[broomclosetdisco]

I've been given the essay question "How could Germany's role in starting World War I be considered a result of the clash of a modern industrial society with an established traditional power structure?"

I would really appreciate some help. I've been mulling it over for a few days now, but it is still unclear. I think it has something to do with the Wilhelminean armaments policy and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. I'm just not sure how to string it all together....

thanks,
Nadia

[MrJohnDClare]

I think you're right.
It is one of the traditional interpretations of the causes of WWI that one of the key causes was that Germany united and industrialised/became a superpower AFTER the other countries - Britain, Belgium, France etc. - had established their empires and basically carved up the world between them.
The idea is that germany, arriving late on the scene, caused 'foreing policy waves' when Wilhelm tried to carve the 'place in the sun' that he felt the world's greatest industrial power deserved - the 'older' nations had already set the structures of international power in stone (hence 'traditional power structure' clashing with a 'newly industrialised power').

It is a typical 'debate' essay, so your structure will go:
Section One: synthesis (seems possible and there is evidence which suggests it)
Section Two: antithesis (on the other hand there is evidence which appears to contradict it)
Section Three: synthesis ('Therefore...' + your own solution)

The way to 'prove it' is by trotting through all the old GCSE stuff - Agadir, Casablanca etc. and the tensions they caused (i.e. all the stuff on my website).
Having said that, I'm not so surfe I would agree personally. Check dates - I have a suspicion that the chronology just doesn't hold out - especially of german expansion, formation of the different alliances etc) and in the end, the war was not caused by a German-provoked crisis, but by a Balkan crisis involving Austria-Hungary and Russia.

But it'll be your job to come up with the arguments.

[broomclosetdisco]

MrJohnDClare, on Oct 10 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

I think you're right.
It is one of the traditional interpretations of the causes of WWI that one of the key causes was that Germany united and industrialised/became a superpower AFTER the other countries - Britain, Belgium, France etc. - had established their empires and basically carved up the world between them.
The idea is that germany, arriving late on the scene, caused 'foreing policy waves' when Wilhelm tried to carve the 'place in the sun' that he felt the world's greatest industrial power deserved - the 'older' nations had already set the structures of international power in stone (hence 'traditional power structure' clashing with a 'newly industrialised power').

It is a typical 'debate' essay, so your structure will go:
Section One: synthesis (seems possible and there is evidence which suggests it)
Section Two: antithesis (on the other hand there is evidence which appears to contradict it)
Section Three: synthesis ('Therefore...' + your own solution)

The way to 'prove it' is by trotting through all the old GCSE stuff - Agadir, Casablanca etc. and the tensions they caused (i.e. all the stuff on my website).
Having said that, I'm not so surfe I would agree personally. Check dates - I have a suspicion that the chronology just doesn't hold out - especially of german expansion, formation of the different alliances etc) and in the end, the war was not caused by a German-provoked crisis, but by a Balkan crisis involving Austria-Hungary and Russia.

But it'll be your job to come up with the arguments.

For some reason I think that the "established traditional power structure" refers to the social structure within Germany. In other words, Germany modernized economically but remained politically reactionary. The elites struggled against industrialization in order to remain in power. The leaders of the Reich believed that there would soon be a period of widespread Social Darwinism between nations, and they wanted to ensure Germany's status as an international power by means of building up the navy. Not only was the navy useless for the conduct of civil war, it was also of interest to industry. The leaders of the Reich believed that naval armaments would preserve the status quo as well as rally divergent forces for a power-political goal. However, all this did was induce a naval arms race with Britain, which increased tensions that were not eased by the conflict in Morocco and Agadir. Any ideas on how I can expand on this? Your help is greatly appreciated! Thanks so much.

[MrJohnDClare]

broomclosetdisco, on Oct 11 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

For some reason I think that the "established traditional power structure" refers to the social structure within Germany. In other words, Germany modernized economically but remained politically reactionary.

Now that's a really good idea.
If I were you I would consider writing about BOTH forms of 'traditional power structure' - give two ways the proposition might be true.
Alternatively, perhaps seek clarification from your teacher about which of the two "established traditional power structure" means.

broomclosetdisco, on Oct 11 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Germany modernized economically but remained politically reactionary.
The elites struggled against industrialization in order to remain in power.
The leaders of the Reich believed that there would soon be a period of widespread Social Darwinism between nations, and they wanted to ensure Germany's status as an international power by means of building up the navy.
Not only was the navy useless for the conduct of civil war, it was also of interest to industry.
The leaders of the Reich believed that naval armaments would preserve the status quo as well as rally divergent forces for a power-political goal.
However, all this did was induce a naval arms race with Britain, which increased tensions that were not eased by the conflict in Morocco and Agadir.

This is a fascinating hypothesis, which shows real ability and understanding. In terms of the 'synthesis' section of your essay, all it needs is 'proving' by means of explanation, facts and quotes.

However, am I correct in feeling that the logic of the sequence-of-argument doesn't quite follow; does this order of points make any more sense logically?

broomclosetdisco, on Oct 11 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Germany modernized economically but remained politically reactionary.
The elites struggled against industrialization in order to remain in power.
The leaders of the Reich believed that naval armaments would preserve the status quo as well as rally divergent forces for a power-political goal.
Although the navy useless for the conduct of civil war, it was of interest to industry.
Also, the leaders of the Reich believed that there would soon be a period of widespread Social Darwinism between nations, and they wanted to ensure Germany's status as an international power by means of building up the navy.
All this did, however, was induce a naval arms race with Britain.
This increased tensions that were not eased by the conflict in Morocco and Agadir.

What do you reckon?
Or does it miss the point of your line-of-argument?