The Fighters, the Strategy, or the People?

Based on the reading and your understanding of WWI at this point, which factor do you feel was the most significant in contributing to victory for the Allied Powers and defeat for the Central Powers: the war on land, the war at sea, or the war at home? The war on land refers to the actual fighting on the ground, the trench warfare, the majority of the fighting of WWI took place on land. The war at sea refers to naval strategies of both alliances, and in a war of attrition, this played a vital role. The war at home refers to the home front, contributions made by citizens as well as popular support for (or oppostition to) the war.

First, add a comment which provides your response to either the above question or to the posted comments.

Next, create a post using any of your questions posed on the homework (Gilbert 80-98).

Lastly, comment on/answer the questions of 3 of your classmates. Let me know in class if you are having difficulty posting comments.

Whose story of WWI? His story? Her story? No, historiography of WWI!

Having examined the main arguments of revisionist historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay and anti-revisionist historian Fritz Fischer, now it is time to formulate your own perspective. Is Germany primarily responsible for plunging the world into an horrific world war? Were they equally responsible but not primarily responsible? Or were they dragged into the war as a result of their alliance with Austria-Hungary? The facts agree, but the perspectives do not. Which perspective do you feel has more merit?

On your blog, create a post in response to the above questions. Be objective and balanced in explaining your perspective, meaning that you should not only explain why you agree with Fay or Fischer but also explain why you disagree with Fay or Fischer. Use their words and arguments as well as factual information to show how you have formed your own viewpoint, as your post should reflect an understanding of the opposing perspectives. Then, read and comment on at least 3 other blog posts. I am looking forward to reading your blogs!

Assignment

To prepare for tomorrow's discussion, you need to post a comment which relates to my post below titled "War is Outdated" (If it is not shown, click on "September" under "Blog Archive"). It can be a response to my post or it can be a response to a comment on that post. Second, you need to post on your blog a question, answer, or thought in reaction to the 4 major discussion questions listed here:
1. What force(s) is(are) driving the MAIN (Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism) causes of     WWI?
2. Why did Norman Angell's argument prove to be incorrect?
3. Assess the importance of the Agadir Crisis and the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
4. Why wasn't WWI prevented?
Lastly, read the blog posts of your classmates and comment on their thoughts or answer their question.

If you accomplish the above, tomorrow should be an incredible discussion in which all of you have answers to the questions and will have much to say. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

War is Outdated

Norman Angell claimed in 1910 that a European war would be avoided because no nation would have anything to gain and everything to lose. It makes logical sense. I have always thought that there would be no World War III for the same reason; everyone would lose. When you closely examine the events leading up to World War I, you see that most political leaders believed that a world-wide war would not benefit their respective countries or empires. So why did war occur over an issue of relatively minor importance?

World War I was an entirely irrational war. It makes no sense. This got me to thinking; in the 20th and 21st century, are any wars "rational" or "logical". I would say "no". Wars of the past century as well as wars of the present are no longer rational, they are no longer in anyone's best interest. Do we fight wars today for resources? If so, is war the only, or the most effective, means of acquiring resources? It seems that too many resources are used for war and for militarism, which generates problems rather than solutions. A more rational approach seems to be one that considers that the entire planet will have to deal with the same issues of scarcity of food, water, as well as dwindling sources of energy, not to mention environmental decay.  If we all have these same basic challenges, it would benefit everyone to try to work together to solve them through trade and technological innovation. This may sound completely unrealistic, I know, but it is definitely rational and logical.

Review help...

If at any point there is something that you are having difficulty with, just post a comment and I will try to help. Any questions, information, confusion - I am happy to clarify.