant that he persevered in his plans to expand Germany without worrying about Britain.

I think source A completely suggests that Field Marshal Sir General Haig did not care about the lives of his men because after one day of fighting the Germans on the 1st of July 1916 in the Battle of the Somme, over 57,000 British troops had been killed. The British only gained 750m. The next day Haig still continued with the same tactic even though a large amount of the army had lost their lives the day before. After suffering such heavy losses Haig still sent men out to their death every day.

In source A Haig himself writes, “The nation must be taught to bear losses”. In every war there are losses but by writing this Haig gave no indications of just how many men he thought the nation would loose. I think Haig didn’t care how many men were killed as long as his main objective to relieve pressure on the attack of Verdun was completed.

“No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training however good, on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victory to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives.” In the two books the World of War and Modern World History, both books suggest that one of Haig’s chief subordinates Sir Henry Rawlinson was against the idea of a large offensive even before the Battle of the Somme begin. Rawlinson suggested that the British should concentrate its operations on the Western Front by launching a series of small discreet attacks. Inexperienced British troops would gain experience from these attacks while they could use the British industrial strength, which was now fully mobilised, to beat the Germans. Instead Haig went against the suggestion by launching a great offensive followed by a massive tightly controlled infantry attack.

“No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders”. I think Haig’s deputy Rawlinson did have a lot of skill. He had good tactical idea but Haig choose not to use them. “no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men”. Rawlinson suggested small attacks to give the British troops experience. “no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great will enable victories to be won. From the Modern World History book it says, “Many of the shells supplied to the allied gunners were of poor quality. There was certainly a vast bombardment but many shells were not powerful enough to destroy the defensives or simply failed to go off”. “The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists”. I think this is giving the same meaning as the first sentence in source a “The nation must be prepared to see heavy causality lists”.

Haig had used the same tactic at another battle where he had been General. The Battle of Neuve Chappelle, which happened during 1915. The method used was to continuously bombard the enemy with shells for weeks. The barbwire would be cut then the British would attack using infantry. The method failed at the Battle of Neuve Chappelle but Haig used it again at the Battle of the Somme but on a much bigger scale risking more lives. Using a method of attack that has failed shouldn’t have been tried if it was going to risk so many men’s lives. Haig had been involved in other wars before the 1900’s when there wasn’t any planes or tanks available. When they were available for Haig to choose he decided not to use them and instead use older tactics.

In Source F a modern historian has written, “The principal that guided him was if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men then he would inevitably at some time win the war”. This to me does not sound like the opinion of a General who cared about his men. Haig was more interested in winning a battle of attrition.

In Source B Haig writes about the troops before the attack and he says how everyone is so confidant. “The men are in splendid spirits”. He also says how well the barbwire was cut.

The second extract in Source B is again written by Haig giving us the report after the first day of the battle. “Very successful attack…the battle is going very well…The Germans are surrendering freely”.

From what we know the battle wasn’t very successful and is known as one of the worst British battles. If the attack had started at midnight on the 1st July and carried on for 24 hours that would mean that 2375 British troops would die every hour and 1 soldier would die every 1 second. The battle didn’t go on for 24 hours though so the losses per hour would have been greater.

Haig ordered his men to walk across no-man’s land because he thought that there wouldn’t be “even a rat alive” in the German trench. The Germans who had burrowed 12 meters underground were unaffected by the shelling and as the British were walking across and getting tangled in the masses of barbwire the Germans simply used a machine gun. This disaster could have been avoided if they had just run across.

The tactics of the battle were good in theory but each one failed in some way.

* There would be a huge military bombardment and mines would devastate the Germans positions. The bombardment didn’t devastate any of German positions.

* The Germans barbwire would be cut. The barbwire wasn’t cut. It was simply thrown up into the air and it landed in a tangled mess.

* The British troops would be able to walk across no-man’s land. The British troops got caught in the tangled barbwire and were mowed down by the German machine guns.

* The British would carry heavy packs and trench repairing kit. Each solider carried 66lb of kit, which was half the men’s body weight. It was difficult to get out of the trench, move fast or even to get down or stand up quickly.

These tactics sounded good but there were lots of faults. The Germans knew about the attack and were ready for it. Haig overestimated the ability of the artillery. The German’s trenches were on higher grounds then the English’s trenches so the Germans had a good view of anyone attacking. The German trenches had been there since 1914 and the German soldiers had not been idle. They had prepared the trenches well for the attack and fortified them with concrete. The Germans had barbwire stretching 30 meters wide all over the western front.

There were many factors that played a part in Germany’s defeat in World War One, and none of them can be singularly attributed to its loss. Despite this, some factors did play a more important part than others. Some of the major factors were America’s entry into the war, low morale in Germany, and Germany’s Ludendorrf Offensive.

The American entry into the war was a major factor contributing to Germany’s defeat. When the Americans declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, they provided a huge injection of funds, soldiers and productive capacity to the Allies’ war effort. The millions of American soldiers that were sent overseas in 1917 and 1918 were fit, young, and most importantly, fresh with relatively high morale compared to the other Allied soldiers.

World War One was a war of attrition. The side that could wear down the enemy side first would be victorious. The contribution of the American soldiers, funds and resources to the Allied side allowed them to survive for longer than the Central Powers. Therefore, the entry of America into World War One was a major factor causing Germany’s defeat.

The Ludendorrf Offensive, which was launched on March 21, 1918, was a series of three offensives undertaken by the Germans to try to force an Allied surrender after the Russian withdrew from the war. With the Eastern front free, the Germans concentrated all their resources on the Western front to try to break the stalemate there.

At first the Ludendorrf Offensive was successful, but the German troops advanced so fast that their supply lines could not keep up. This allowed the Allied forces to surround and defeat the stranded German troops. The Ludendorrf Offensive was a gamble by Germany. It required an input of high levels of resources, and as it was not successful, these resources were ultimately wasted. As World War One was a war of attrition, the Ludendorrf Offensive accelerated, if not caused, Germany’s defeat.

By 1917 and 1918, morale amongst the German people was very low. They had begun to lose faith in the war. An outbreak of Spanish Influenza in Europe had hit Germany, and had created unrest amongst the population. Shortages of consumer essentials spread widely throughout Germany. The Germany public began to resent the war, calling for “peace at any cost”. The production of munitions fell, and the weapons supply to the German soldiers fell to levels much lower than the Allies’. The low morale amongst the civilians and soldiers worsened the German position. Therefore, low morale amongst the troops and civilians on the German side was a major factor leading to Germany’s defeat in World War One.

There is no obvious single factor for Germany’s defeat in World War One, but among the main reasons were the American’s entry into the war, the Ludendorrf Offensive, and the low morale among soldiers and civilians at the home front.

The Treaty of Versailles was the culmination of the 1918/1919 peace settlement process that was imposed on Germany by the Allied powers in 1919. The treaty imposed a number of harsh conditions on Germany. As a result of the treaty, Germany had to reduce its army to 100 000 men, and give up its air force altogether. Germany had to give away thirteen percent of its land, and hand over control of its overseas colonies. Germany was forced to pay over �6, 600, 000, 000 in war repatriations. Also, and significantly, the Treaty of Versailles demanded Germany accept full responsibility for starting the First World War.

To assess Germany’s treatment in the 1918/1919 settlement, it is useful to examine the motives behind the key negotiators, Germany’s aims, and Germany’s guilt

The British public were very angry and were out for revenge. “Hang the Kaiser” and “Make Germany Pay” were both very common calls in the time just after the war and the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George could not afford politically to be easy on Germany. This shows that Britain’s intentions when contributing to the Treaty of Versailles would have been to harshly punish Germany

The then president of France, Georges Clemenceau, was determined to see that Germany was punished so harshly that it would never be able to start a war again, as he believed they had done. As was the case with the British, there was also widespread public anger towards Germany.

The American President, Woodrow Wilson, was the third major participant in the treaty negotiations. He too wanted to punish Germany, but also had an interest in a stable Europe, which would depend on a stable Germany.

Given the attitudes of the Allies who met in Paris for the peace negotiations, Germany’s treatment in the Treaty of Versailles would definitely have been harsh, as all three entered the negotiations with a view to punishing Germany.

When judged by its previous actions, it can be argues that Germany was not justified to expect a settlement any more favourable than what they received. They had already proven that in victory they could be as harsh as the Allies with the treaty they presented Russia upon their withdrawal from the war, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. In this treaty, the Germans demanded that Russia hand over large areas of its territory and pay substantial repatriations.

Given the harsh treatment the Germans imposed on Russia after its defeat, the treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles can be justified. There is an argument that if Germany had won, they would have imposed penalties as harsh or harsher on the Allies. This supports the argument that the Treaty of Versailles was not too harsh on Germany.

But perhaps the best way to determine whether or not the Treaty of Versailles was really harsh on Germany is to see the effect on Germany of the treaty, and the length of time it took for Germany to recover.

During the Vietnam War strategies and tactics became the main foundation of the battles. There were many ways both sides fought, and also many changes the way they fought.

The American’s first tactics consisted of various methods of war.

One method they used to help them win the war was to control the skies, this meant watching over their battle ground, which was in the county side, and bombing suspected hiding places in which they thought that the Vietcong were hiding. This was called Operation Rolling Thunder. The operation was a costly failure that wasted a lot of time as it lasted 3 years as opposed to the original 8 weeks stated. It was also expensive because of the cost of the bombs. This waste of money had to be paid by American citizens who were generally not too happy.

Another tactic the Americans tried to use was to try and re-educate the South Vietnamese people. The main purpose of this re-education was to stop the South Vietnamese from helping the Vietcong forces in such ways as a hiding place or giving them food supplies. Although this method was effective, it did not manage to for fill its main idea. So for a quick to their problems, they used the Strategic Hamlets Policy, which forced the South Vietnamese to be moved, and South Vietnamese leader Diem also demanded that they had to pay for their movement. This caused commotion amongst the South Vietnamese people.

The Americans tried to use their more advanced technology to their advantage by using advanced weapons such as M60 machine guns, MP40 sub-machine guns and B52 Bomber aircraft (That was used in Operation Rolling Thunder)

Americans also used Zippo raids named after a common American cigarette lighter.

During these raids the US forces, set fire to the homes of farmers and other peasants.

A way in which the US forces tried to get the Vietcong forces from internally was to put Agent Orange into their water supply. This caused many cruel diseases, deformities and deaths. It also affected the ability for innocent farmers to grow crops. The affect of Agent Orange still lasts today as some deformities are said to have been caused by the same thing.

The Vietcong on the other hand had a different and more basic form of warfare. They used such things as tripwires and bouncing betties to badly injure the US troops. Although basic, they were extremely effective as many people fell for them.

One of the most effective tactics in the war was guerrilla warfare. This was groups of Vietcong troops ambushing a small group of American soldiers. This was their main tactic during the whole war as they did not have as much sheer power as the US.

They used the jungle to their advantage and laid mines and booby traps to injure the American soldiers. This made the US troops more fearful when they went out searching for the NLF

A more psychological tactic that the Vietcong used was their morale. The Vietcong had far more morale than the US soldiers meaning they were more willing to take risks and die if it was necessary. Their main display of morale was at the battle of La Drang in 1965 in which they conceded many deaths but they did they did not let it get them down, which was almost the opposite of what the Americans were like. This tactic helped them though out the whole war.

Chi Chi tunnels was the main survival tactic the Vietcong used. They supplied shelter from attacks, a place to store food, water, weapons and even to navigate through their battlefield.

The Vietcong also had support from other communist countries such as Russia who provided them with SAM missiles which were used to take down aircraft. This helped decrease the amount of bombs dropped from the air.

Both sides of the War changed tactics around the late 1960s meaning that the War could go both ways at that point depending on whether the countries tactics changed for the better.

A new tactics that the Americans used was to try and cut of the Ho Chi Minh trail as it was the method the Vietcong were using to get their supplies. It was a failure as the trail had so many different routes.

The My Lai massacre was also a strategy that they thought would take down many NLF troops, but instead they caused commotion amongst both the US and the Vietcong as most people just thought of it as a disgusting and cruel massacre of helpless and innocent peasants. This along with the Tet offensive, A surprise attack from the NLF, was making the War now seem in favour of the Vietcong as the citizens of America were now angry about the fact that America had gotten into a War that they were both losing and murdering innocent people.

Former well respected news reader stated that the war could not be won, and as he was well respected, it brought down many hopes of a communism free Vietnam.

For the Vietcong on the other hand, their morale seemed to increase and also they seemed to be dealing some serious damage to the image and troops of America. The Tet offensive was an attack on the Vietnamese New year on June 8th 1968 that was meant to have no combat during that time. This tactic paid off and caused heavy casualties for the Americans.

The Vietcong also used a Saigon suicide squad to mostly damage hopes of winning rather than cause physical damage, although it did cause a lot of casualties.

Both sides had their ups and downs in tactics, but the determination, morale and thought of improvement caused the Vietcong to be victorious over the Americans. Their victory was down to many factors of war. One reason was because the Americans did not take the Vietcong seriously and thought that it was a battle that would be easily one with sheer power. They were wrong. The way the NLF changed tactics after learning that they could not face America head on at La Drang is an improvement that maybe won them the battle. But overall, it seems that it was what they were fighting for that made the largest difference between the two sides. America fighting to prevent communism spreading, and the Vietcong fighting for their freedom.

The Mongol invasion of Europe was a planned invasion of Eastern Europe. The Mongols invade Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Serbia, Byzantine, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary. However, they later invaded Central Europe. Many believe that these invasions had no political or conquering point, but to scare other nations from invading Mongolia. Mongolia’s first conquer was Russia in 1235. Led by Batu Khan(grandson of Genghis), they ordered the Russian ruler Ryazan to surrender, and the Mongols sacked major cities.

They annihilated Prince Yuri’s Army. After, they crushed the Russian steppe. In 1239, Batu Khan came back to Russia. Most Russian princes fled because the saw the Mongols’ strength. The Mongols then sacked Kiev(modern day-Ukraine), while Batu sent a small army to check out Poland before going to continue to central Europe. Shortly after, Batu defeated the polish army and went on Central Europe was invaded with 3 armies.

The first army defeated forces from Poland and notably, some Christian military powers, at the battle of Legnica. In 1241, the armies defeated Hungary and brutally killed half of Hungary’s population. They also conquered Croatia who was linked to Hungaria at the time. It was then that the Mongols suddenly ended their invasion. Some researchers say they ended their invasion because they saw the European strength to survive and turned back. Others blame Mongol fighting within the empire over the election of a new khan.

However, they had later conquests against Poland, Lithuania, Byzantine Thrace, Bulgaria, Serbia, and once again Hungaria. One might say that the Mongol invasion was pointless, but it also accomplished their goal: to keep invaders out of Mongolia. One claim is that Batu Kahn never intended to advance past Mongolia/Croatia, because by then it was made clear that no one could overthrow Mongolia. In closing, the Mongols accomplished what they went to Europe for and Europe was devastated.