From November 2013 IBDP PAPER 3 exam – ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST
EXAMPLE 1:
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage […] as a consequence of the war imposed […] by the aggression of Germany and her allies." In the famous and highly controversial War Guilt Clause of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany is assigned complete blame for causing the First World War, even though this decision isn’t justified in the Treaty itself and therefore gives room for different and debatable interpretations. Many historians agree with this concept of guilt blaming, but having grown up in Germany and experienced the German point of view first hand, it is clear that Germany isn’t a nation that deserves all the blame.
The German historian Fritz Fischer was the first to blame solely Germany for causing the Great War. His thesis was that Germany was aching for a war since 1912 and that it’s militarism provides clear evidence for that. Many other historians and British officials argue the same point, that Germany’s militaristic expenses, which grew 73% over the cause of 4 years, 1910-1914, and were therefore the highest in Europe, provided undoubted evidence that Germany was eager for war. However, contributing one specific characteristic like militarism to an entire nation can be somewhat problematic. Kaiser Wilhelm II became a representation for the entire German people, especially to the British. His public speeches were often rather bellicose and not though through, like his statement “The soldier and the army, not parliamentary majorities and decisions, have welded the German Empire together. I put my trust in the army.” Such statements show how militaristic the German leader was, but they do not represent the entire German population, as thought by many. Even today, 25 years after the unification, there are severe differences in the thinking and living habits inside Germany itself. In north Germany, for example, people are more open and modern, whereas the south is more conservative. Such differences haven’t just developed in the past few years, but have always been there, which supports the thesis that one man could’ve hardly represented the thinking and feelings of an entire nation.
Another problem with the thesis that Germany was more militaristic and eager for war than any other nation is that before the First World War broke out, the act of going into war and defending the father-or motherland was glorified by many European nations, not just Germany. Nearly every European country had poems and songs about heroic sacrifice and the glory and beauty of war, especially the British. The first verse of Owen Seaman’s Pro Patria states: “England, in this great fight to which you go/Because, where Honour calls you, go you must,/ Be glad, whatever comes, at least to know/You have your quarrel just.” This poem is one of many British poetry pieces that glorify the war and strongly trust and believe in the thesis “Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori [It is sweet and proper to die for one's country]”. That statement became motto and inspiration for the British during World War One and it makes the explanation that Germany is to blame for the Great War, because it was most militaristic, seem less effective and too simplistic overall.
A different reason why historians like Fritz Fischer might have argued that Germany is to blame is that they developed their thoughts in the time period after the Second World War. Even though there are many debates and uncertainties as to who started the Great War, it is clear that Germany, with the help of Adolf Hitler, is to blame for the Second World War, so when looking back at 1914, it lies close to assume that with her war-starting history, Germany can be easily made responsible for causing both wars. However nowadays, a century after the start of the First World War, the causes can be analyzed from a much clearer and less bias perspective. Therefore more and more historians today try to explore a different side to who caused the Great War, and less make Germany fully responsible.
A common justification that is given for blaming Germany is that after Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Germany gave Austria-Hungary a “Blank Check”, which as many say, promised full support if there would be a resulting war. Historians argue that without the German support Austria-Hungary wouldn’t have declared war on Serbia and that Germany encouraged Austrians to fight. However, having read the telegram that was sent from German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg to the German Ambassador in Vienna, it is clear that the arguments regarding Germany wanting a war are just assumptions. The telegram itself says nothing about a potential war that would be encouraged by the German parliament. It simply states: “as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty cannot interfere in the dispute now going on […] as it is a matter not within his competence. The Emperor Francis Joseph may, however, rest assured that His Majesty will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary, as is required by the obligations of his alliance and of his ancient friendship.” The telegram clearly says that Germany has no influence and does not want to get involved in the decision-making regarding the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. This is really important because it makes the argument of Germany being eager for war invalid. This specific passage from the Telegram is often used out of context and has therefore been misinterpreted. Adding onto that the idea that Germany would want a war, especially a World War, makes very little sense, as Germany was just starting to build up it’s economy after the unification and rather then sending troops off to fight and spending large amounts of money on the army, it would make more sense to invest in the state itself and make it’s world markets stronger. Assuming that that was the case, Germany would’ve then given Austria-Hungary full support in what they did in hopes that there wouldn’t be a war, which is a much more considerate interpretation of the telegram.
With all these points made, it is clear that even though Germany does deserve some blame for the war, it can’t be made fully responsible. Other nations contributed to the tension between the European powers, such as Austria-Hungary for demanding too harsh conditions from the Serbs, France declaring war on Germany and Russia starting it’s pre-mobilization even before Serbia had responded to the Austria-Hungarian demands. Germany might have played an important role in the Great War, but so have nearly all European powers at that time.
MY COMMENTS:
Good introduction- it's just like I had spoken of in class. Start with a relevant quote showing judgement and reading, develop it, and then move on to the theme.
It still needs development- you end by writing that "having grown up in Germany and experienced the German point of view first hand, it is clear that Germany isn’t a nation that deserves all the blame." That isn't an argument; it tells me nothing. There is a danger therefore that you are intimating that you are writing as a biased observer- "I'm German, so I know it's wrong." You must be specific in how you intend to challenge the question, and not simply by saying you're German.
You are very wrong in claiming that Fritz Fischer "was the first to blame solely Germany for causing the Great War"- you began with a quote doing just that dating from 1919. EVERYONE blamed Germany after the war. Maybe you mean he was the first GERMAN historian to have done so PUBLICLY.
Throughout, as in the introduction, you show you understand the structure to follow when writing the essay; now you need to put meat on the bones. For example, you tend to throw out quotes here and there and then conclude simply "this shows how militaristic the German leader was, but they do not represent the entire German population, as thought by many." Is it fair to selectively choose a single quote out of context? WHO thinks the entire German population was militaristic? What is your point? Instead of explaining it and using it to answer the question, you then go on to describe how, TODAY, "people are more open and modern, whereas the south is more conservative." I understand why you're doing this, but look at your paragraph- it is short, consists of a quote halfway after first giving ONE statistic and ONE historian (doing justice to neither) before offering a description of Germany 100 years later.
Your second paragraph is even shorter, and you use a single poem written DURING the war to ... to do what? There is no reference to the cause of the war. Certainly, the quote you give discusses why Britons MUST get involved in the war, (which could be used to argue the opposite of what you are) but not they cause it. That's the question- did Germany start the war? Were they to blame? EVERY country (including Germany) had such poems- why are you picking on the British? Are you claiming Germany didn't employ bloodthirsty art and poetry? And then there's the reference to “Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori"- this, the opening lines to Owen's poem, simply write about the futility of the war and how the soldiers are against it- it's clear you are not familiar with the works you are discussing.
The next poem focuses on WWII through a handful of simple statements. Not one line is relevant to the question; in fact, besides serving no purpose it hurts you by showing the examiner you are unclear about the question.
Your last paragraph looks ONLY at the blank cheque. it's jarring given what came before- there is no link to anything you mentioned, it serves no overall theme or argument... look at every sentence- most are just the thoughts of a teenager and not a fact, event, statistic, historian...
"The idea that Germany would want a war, especially a World War, makes very little sense, as Germany was just starting to build up it’s [sic] economy after the unification and rather then [sic] sending troops off to fight and spending large amounts of money on the army, it would make more sense to invest in the state itself and make it’s [sic] world markets stronger."
Says who? Is that YOUR opinion? Who are you? That you throw all these things into a single line not only betrays a lack of critical thought to each point, but a simplistic understanding of the world.
Thus knowledge is weak.
Analysis is there, but not tied to specific understanding of the historical period.
Reference is made to historiography, but more in the form of name-dropping than actual consideration of the value, origin and purpose of such arguments.
Organisation is poor, and not in the service of the question.
next time focus on this one area- topic sentences. Instead of beginning a paragraph with "A different reason why historians like Fritz Fischer might have argued that Germany is to blame is that they developed their thoughts in the time period after the Second World War," ANSWER THE QUESTION. It is NOT "Why did historians blame Germany after WWII", but based on the available evidence, is it right to blame Germany today?
Example 2:
-->
To
excuse Germany from being the preliminary culprit of the outbreak of war in
1914 would be, as Sir Max Hastings put it, “unfounded and illogical”. One could
assign the blame to various nations and individuals, but none in my opinion
held the same amount of influence and grasp over European matters as Germany
and perhaps Great Britain, and as Uncle Ben Parker famously said “with great power
comes great responsibility”. This is highly applicable in the case of Wilhelm
and his Generals reacting sluggishly and indecisively in the face of a crisis,
not to mention obvious signals of aggression and schizophrenia from the German
Reich in the years prior to 1914. In this essay we will delve into how
painfully clear it is that Germany could have at various times throughout the
early 20th century reacted more appropriately to prevent a European
bloodbath.
Those that seek to dismiss the notion of German aggression
prior to the first shots being fired must simply look at the Schlieffen-plan.
Designed to take Paris in a matter of weeks, it was an offensive plan designed
for rapid European expansion and invasion. It bares an awful lot of similarity
to Hitler’s blitzkrieg and even employed strategies including the invasion of
neutral countries; of course Britain was to get involved as a response. The
United Kingdom realized it should no longer use “splendid isolation” as an out
for getting involved in European politics. The argument could be made on behalf
of Germany that with the signing of the 1904 Entente Cordial, the Reich needed
to protect itself. This argument however falls flat, as this was merely an
agreement between Russia, Great Britain and France, as they did not have an alliance; it was simply
assurance designed as an attempt to stabilize the growing tension in Europe.
Germany further responded by engaging Britain in a naval race, which it had
clearly lost by 1910. This is, logically, not the response a passive and
peace-seeking nation would have had in response to the slightest indication of
a threat in its vicinity.
The Blank Cheque of July 5th 1914 was yet again,
another wrong step on Germanys part in preventing war across Europe. Taking the
fact that it wasn’t even the Kaiser to hand over this insurance of force into
account, one must ask themselves as Austro-Hungary did; who is in-charge in
Berlin? To answer them, it was either a paranoid, self-conscious war-mongerer,
who felt he had something to prove, or hyper aggressive generals and foreign
ambassadors such as Moltke or Zimmerman. Either way, now with Austria-Hungary
assured in that it would be protected from Russia due to the aid of its natural
ally, it felt free to wage war.
Germany is to be blamed to a great extent for the outbreak
of the war, as it could have at so many times in the year’s prior done so much
to stop the bloodshed. Historian Tim Cook argues feverishly in his novel “The
Necessary War” that the First World War was bound to happen. I have to
disagree, as I cannot concur with the notion that the most powerful and
influential nation of its era was futile in its attempts to halt the looming
disasters to come. Of course, each country and empire played its role, but none
can be convicted in the same light as Germany was in the treaty of Versailles,
which in rightfully saw Germany as the primary instigator of the war.
6/20
"Indicates some understanding of the question but historical knowledge is limited in quality and quantity. Historical context may be present as will understanding of historical processes but underdeveloped. The question is only partially addressed."
MY COMMENTS:
Apart from the bizarre reference to "Uncle Ben Parker", a fine introduction; just what I want to see- Starts well with a relevant quote showing judgement and reading, developed, and then move on to the argument.
The focus is far better than your previous essay. It's just far, far too short and lacking in sufficient factual information and support.
The main area of focus (understandable at this stage of the course) is putting meat to the bones. Your paragraphs are too short and lack sufficient evidence or support. They tend to consist of simple statements followed by bold claims with nothing in between. Consider: "Germany further responded by engaging Britain in a naval race, which it had clearly lost by 1910. This is, logically, not the response a passive and peace-seeking nation would have had in response to the slightest indication of a threat in its vicinity." Your point about the naval race is not only lacking in any real analysis or development, but the point (Germany lost the naval race 4 years earlier) seems to contradict the next point you make.
Your next paragraph, about the blank cheque, is promising but is so devoid of explanation or development that it is of little use. IT CONSISTS OF ONLY FOUR SENTENCES! No historiography, no discussion of what you are actually referring to (how is it a "fact"t that "it wasn’t even the Kaiser to hand over this insurance of force into account"- what does that even mean? What is the basis for the question "who is in-charge [sic] in Berlin?"- the Kaiser, no?)- it's not enough to simply offer claims- you need EVIDENCE through EXAMPLES!
Then, that's it. 1 1/2 paragraphs. You conclude by referring to how "feverishly" the "historian Tim Cook argues in his novel “The Necessary War” that the First World War was bound to happen" without explaining what the hell he actually says! You can't conclude by throwing out new ideas, let alone leave them unexplained so the reader has no idea what you're on about. And what is an historian doing writing novels? If it is a novel, why refer to it?
START with an historian, clearly explain his argument (and explain why he believes it as if you were giving a debate on his behalf)- don't throw out an historian's name in such a way that it's clear you never read the man's work before.
