In what ways and to what extent were the causes of the Second World War similar to those of the First World War
There are evidently many similar causes of the First and Second World War, however there are equally just as many differences to explore. The mistakes of the First World War should have been learnt, and it is either a case of the same mistakes being repeated or new mistakes being performed that created the war. It is essential to state the separate causes that are similar and different, and how they are similar or different in order to answer this question. There were clearly the same different sides in both the wars, and both times Germany ending up losing, and powers such as Britain and France as the winners. One of the similarities between the causes of World War One and World War Two is of the role of Germany and its policies. These are extremely similar, firstly as they were all evidently aggressive, national policies and for the important reason that it meant gaining power, even though the way it was achieved was different. For War World One one of the greatest causes of the war can be seen as the effect of the growth of Germany had on Europe. Germany was a moderately new country but one that was rapidly growing industrially, financially and militarily which potentially threatened to disrupt the delicate balance of power achieved in Europe after centuries of conflict. However, the situation was intensified by Germany’s actions resulting from this new found power. The Kaiser began to feel progressively more endangered by the encirclement of the entente powers and so alternatively turned to militarism, as demonstrated through the arms race, a situation which would, as anticipated, gain the concern and anger of Britain with Germany ’s obsession with the growth of their navy. The Arms Race is perhaps more relevant to World War One, but Germany still wanted to rival Britain in terms of their navy, a significant pattern which is show. The Arms Race, along with the Kaiser ’s militaristic alliances, plans made on a war footing and aggressive foreign policy convinced Europe that a war was inevitable. Prior to the Second World War the situation was similar. For, with Hitler ’s rise to power, there was a dramatic change in the foreign policy of Germany. In World War One, there was the German policy of the Weltpolitik. The nature of Weltpolitik was to enlarge its interests in non-European affairs allowing Germany to become a ‘world power’. The reasons for this fundamental change were complex and varied, yet on the whole this ‘world policy; must be seen as an external reflection of internal German developments. Weltpolitik Weltpolit ik consisted of a headstrong and incoherent insistence that Germany should have a say in all major issues. An aggressive foreign policy as Weltpoltik was a major cause of the outbreak of war in 1914 In World War Two, these policies were quite similar showing significant repetition. Hitler introduced Lebensraum, Anschlus and the Z Plan. The 1936 Four Year Plan was for war on a large l arge scale, through expansionism and achieving economic stability to prepare Germany for the war. Lebensraum was part of Hitler ’s long term aims which was outlined in the Hossbach Memorandum, which meant ‘living space’ suggesting conquest. conquest. The idea of Lebensraum is very similar to that of Weltpolitik (wanting ultimate power), but it was Hitler ’s idea of expanding into
Eastern Europe for more space for Germany. Eastern Europe, in the case of Anschluss, was one of Hitler's steps to begin taking back the land that had been taken away from Germany. In March 1938, German troops marched into Austria; the Austrian leader was forced to hold a vote asking the people whether they wanted to be part of Germany. The results of the vote were fixed and showed that 99% of Austrian people wanted Anschluss, meaning a union with Germany. The Austrian leader asked Britain, France and Italy for aid. Hitler promised that Anschluss was the end of his expansionist aims and not wanting to risk war, the other countries did nothing. The whole investment in autarky was also part of Hitler ’s policies for large scale war. It can be argued that the motive of Germany never changed throughout both wars; this desire to have overall power. To a very large extent, the German policies were clearly similar as a cause of both Second and First World War due to its underlying desire for world domination. However, one essential difference is that the policies of World War One, were not so much as aimed for a large scale war (although this may have eventually been the result), but more for just world domination and international influence- just as the Weltpolitik was a drive for power and international prestige. Hitler ’s policies all showed an indication for war- historian Hildebrand supports this as he believed that Hitler wanted world domination. This indication of war was especially apparent in the increase of 20% to 60% of military production. The Z Plan also indicates war on a large scale beyond the scale of Lebensraum- if war was not intended then naval expansion was unnecessary.
Another aspect to explore when looking at the similarities and between the causes of World War One and World War Two in association with nationalism/expansionism and aggressive nationalist policies is that of the ‘September Programme. ’ This made it clear that the war aim of achieving ‘security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time’ involved an unparalleled programme of annexations and expansion. The ‘September Programme ’ has provided historians who have considered Germany guilty of premeditated aggression in 1914 with their main weapon. Others have preferred to see the programme as a chauvinistic response to early German victories. ‘The September Programme ’ has numerous similarities to that of Lebensraum, in particular the main aim of expansionism. Moreover, German Nationalism was also reinforced in World War Two with the National Socialist Democratic German Worker's Party (Nazi Party). The German attitude was very superior, and this evidently did not change between the wars. Nationalism also posed a problem for Austria-Hungary and the Balkans, areas comprised of many conflicting national groups in World War One. It is fair to say that nationalism was similarly as important as each other in causing both World War One and World War Two. Furthermore, another aspect to explore is the idea of domestic factors when deciding how similar the causes of World War One and World War Two were. The Domestic Factors of World War One were mainly linked with Germany, Russia and Austria, and for World War Two this slightly changed to Britain, Germany and France (once again Germany being an essential part of the equation). For Germany, in World War One, the domestic crises were linked to many factors. Their desire for Germany to get colonies was a huge underlying domestic problem and so was the introduction of Weltpolitik. Moreover, there was the problem of the military response to the Schlieffen Plan. Then there was the SPD party becoming more powerful meaning that the Kaiser had less power. Their domestic crises were not only internal, however, with their problem of France and Russia wanting to quickly mobilise. Then, for Austria in World War One, there were also internal domestic crises. The
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in which Serbia was blamed, causing the involvement of Russia. The Austrian Government was divided over how to respond whether to declare war or not. Another major domestic problem was the decline of AustrianHungarian Empire. Germany had quite similar domestic crises in World War Two, in the case of nationalist parties rising. Hitler wanted all Germans to be located in Germany which led to expansion aims, the Four Year Plan where Hitler wanted self-sufficiency. Britain had economic problems at the time, treasury had doubts about the availability of resources for rearmament and this reinforced the policy of appeasement. There was also the problem of anti-war public opinion, and unemployment due to the great depression and concerns about spending on social policy. Other domestic problems in the other countries were France who had a big empire that they could not keep up with; the USA who reinforced domestic policy of Isolationism and Japan who economically needed security for the resources they had and wanted to create an empire, also they were anti-communist. Italy also emphasises Autarky and self-sufficiency. Domestic factors did help in causing both the wars, as they created a lot of tensions between the countries which eventually resulted in war, and therefore is an aspect of how similar the causes of both World War One and World War Two were. In addition, it is necessary to explore the economic factors/ tensions, although this was more apparent in World War Two. There were economic conflicts between Germany and Britain from 1890 onwards. Since 1871 Germany had been experiencing a period of rapid industrialization, and by 1890 the products of her industry were competing with British manufactures everywhere in the globe and German merchant ships threatened Britain's carrying trade. This was very similar as of World War Two, where this same economic rivalry continued between Britain and Germany in Near East in 1938-9 as Hitler did not see why Britain should control half the world. There were also economic struggles between Germany and France. Britain sought to use warfare against Germany seeking to disrupt supplies of two strategic materials, iron ore and oil. The economic factors which caused World War Two were similar in terms of economic rivalry, but each country suffered economically more than in World War One. This is mainly as a result of October 1929 Wall Street Crash, which caused mass unemployment and collapse of world trade. All the countries clearly suffered, with Germany receiving the worst consequences due to their loans from America (the Young Plan of 1928 and Dawes Plan of 1924). Britain was also in trouble for borrowing money from America because of the previous war. The Wall Street Crash for Britain meant that less people would buy exports, causing more unemployment. Japan also had mass unemployment. This economic problem caused much tension as it increased rivalry and suspicion between the states, which is as similar to that of World War One. Also, economic failures led to the rise of fascist powers, such as Hitler and the SPD party, another important similarity. Possibly one of the biggest encouragements of the economic downfalls that encouraged Hitler was that of Britain, as this introduced Appeasement- a policy adopted by Chamberlain's government. Just like economic factors had help to trigger
the war, and allowed tensions to build up to World War One, the same occurred in the build up to World War Two, however it can be disputed that this ‘build up’ was more developed in World War Two, and had a bigger impact. The alliances are another aspect to explore as the same alliances consisted (although there may have been additional countries added to the equation). The alliances of World War One, were Germany and Austria together and then Britain, Russia and France. This stayed the same for World War Two; this makes the causes of both wars extremely similar, as it shows that the underlying tensions were similar between the same countries, and shows that repetition was occurring. There was also the failure of diplomacy to prevent war as a cause of both wars.
Additionally, there are the similarities of colonial rivalries. This all contributed to the tensions of the countries as Britain and France had colonies, but Germany, Italy and Japan did not before World War One. This is extremely similar, but is clearly apparent because before World War Two the world was divided into two groups: the Haves (Britain and France) and the Have Nots (Germany, Italy and Japan). This would have majorly caused war in both the first and second, as it instigated all tensions as all the countries wished to gain economic resources and lacked colonies; they all sought to gain territory. This is not so much a major factor in causing the war, but is still essential in analysing the extent of which the causes were similar as it investigates the similar tensions, and it is the tensions that majorly contributed to the causes of both wars. As for the differences of the wars, there are various factors to explore. Firstly, the issue of the Balkans which was major cause of World War One was clearly not even an issue for World War Two. The consequences of the Balkan Wars directly led to the outbreak of the First World War. Furthermore, the main trigger of World War One was the a ssassination of the Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo. However, in World War Two, the ‘trigger ’ was Hitler ’s expansionism and his invasion of Poland due to his wrong assumption of the actions of the other countries. The causes itself are very different, as in World War One, the trigger was not necessarily intending on a large scale war, but it was the countries involvement that meant war would proceed. In World War Two, this ‘trigger ’ was intending for war, and would have i nevitably resulted in war, unlike in World War One, where if there had not been an ultimatum in which it was more than certain that Russia would decline, there would have not been a war- the countries had used the problem between Austria and Serbia to start a warespecially Germany who gave Austria its support, so it could declare war on Russia. Hitler ’s non-stop expansionism meant that war would definitely happen, and Poland was just what was needed in order for Britain to intervene. There are some similarities here, that there had to be an ultimate trigger in order for war to proceed, but the major differences are what the triggers act ually were and how they caused war. The significance of Japan in the Far East is another important role to e xplore. Japan had more significance in World War Two, than in World War One. In World War One, it was the att ack on the Pearl Harbour and the Manchurian Crisis that contributed to the cause of World War Two, however it did not necessarily cause the war, but contributed, as it brought America and China into the war, turning it into an international war, but not starting it. This is an important difference as it shows the different tensions that had built up between different countries, clearly showing that new tensions had developed between both wars.
The Peace Treaty was possibly what caused the main tensions between the countries before World War Two. The main terms were: the War Guilt Clause where Germany had to accept the blame for starting World War One; £6,600 million reparations for damages; disarmament and territorial clauses where land was taken away and Anschluss was forbidden. The German people were very unhappy and had a lot of resentment and rejection towards the terms and thought that it was too harsh. Germany could not afford to pay the money and during the 1920s the people in Germany were very poor. If the terms were not so harsh, then Germany may not have been so bitter and turned to extremist groups such as the Nazis.
Moreover, the ideology differed. For the cause World War One, the ideology was more fixated on militarism and nationalism. As for the cause of World War Two, the ideology turned more to fascism, communism and imperialism. This makes the causes very different as it shows that there was a vast development over the wars, as the causes became a lot more social and political by the time of World War Two. There were also different influences that had majorly contributed to the cause of the war, and it is fair to say that especially in World War Two, particular individuals definitely contributed to the war. The important individuals of World War One, were the Kaiser Wilhelm, Hindenburg, Arch Duke vonz Ferdinand and Wilson. In World War Two, this dramatically changed and it is completely appropriate to say that these news individualists had a lot more power and influence, and in the case of Hitler a lot more extreme. The individualists of World War Two were Hitler, Mussolini (who gave more importance to Italy who previously was not very important in World War One), Stalin, Chamberlin and Rooservelt. One major difference, is that there was no appeasement in World War One, that encouraged the second world war, unlike the first. During the 1930s, many politicians in both Britain and France came to see that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles had placed restrictions on Germany that were unfair. Hitler's actions were seen as understandable and justifiable. When Germany began re-arming in 1934, many politicians felt that Germany had a right to re-arm in order to protect herself, and that a stronger Germany would prevent the spread of Communism to the west. In 1936, Hitler argued that because France had signed a new treaty with Russia, Germany was under threat from both countries and it was important to German security that troops were stationed in the Rhineland. France was not strong enough to fight Germany without British help and Britain was not prepared to go to war at this point. In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain and was a very important individual as he created the false impression that Britain was weak, encouraging Hitler to go to war. He believed that the Treaty of Versailles had treated Germany badly and that there were a number of issues associated with the Treaty that needed to be put right. He felt that giving in to Hitler's demands would prevent another war. However, it only encouraged Hitler. Britain could not afford to fight or be a threat. The public wanted appeasement and this encouraged Hitler as it gave him the impression that Britain was weak, allowing him to go ahead with his plans.
The conferences for peace treaties are obviously a big difference of causes of both wars, as it only occurred before World War Two. The Tehran Conference was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill between November 28 and December 1, 1943, most of which was held at the Soviet Embassy in Tehran, Iran. It was the first World War II conference amongst the Big Three (the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom) in which Stalin was present. It almost immediately followed the Cairo Conference (November 22 – 26, 1943) and was followed by the Yalta Conference (and the Potsdam Conference. The central aim of the Tehran conference was to plan the final strategy for the war against Nazi Germany and its allies, and the chief discussion was centered on the opening of a second front in Western Europe. The Yalta Conference, on the February 4 – 11, 1945 wartime meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and General Secretary Joseph Stalin, respectively — for the purpose of discussing Europe's post-war reorganization. Mainly, it was intended to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe. The Potsdam Conference was held at Cecilienhof , the home of Crown Prince Wilhelm Hohenzollern, in Potsdam, occupied Germany, from 16 July to 2 August 1945. Participants were the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The three nations were represented by Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin, Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and, later, Clement Attlee, and President Harry S. Truman. They gathered to decide how to administer punishment to the defeated Nazi Germany, which had agreed to unconditional surrender nine weeks earlier, on May 8 . The goals of the conference also included the establishment of post-war order, peace treaties issues, and countering the effects of war. The Cold War is the name given to the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and the USSR after World War Two. The Cold War was to dominate international affairs for decades and many major crises occurred. There seemed to be a lot more action put forward than in World War One to stop the spread of communism. By 1946, Greece and Czechoslovakia were the only countries in Eastern Europe that weren’t Communist. In February 1947, the British told Truman they could no longer afford to keep their soldiers in Greece. President Truman stepped in. The USA paid for the British soldiers in Greece. Truman noted that Turkey too was in danger from Soviet aggression, so Congress voted to give aid to Turkey as well. Furthermore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was created in 1949. NATO was seen as being a viable military deterrent against the military might of the Soviet Union. In response to NATO admitting the membership of West Germany, the Soviet Union was to gather all its client states in Eastern Europe into the Warsaw Pact in May 1955. The heart of NATO beat around the military and financial muscle of the United States.
Historiography helps to determine just how similar the causes of the wars were. Many revisionist historians favoured an explanation of World War One as being caused by powerful forces that were pushing Europe into war - nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the system of alliances. American historian Sydney Bradshaw Fay says ‘The Second World War, however, changed historians views of the First World War. Faced by the phenomenon of an Adolf Hitler, the 'Anti-revisionists' tended to return to the idea of German responsibility’. This shows that there may be similarities due to the fact that there are similar patterns derived from the Second and First World War. British historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, in which he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict of the First World War: ‘[The German]
bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ’. Historian Albertini's ideas supported AJP Taylor's in as much as he believed that the primary responsibility for the war lay with Germany's plan of mobilisation. Unlike other countries' mobilisation plans, the Schlieffen Plan was offensive, and meant that, when Germany mobilised, Germany went to war.
Historians have quite similar opinions of what the causes of both wars were. For world war one, the main causes seem to be due to nationalism and militarism and the role of Germany. As for World War Two, this changes mainly to to the rise of Hitler and the role of Germany. This leaves me to conclude that, the causes of World War One and Two have many patterns which show a lot of similarities, however, there may be some differences within causes of both wars, but there are more similarities than differences. The same mistakes of undermining Germany and its influence were made both in World War One and World War Two which was a major cause. Although many factors leading up to this final cause are similar in certain aspects, the main conclusion is the causes of the war are greatly similar.
