ORIENTATING PHASE: Introduction to the concept of 'conflict' - HOW HAS CONFLICT CHANGED OVER TIME?
Defining the nature of 'CONFLICT'
Discussion:1) What are the differing forms of conflict that exist in our world?
2) What are the differing conflict resolution strategies at our disposal? Which are most effective and why?
3) Under what circumstances would you go to war? Link: HYPOTHETICALS
Debate:
Can conflict always be settled DIPLOMATICALLY?
The nature of conflict over time: Has it changed or stayed the same?
Homework Task 1: Answer the questions on the Prezi (the Nature of Conflict) below collaboratively here: DOCUMENT LINKBut answer the final 'CONCLUDING REFLECTION' in the comment section at the bottom of the page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENHANCING PHASE: The lead up to WW1 - WHAT WERE THE KEY FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE OUTBREAK OF WAR IN 1914?
Inquiry into the road to World War 1
RESOURCES:
Geography of Europe in 1914 Activity: DOCUMENT LINKMilitarism text (Inquiry 1) scanned exercises: DOCUMENT LINK
The Lead-up to WW1 Revision: LINK
HOMEWORK TASKS:
ASSASSINATION Homework Task 2: 'THE SPARK' - Questions 1 to 5 in your books and articulate your position on the Values Dilemma in the comment section at the bottom of the page: DOCUMENT LINKNATIONALISM Homework Task 3: 'COUNTDOWN TO WW1' - Questions 1 to 8 (Nationalism): DOCUMENT LINK
ALLIANCES Homework Task 4: 'COUNTDOWN TO WW1' - Questions 8 to 12 and (The Alliance System): DOCUMENT LINK
FOREIGN POLICY/JULY DAYS Homework Task 5: 'COUNTDOWN TO WW1' - Questions 21 to 34 (NOT 31...done in class. 34 to be completed in the comment forum below): DOCUMENT LINK
PEER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY:
- Swap your final extended piece of writing with a partner.
- Use a different colour highlighter (electronic or hard copy) to identify evidence of 'nationalism', 'imperialism', 'alliances', 'militarism' and 'assassination' as contributing factors to WWI
- As your upcoming exam will address Criterion 3, circle evidence in your partner's work of the following:
- consistent and accurate communication of selected definitions, key historical concepts, events, developments and people, and the relationship between them.
- concepts of change and continuity
- succinct use of vocabulary
- incorporate direct and indirect references to relevant historical evidence
- Swap back and look for opportunities to improve your writing in accordance with your feedback - consult your teacher for conferencing if clarification or discussion on improvement is needed.
SYNTHESIZING PHASE: The Continuation of Conflict (WW2) - TO WHAT EXTENT WAS WWII A CONTINUATION OF HOSTILITIES REMAINING FROM WWI?
Inquiry into the road to World War 2 - The Treaty of Versailles
RECOMMENDED READING: DOCUMENT LINK1) INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY: BBC Bitesize 'The Treaty of Versailles'
Watch the following 'bitesize' overview of the Treaty of Versailles and complete a 'snapshot 3:2:1:R:I:Q' to introduce the topic.
BBC Bitesize 'The Treaty of Versialles': WEB LINK
2) ACTIVITY: Class Discussion and cartoon analysis
Read pages 2-5 >>> complete Tasks 1 & 2 in conjunction with class discussion and glossary additions: DOCUMENT LINK
View the clips 1 & 2 (click on the link given for clip 2 towards the end of the clip) below and LIST THE DESIRED OUTCOMES of each of the significant participants at the Paris Peace Conference
4) ACTIVITY: Class Discussion and cartoon analysis: Read pages 5-7 >>> complete Task 3: DOCUMENT LINK
5) ACTIVITY: Political Cartoon Analysis:
Analysis skill development (annotation and connotation differentiation in political cartoons) via class discussion. CARTOON: 'To the Guillotine': PP ANALYSIS LINK
6) ACTIVITY: DE BONO's THINKING HATS
You are all WORLD LEADERS with differing perspectives and FUTURE GLOBAL PEACE is in your hands!
Focus Question: ‘WILL THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES BE AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR ENSURING PEACE FOR THE FUTURE AFTER WW1?’
- Taking into account your knowledge of the Treaty of Versailles’ DEMANDS and the initial OBJECTIVES OF THE ‘BIG 3’ and its OUTCOMES, note collaboratively on the Google Doc below alternative ideas to ensure future peace in accordance with the perspectives of each hat.
- Then, you will discuss in groups taking on the role of one of the hats with the aim of coming to an agreement on the main points of discussion at the Paris Peace Conference:
- German Territory (incl. colonies)
- Reparations
- German military, and
- Blame/guilt for WW1
Activity link: DOCUMENT LINK
RESOURCES:
Recommended Reading: DOCUMENT LINKTreaty of Versailles Activities: DOCUMENT LINK
BBC Series 'Make Germany Pay': YouTube LINK
Political Cartoon Explanations - 'Give Him Rope': PP ANALYSIS LINK ; IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS LINK
Political Cartoon Explanation - 'To the Guillotine': PP ANALYSIS LINK
Political Cartoon Explanation - Peace and Future Cannon Fodder': ANALYSIS LINK
BBC Bitesize 'The Treaty of Versialles': WEB LINK
HOMEWORK TASKS:
TREATY OF VERSAILLES Homework Task 6- Khan Academy: 'Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles'- Look at the following explanation of the Treaty of Versailles and create a CAUSE (Demand) /EFFECT (on Germany) map in order to REFLECT on the demands of the Treaty.
TREATY OF VERSAILLES Homework Task 7: Read page 8 >>> complete Task 4: DOCUMENT LINK
EXTENSION TASK: Read pages 9-12 >>> complete Task 5 and the Revision Questions: DOCUMENT LINK
Inquiry into the road to World War 2 - The League of Nations
1) Recommended Viewing: 'The League of Nations'
As you watch this clip, note in a T-Bar Analysis table the potential BENEFITS and the FAILURES of the League of Nations.
2) ACTIVITY: Webquest
Complete the tasks on the webquest link here: DOCUMENT LINK
As you watch this clip, note in a T-Bar Analysis table the potential BENEFITS and the FAILURES of the League of Nations.
2) ACTIVITY: Webquest
Complete the tasks on the webquest link here: DOCUMENT LINK
Homework discussion: How has the nature of conflict changed or stayed the same over time?
ReplyDeleteThe nature of conflict has remained the same over time as in all the sources shown in the Prezi, conflict has remained a violent affair. In each of the pictures shown men are holding weaponry and are also sometimes surrounded by destruction. However, conflict has changed as can be seen in the pictures above as weapon systems continue to increase in lethality and destruction becomes more evident and widespread. It can be seen that weapons change from bows and arrows and swords, to rifles, handguns and then to atomic bombs. In order to form a better answer to this question, I would like to be more informed about the causes of each of the conflicts along with the length and the amount of impact each caused. This would allow for a better evaluation of the depth and the amount necessity of each battle.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of conflict has certainly changed overtime. This can clearly be seen when comparing sources collected from different wars that have occurred in history. For example, when comparing images from WW1 and the Cold War, it can be seen that the way in which people physically fought in trenches with guns, tanks and other weapons in WW1 is very opposite to the way in which people fought, or in the Cold War didn't fight with spy planes and the testing of many nuclear weapons which wouldn't be used. As can be seen, the nature of conflict has changed from being fairly simple to becoming strategic and complicated warfare.
ReplyDeleteWe liked your argument and choice of words in the final sentence. A way of clarifying your paragraph could be to flesh out your points to better your argument and use more sources.
DeleteCassie, your point on comparing WW1 and the Cold War about the spy planes and nuclear weapons was a really interesting point made to show growth in conflict. I think you should consider talking about the further continuation to WW2 to show the further escalation!
DeleteThe nature of conflict has changed overtime, clearly shown when comparing the sources. Although in all the sources shown, violence is the remaining outcome of conflict, as time goes on, the way in which violence is utilised throughout history changes. For example, when comparing sources from World War 1 to the Cold War, the nature of conflict has clearly changed. As shown in the images of WW1 people fought physically, utilising guns, tanks and other weapons. Further compared to the Cold War, conflict became more strategic and well thought out, with the use of spy planes and nuclear weapons. This evidence clearly shows how the nature of conflict has changed over time.
ReplyDeleteMaggie, i really like your use of examples to back up your points and you've been able to clearly and concisely answer the question :)
DeleteThe nature of conflict has remained extremely violent and destructive over time starting from the early 20th. However the way in which conflict is carried out and the scale of which it has affected the world has certainly changed/progressed. Conflict in war has gone from two parties of men fighting on horses with swords as seen in the battle of Hasting and Waterloo to multiple armies fighting together for years on end as seen in the later part of the 20th century during WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Technologies have gone from swords to gun and from horses to tanks and planes, which has allowed the destruction caused by conflict to be on a larger scale. Conflict is no longer an isolated battle that just effects the armies of men involved but it has progressed so that whole towns/cities can be destroyed and the civilians within them killed. This has been able to occur again because of the progression in technologies with the use of planes, tanks, bombs and atomic bombs. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima during WW2 is a prime example of this. Overall conflict has remained violent but has become more destructive, widespread and strategic.
ReplyDeleteI found that this summerised the development of conflict over time very well, you made good use of the sources and regularly referenced them, in future you could however go further and explain more in detail the reason why conflict was resolved using violence and why it took so long for diplomatic solutions to arise. :)
DeleteI like the way your refer to the change/progression of the results of conflict over time. However you could have referred to specific sources when giving examples.
DeleteThe nature of conflict has stayed consistent throughout these sources in a sense, but it's easy to see that as the sources begin to progress through the years, there is a higher focus on how the other countries were affected rather than actually bringing problems to a resolution. When comparing sources from WW2 and the Cold War to sources from the Battle of Waterloo for example, attacks set on the opposite countries are far more personal and focused on setting long term problems on the other, like Hiroshima, which in fact create MORE tension and conflict.
ReplyDeleteI like how you compared sources to a degree, after explaining yourself. You could consider next time, explaining in a bit more depth to further clarification.
DeleteI liked that you acknowledged that the nature of conflict has stayed consistent, in a sense, but then go on to say what has changed and used examples to support your point. Maybe you could further clarify your point about Hiroshima :)
DeleteWhile the reasons for international conflict continues to have a prevailing driving force, the way in which conflict is resolved has evidently evolved and changed over the years for the better. Over many centuries it is clear that conflict mostly arises from the same underlying reasons: fighting over assets or, a dominant country inflicting its ideals on a 'weaker' country, resulting in up-rise against the former. These circumstances have seen that the initial cause of conflict has remained the same overtime. For example: The Battle of Hastings was initiated through the battle for power, WW2 from Hitlers desire for power, and Syria from the uprising from anti-government groups. However, it is evident that the nature of conflict has changed in the way it is resolved. From the sources, particularly dating from 1066AD to 1815, it is obvious that violence was believed to be the best measure to solve conflict and maintaining a sense of triumph and superiority was important. In the earlier sources, it can also be implied that fighting was a normal occurrence due to the fact that death wan not painted in a gruesome light. It is evident today that world leader's have advanced from resolving conflict with violence to instead using diplomatic means. The world has seen the results of devastation in Hiroshima and the persecution of Jews. This has influenced most leaders to employ all diplomatic resources in aim of avoiding war. This can be seen in the later sources, from particularly the Cold War, that while advancements in technologies and resources made mass destruction and death possible, it was avoided at all costs. While the nature of conflict has/is initiated from the same issues, the resolution of conflict has developed overtime from initiating war, to employing diplomatic techniques to avoid the devastating effects of war.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of conflict has remained the same over time, as seen in the prezi that all conflicts was with violence. However, the scale of which the violence was acted on has change dramatically eg, the first source shows two parties/groups fighting, the second source showed 4 parties/groups. Another part of conflict that has changed is weaponry. From swords and horses to guns and planes, this advancement in technology and resources contributed in the change of weaponry which caused mass destruction and deaths that were harder to achieve in the earlier periods.
ReplyDeleteIn order to answer this question in more depth, I would like to learn about who was involved, the cause and long term and short term effects of these battles/wars.
Conflict has changed dramatically since 1066. While violence has remained to be the core of war and conflict, the method to inflict it has changed considerably. Before the 1900s, war was quite 'messy' as it was mostly one-on-one combat on the battle field. The First World War sparked the use of tanks, planes and bombs which almost completely removed the one-on-one combat and made conflict more about who had the biggest and most powerful weaponry.
ReplyDeleteFurther knowledge of changing technology and the social situations during the wars would help me better understand this topic and help answer this question.
I really like your choice of words, such as core, inflict and messy as it 'paints a clearer picture' for the reader. One thing you could consider doing is going into more depth and refer to the other sources.
DeleteThe nature of conflict has similarly remained the same over periods of time; however has ultimately changed in some aspects over time as well. As seen throughout all the sources evident in the Prezi, the concept of conflict has remained of a violent affair. Each picture illustrates violence through men being physically violent with one another with the use of weaponry and surrounded by a destructive environment. However, as time progresses, an aspect of these sources that changes is the use of weaponry. From swords and arrows to guns, handguns and canons to planes to atomic bombs; it is from the development and increase of this weaponry that demonstrates how conflict has become much more known and widespread. To form a better answer to this question, I would like to know more about the origins of these conflicts, any particular events that occurred throughout, how long they occurred and how much of an impact it had on not only the people directly involved in the conflict but the communities around it. As it can be seen in all of these sources, over time and as advances in weaponry have been made, conflict has changed throughout the years to become increasingly more thought of in the sense of violence.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your points on how to put forward a more informed response, and the progression of how weapons have advanced, and the impact of this advancement on conflict within society. The only suggestion I could make would be, to make the text less wordy. It becomes a little hard to follow what you are trying to get across.
DeleteGood work Eleanor! :) I really liked how you acknowledge that while conflict has remained the same but also demonstrated that it has also changed in some aspects. Perhaps you could consider using specific examples and references.
DeleteThe nature of conflict has stayed the same over time to a large extent. This can be represented in many ways, for example though this time period the violent images such as the bow and arrows, swords to machine guns. however conflict has become more violent and destructive as men have changed through the technological advancements. The information does create enough information to answer this question however to answer this information more correctly i would need more in-depth, accurate information.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history there have been many times when there are two opposing sides on a topic of importance, however methods of dealing with this conflict have changed over time. In the first sources shown dating between the 1300s to the 1800s, violence was the central method of diffusing conflict, hand to hand combat was used and there was no such thing as diplomatic solutions. As more time passed and technological advancements were made it is clear that the style and scope of violence changed. In the sources from the two World wars it is clear that these battles used to solve conflict now not only affected the people, but the infrastructure and the economy of the countries/two parties involved. This meant that the wars used to solve the original conflicting views, only created more damage to the two parties and the economy, meaning it lasted longer.
ReplyDeleteLooking at modern day conflict solutions it is clear that we have come far and advanced away from using only violence to attempt to diffuse conflict, now many conflicts are solved diplomatically to attempt to solve the conflict in the best interest for both parties, however throughout some third world countries violence is still used and there are still many ongoing wars in attempt to arrive at a diplomatic solution. Therefore, although the nature of conflict has changed over time for the better, there are still some parts of the world where conflict is still solved by violence.
VALUES DILEMMA: After studying the 'spark' that triggered WW1 - the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at the hands of the 'Black Hands', what would you do if confronted with the dilemma as noted in the homework 'The Spark'? What could you do? What would you do?
ReplyDeleteIn a world of continuing change, the way in which people have interacted, specifically under the pressure of conflict is undoubtedly close to identical with regard to how conflict is dealt with in recent history, and even in current time. Violence, was, is and has been shown to be the world’s number one method to dealing with civil, and international conflicts. This was shown from all sources within the Prezi document. Without in-depth credible information it is hard to determine factors of change. One explicit and the only seen moderate change shown in the sources, for the way conflict is dealt with, was the advancements in weaponry. With the motive of more destruction over greater surface area in smaller, better developed machinery, rearing as a main theme for this change, instead of devising alternative proficient pathways to progress through conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhile the government’s actions are incredibly wrong, unjust and immoral, I don’t believe murder is the answer. If you believe in democracy and human rights so strongly to force your point of view onto someone by then helping to kill off the opposition, much like what the current government is doing! Those actions are quite hypocritical. A better way of dealing with the situation could perhaps be in creating a secret group, strong in numbers, like Martin Luther king. Then through nonviolent means, voice opinions to world and make the issue more well known in society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Louise has she states that the governments actions are wrong and uncivilized murder should never be the answer. I personally believe that if they wanted their opinion to be heard they should have started a group to voice there opinion in a non-violent matter which would have not led to the out break of world war one and the matter at hand having a chance of being solved.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I agree that violence is not always the answer, if you look closely at the dilemma it states that they are torturing their opponents. Even in Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, many people were tortured, hosed down, attacked by dogs and much more. Personally if I knew that if I rose up, I'd be killed or tortured, I wouldn't mind going out with a bit of a fight.
ReplyDeleteWhen confronted with a situation like what 'sparked' World War 1, I believe it's better to feel passionately than nothing at all, but this doesn't mean that you need to assassinate someone just because they have opposing views to you, especially since a lot of people would have probably shared Archduke Ferdinand's views on his future Austro-Hungarian empire. It was foolish of the Black Hand gang to think that killing one person would get rid of all their problems, so if I was in this situation I definitely would never use violence as the means to getting my way. An obvious reason against using violence as the Black Hand Gang used is that though they thought they had everything planned out, they really hadn't thought through their process or used trustworthy sources, leading a messy lead into an even bigger conflict.
ReplyDeleteI personally wouldn't take part in the campaign to murder possibly numerous people. In agreement of what the others have stated, violence is not always the answer to serious problems such as this. However there is not much I could do besides join the campaign that would really cause a change, as if I were to be apart of any sort of group or express my opinion freely I would become a target of the government and would therefore be putting myself in just as much danger.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the governments actions are wrong and violence is never the answer, I believe that I would not join the secret socity. If the actions of the government are as bad as the dilemma states then majority of people in the state would rise up against the government, fearing the fact that they might be arrested for being a 'opponent' when they have done absolutely nothing. Also the dilemma says that the plan is to assassinate government leaders, which is violence and I believe that 'violence doesn't end violence, it extends it'. So instead of creating the secret society to assassinate the leader, use it voice the opinions of the people and make the 'real' side of the issue more known.
ReplyDeleteWhen faced with a situation such as the one in the hypothetical I would not take part in the assassination, mainly because I would be ricking my own death. There is no guarantee that after I gave me life in such a campaign any form of success may be acquired. There would have to be someone around after the assassination to make sure the people were not just sent back into suffering. This is quite evident when one looks at the situation of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The assassins gave their lives in vain, as their hopes for their people were crushed by the consequences of the very thing that was meant to make their lives better. The outbreak of a world war certainly would not have helped their situation and certainly wouldn't in the hypothetical. You just can't guarantee what will happen once you make a choice that may put your life at risk, and I don't see the point in dying in vain. I suggest that the campaign attempted peaceful protest before escalating to assassination.
ReplyDeleteIf i was to be confronted with a situation similar to what 'sparked' World War 1 - the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand at the hands of the 'Black Hand', I would not want to use violence to help solve an issue. I do not believe that violence will solve everything and is not morally right, and it was certainly not right to assassinate someone because you do not like the person or agree with their values, morals and actions. The Black Hand gang, I believe, were not as ready as they thought to use violence as a mean of getting what they want. This is clear when Ferdinand and his wife drive past in the street - all but one don't take action even though they had the opportunity to do so. Not planning or thinking through the situation well enough, obviously led to a bigger conflict than what it was before. So, if I was placed in this situation, violence would not be my go to, to help solve anything. Personally, a non-violent approach would have been better.
ReplyDeleteIf i was to be confronted with a situation as the spark to World War 1 i personally would not join or get involved in groups such as the black hand gang as i believe that it is not morally right to murder someone because of their opposing views. Murder and violence does not solve a problem it more then likely ends up causing a lot more issues as seen through the archdukes assassination. If i found myself in this situation i would stick with my views and opinions but demonstrate them in a non violent, diplomatic way even if this resulted in me becoming a target.
ReplyDeleteWho should take primary responsibility for the course of events from the 28th July to 4th August? Justify your thinking.
ReplyDeleteTo give any one country the primary responsibility for the course of events from the 28th of July to the 4th of August would be a fallacy. Each country contributed to the series of events in large amounts, particularly through their connections through alliances. Although each of the countries were involved in some form of a large event, these events would never have occurred without the participation of another country along with them. For example in attempt to blame Germany one may say they invaded France, but prior to this France took up arms alongside Russia, and so on. There is no involvement in these events without a previous event to cause a motive. Germany invades Belgium, so Britain joins the war, but Germany invaded Belgium because the French took arms, and so it goes on. Each country has their own share of the blame for these events and I don't believe that any one country's responsibility for this far outdoes any others.
ReplyDeletePrimary responsibility cannot be given to any one country for the course of events from the 28th of July to the 4th of August. Throughout this period, each country had contributed to cause the series of events and no one country could have caused an event without the participation of another country. For example, Britain only contributed to the war due to the alliance they had with Belgium and Belgium needed assistant from Britain because Germany had invaded which was caused by Belgium’s refusal of letting them get through to France and it goes on. The series of events are all cause and effect, meaning that each event was caused by and earlier event so the primary responsibility cannot be given to any one country.
ReplyDeleteGiving primary responsibility to any one country would be illogical since if each country weren't to get involved, then it wouldn't have grown to the scale that it did. The 'spark' that lit the flame of WWI was most obviously Serbia in their attack on Austria, but what they intended wasn't to start a full scale European war. Placing blame on one country is hard since most were only involved because of alliances previously made, for example Britain only getting involved because Belgium was being invaded, and Belgium only getting involved because Germany wanted to pass through Belgium instead of France. There is a ridiculous web effect that is used to try and connect WWI because of the alliances formed within the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance, which would suggest that any blame could not be placed on one country alone. Serbia may have been the country that started the conflict, but many countries were the ones to end it.
ReplyDeleteWho should take primary responsibility for the course of events from the 28th July to 4th August? Justify your thinking.
ReplyDeleteIt would be impossible to single out one country as being responsible for the events from the 28th of June to the 4th of August. Each country had their own part to play in what ultimately became World War One. A world war would not have happened without the influence of every country involved, which only happened due to their alliances to each other. It became a domino effect with one country after another becoming involved. For example when each country became involved it was backed up by another - when Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia then stepped in in defence of Serbia which then led to Germany getting involved to defend Austria-hungary and so on..
It is exceedingly unfair and unjustified to place the blame the leading events to war on one country or issue. While the assassination of the archduke was a short term trigger that lead to war, nationalism, militarism, imperialism and alliances, whilst to differing extents, each contributed in creating tensions. Nationalism, particularly national conceit, was a long term motivator for war and made it increasingly unlikely that a power would be humble enough to back down in a major crisis. For example, France wanted revenge on Germany, Russians wanted to defeat Germans, and so on. Militarism was well alive in the late 1800’s and in practice meant that most countries believed war provided the best outcome when settling disputes. This mentality often blurred countries better judgments. The formation of alliances also significantly contributed to war made conditions in Europe more complicated then they ought to have been. For example, the Entente Cordial was not formally, merely a political alliance. However, it was interpreted by Germans as potentially anti-German. The events leading to war were each interdependent on a culmination of each country and issues prevalent in Europe in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and therefore blame can not be issued to one sole party.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be justified placing the primary responsibility of these events on one sole country or empire. However it can be said that the 'spark' (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) which generated these events was set off by a group of radicals whose motives anyway for doing so reflected the attitudes that were running rampant in Europe. Nationalism ultimately was the cause of these events; every group of people, state or empire felt they were 'greater' than the others and had a duty to defend their 'greater' way of life. As a result armies grew, empires expanded and alliances were made. All of these factors ultimately played a part in the events of the 28th of June to the 4th of August.
ReplyDeleteNot a single country or empire can be blamed solely as the primary responsibility of these events from the 28th of July to the 4th of August. This being said, the 'spark' - the assassination of Franz Ferdinand - as such that was labelled as the first influence of war, did solely begin from a group of radicals from Serbia who made this attack on the future ruler of Austria. However, while this was just a short term spark, it triggered a number of other events and aspects that contributed to the start of the war, such as nationalism, imperialism, alliances and militarism. These change of events began with a country/empire reacting to an enemy, so therefore, each and every country played a rather large role in the start of World War One. Nationalism in particular greatly played a role in the war, as every empire believed they were better, causing them to react in conflicting ways, and eventually, join in war. Alliances formed, creating friction between countries, especially those who were the enemy. As it can be seen, all of these factors played a part in the events between the 28th of June and the 4th of August, and then in war.
ReplyDeleteNo one country or person can take the blame for the course of events which led to World War 1 as each event triggered the next like dominoes. For example, Britain only entered the war because of Belgium being invaded by Germany because Germany was fighting France and so on and so forth until we reach the assassination of the Archduke. Some could argue that the assassination is what triggered it all but if we were to look closely at the events; it was Serbia asking for Russia’s support that triggered all the alliances and in turn began what we know today as the First World War. Russia however, cannot take responsibility because even if Russia said no, there would have still been a war of some description. Therefore no one can take responsibility as everyone equally shares the responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that one nation or empire can be solely blamed to have primary responsibility for the course of events that occurred from July 28th – August 4th. There were many factors that triggered the beginning of WW1 such as nationalism, imperialism, militarism and most importantly the alliance system. Nationalism was a key factor that brought on WW1, each nation thought itself as superior to others, having confidence that they could win the war. As a result of this, each country wanted to expand their military by joining with other powerful nations, which resulted in the alliance system. Although the alliance system was put in place safeguards against war, it seemed to intensify the aggression and tension between the nations. All of these factors played a main role in the course of events from 28th of July – 4th of August.
ReplyDeleteFLIPPED LESSON QUESTION: How effective was Germany's military strategy in the beginning? And, knowing what you know now, might might you have done instead?
ReplyDeleteThe Schliefren plan was not a very effective military strategy, even in it's beginning stages. The plan relied heavily on assumptions, so there was always a chance for many things to have gone wrong. One contribution to the ineffectiveness of this plan was the assumption that it would take Russia six weeks to mobilize and that it would only take six weeks to conquer France. The plan relied so heavily on this six week period that, if everything were to have gone according to plan Germany still could not have afforded to waste a moment, particularly considering they were also relying on the assumption of being let through Belgium without any holdup, which again is a risky assumption. Military strategy is not a game and the wrong strategy can put very many lives at risk. To have a strategy almost totally reliant on assumptions is not effective, it puts entire battalions and the fate of an entire country at too much of a risk.
DeleteWith the knowledge that I now have of Germany's initial military strategy, I would make the decision not the begin battle by invading France. Almost everything that could have possibly gone wrong with Germany's military strategy, went wrong. Belgium held up the German army, which they had assumed not to happen. Russia did not take six weeks to mobilize but rather took ten days. Great Britain entered the war, and the Germans failed to seize Paris. In order to avoid this catastrophe I would have begun by invading Russia, as it's army and naval power was abysmal in comparison to Germany. When Germany really did attack Russia during the war they won with relative ease, so it seems to be a good place to start. However, I would keep a some amount of troops to defend Germany from France, should they attack in support of Russia. By doing this there would be no contact with Belgium, which should prevent Great Britain from entering the war. Thus allowing Germany to take over Europe with a little more ease, had they been able to conquer Europe on the end.
Germany's military strategy was not very effective. The Schlieffen plan, originally drafted in 1905, included many assumptions that Germany had made which if all went accordingly, would have secured them a victory against Russia, France and Britain. However when this plan was finally put into action, 9 years had passed since its conception and many of the assumptions that Germany had made would have been invalid. For example, Germany had assumed that Britain would become neutral if war were to ever break out. In reality however, Britain did get involved when Germany invaded Belgium and were therefore met with a greater force than expected when arriving in France. As can be seen, Germany's plan of attack relied basically on old assumptions, which caused an assumed 6 week war to become 4 years of fighting.
DeleteInstead of basing my military plan on old information and assumptions, I would have looked at the facts that I had now and focused my army in the direction of Russia. A victory over Russia would have been almost certain in a shorter amount of time and then, having the extra resources and people from another country, turned my focus on France. Ultimately, I would have acted in the opposite way of the original plan; attack Russia first and then France instead of attacking France and then Russia.
Germany's strategy to initiate their military was heavily unstable because of the holes in The Schlieffen Plan. By The Triple Alliance thinking 'logically' and invading France first, they turned what they thought was to be a quick overtake of the Triple Entente into a war, bringing in other countries such as Britain that they could not match. It was their naivety that failed them, both in their confidence in their own military and in their belief of other countries based on the past. Had they thought about the fact that it was inevitable all parties would join the battle either way and thought that invading Russia would have given them more time, and even whether going through certain countries would trigger something larger than they could have imagined, maybe then they would have been able to develop a more sound attack.
DeleteWith the information that I have now, I would have invaded Russia first on account of that only triggering and involving France. The military then could have been divided to withstand the French other than the reverse having happened. This would have prevent the British getting involved, leaving their empire to stand until the focus was on them, rather than them coming in as the bigger country because of an alliance. A better thought out plan with preparation that meant all aspects were known would ensure quicker conflict, conflict possibly won by the Triple Alliance.
Germany's strategy, the Schlieffen Plan, was not very effective in the beginning for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons why it was not a stable plan, was because of how heavily it relied on assumptions that were made. This included the fact that Germany thought Britain would stay neutral throughout, even though they were planning to attack Britain's two allied countries. At the time of 1905, perhaps Germany would have been more successful in their plan, however, it was 9 years after the plan was made that the plan was actually put into place. Things had changed throughout this time, leaving majority, if not all, of Germany's plan were practically invalid and unsuccessful when it came to using it in a war. The fact that the plan was entirely made of assumptions meant that not enough preparation or thought was put into it to have success in the end. An example of this was Germany's plan that France would attack Germany because it was an ally of Russia. Germany were obviously confident that this would happen so they sent 90% of their troops to attack France while the other 10% would be used to set up a defensive position to stop Russia in advance. This was because they heavily believe Russia would take 6 weeks to mobilize. This assumption was wrong and Russia only took 10 days, so Germany had to have more troops be diverted from the attack on France to defend Russia. As it can be seen, the Schlieffen Plan was not effective as it was too heavily based on assumptions and ideals that were not relevant anymore, leading to a war that went on much longer than Germany had thought.
DeleteHaving the information available to me now, I would have structured my plan on facts, rather than assumptions that were not relevant and invaded Russia first instead of France, the reverse of Germany's original plan. This way, I could use my army to create a victory over Russia, as they had a similar comparison in naval power and army. Then I would have targeted France, as I would have the resources to do so. Regardless, I would have a plan that was taken into consideration more and would have put better preparation into it, because at the end of the day, these were the aspects that contributed to Germany's plan failing.
For the most extent, the Schlieffen Plan was not an effective war strategy, even in its primitive stages. Whilst in some respects it was effective in uplifting the countries moral, this subsequently lead to national conceit and a plan based solely on assumptions which meant a number of flaws in the plan. This idea of national conceit made it increasingly unlikely that Germany would be humble enough to back down in a major crisis. This was very evident in the Schlieffen Plan whereby it was constructed on many assumptions that never doubted Germany’s ability to win against other nations. Instead, it sought to provoke war for imperial benefits, which is never a good enough reason to place the lives of a country at risk. Relying heavily on assumptions was the major downfall of the plan. For example: relying on Russia taking six weeks to mobilise, only take six weeks to defeat France and that Britain would remain neutral despite Germany attacking two of its allies. Due to these assumptions, the plan only allowed for 20% of its troops for the east of the country if Russia was to mobilise sooner than 6 weeks. The Schlieffen Plan was not an effective war strategy as it did not account for any flaws in the plan which left Germany quite vulnerable in World War 1.
DeleteWith the information I know now about Germany’s war strategy, I would do many things differently. I would concentrate on nationalism, not national conceit which would focus on immediate state of the country. Once tensions rose to a certain point which meant war was a high probability, a plan should be implemented. This plan would involve mean staying out of war and only becoming involved if alliances needed help. This would provide a better chance of maintaining imperial possessions gained. This plan would maintain placing troops on the east and west of the country (more placed on the west as Russia was a more imminent threat than France at that stage). The plan would also include not going through Belgium as to avoid Britain entering the war (as Britain was possibly Germany’s greatest threat military wise). I think it would be more appropriate if Germany played a more ‘back seat approach’. I believe this would have given them better chances of success and maintaining national pride come the end of World War 1.
The German military strategy at the beginning of World War 1 known as the Schliefren plan was ultimately ineffective. The plan was extremely high risk to Germanys man pwers and resources and it relied heavily on assumptions, not taking into account the possible actions of other nations outside of the triple alliance. For example the initial plan outlined that Russia would take 6 weeks to mobilise its army when in fact Russia was able to mobilise in 10 days. Germany also didn’t think that Britain would stay true to its alliance with Belgium but when they invaded Belgium, Britain stepped up instantly to defend Belgium. Germanys overconfidence in their nation and its military is ultimately what made the Schliefren plan fail tremendously. The plan didn’t compensate for any other outcome other then Germany succeeding giving the nation an unrealistic idea of their abilities and therefore Germanys military strategy was highly ineffective. If the plan was able to be changed easily to fit the real conditions of the conflict then it may have been more effective.
DeleteBased on the information surrounding the Schliefren plan I would do things very differently. Firstly I would not simply make up a plan based purely on assumptions as conflict can be very unpredictable you cant simply guess how other nations are going to react. Instead I would create a plan based on facts, and create it so it can be changed easily if need be, to fit in with the actions of the other countries. I would invade Russia first, which would leave them little time to mobilise their troops and then invade France in a way that didn’t involve going through Belgium so that there was no risk of British involvement.
To a large extent Germany’s military plan was ineffective as everything that possibly could have gone wrong went wrong. Germany had assumed too much without thinking of what would happen if they were wrong. One of the many flaws in the plan was that they overestimated the time it would take Russia to mobilize, in their plan they had allowed for 6 weeks for Russia to finally mobilise, but Russia took only a mere 10 days to mobilise its troops. This then meant that Germany had to send troop from the front in Paris to defend the eastern border. If this wasn’t already bad enough for Germany, Britain had joined the war. On accounts with the treaty they had with Belgium, meaning the troops sent over to the eastern boarder were desperately needed back to defend the new coming British army but this was unable to happen as the Russians were already attacking. Germany’s plan, based on assumptions had completely crumbled beneath them, leaving them underarmed and not ready for the new force coming from Britain. Germany had clearly not thought the possibilities through and this severely effected their chances at winning over the war.
DeleteWith this information it is clear that Germany’s plan may have worked better if it were in reverse. Meaning that they attacked Russia first instead of France, as Russia had little naval and army power. This then would only have caused France to get involved as well, not Britain or Belgium. Then with an assumed victory over Russia, I would have then used the resources in Russia to attack France, once again completely avoiding British involvement. Germany was too big headed when planning this war, thinking they had everything and were the best, assuming that the other nations would not have the power to fight of their strength, but clearly, the Germans were wrong.
The Schlieffen plan developed by Germany was not a very effective military strategy for numerous reasons. Firstly as it relied on assumptions of what other nations would do, which in reality were highly unlikely, for example thinking they could defeat France in only six weeks. Another assumption made in the Schlieffen plan was that Russia would take six weeks to mobilise their army, while in reality they took a mere ten days, as a result of this miscalculation, Germany had to divert more troops from the attack of France to defend the eastern border from the Russian army. When creating the Schlieffen plan it was clear that Germany’s overconfidence and nationalistic thoughts clouded their thinking. As can be seen, the Schlieffen plan was extremely ineffective as it relied too heavily on assumptions made by Germany, that in reality were highly unlikely.
DeleteKnowing the information I now know about what actually happened during the First World War, I would have structured my plan on facts rather than assumptions, and make the plan so it can be easily changed. I would have focused the army on Russia, giving them a small time to mobilise their army, as they had smaller army and naval power, and then invading France. By doing this, and not invading Belgium, Britain would not have been involved in the first place and therefore making victory for the Triple Alliance much more possible.
Germany’s Schlieffen Plan was ineffective from the very beginning (1905). The plan was mostly based off assumptions and had almost no margin of error. Firstly, it assumed that Russia would take 6 weeks to mobilise armies which they believed to be enough time to invade both Belgium and France. They therefore used 90% of land forces to take France and left the other 10% to defend their Russian borders. This was changed in 1906 when they decided to use only 80% of land forces to take France. However, it was not a great improvement as a very small percentage was defending the Russian borders when it was almost certain that Russia would attempt to invade. Secondly they left a very small margin of error as there was very little they could do in the event that Britain was to join the war (which they did). This greatly delayed Germany and overall gave Russia and France the ‘upper hand’. The Schlieffen Plan was therefore ineffective as basing an entire countries war strategy on tight assumptions was far too risky and in the end cost far too many lives.
DeleteAfter learning about Germany’s plan and the general timeline of the war, I would have planned Germany’s military strategy very differently. Firstly I would have avoided invading France altogether. Whilst it is understood that Germany was fearful that France may attack, Germany had no need to attack France. If Germany had just split its armies 50-50 and had one half defending their French border and the other half defending their Russian borders then they would have had enough men to fight off Russia and they wouldn't have invaded Belgium and in turn brought Britain into the war. Overall I would have put more time and effort into the plan and would not have just acted on old information and rumours about the other countries, as stated in the previous paragraph, there was too much at stake to be sloppy.
Germany’s military strategy, the Schliefren plan, was not very effective in general. The plan relied too much on assumptions that had no evidence to support them so there were always flaws that were not seen. Some of the assumptions were that Russia would take six weeks to mobilize and that it Britain would remain neutral. However, Russia only took only ten days to mobilize which threw Germany off their plan as their plan only considered Russia taking six weeks to mobilize and nothing else. Also there was no evidence to support that Britain would remain neutral, it was just Germany’s assumption. The whole strategy was mainly based on assumptions and any country cannot afford to base their whole war strategy on assumptions as one wrong move can cost the life of a lot of people.
DeleteI would not have based my whole plan on assumptions that has no evidence to support them. Every possible situation would have been thought of, considered and planned for. The first country that would have been invaded is Russia, not France, as the Russia is separated from the rest of the Alliance. Germany combined with Austria-Hungary and Italy would have been able to take Russia while fending off Britain and France.
Feedback comments from homework on Schlieffen Plan.
ReplyDeleteMeg's Feedback: You make solid points with clear evidence, which is really good. However, consider adding some chronology by mentioning when the initial plan was created and when it was carried out.
DeleteNatasha- It's really good how you used specific dates in chronological order. Perhaps next time you could make specific references.
DeleteMaggie- I like how you account for the fact that there were numerous faults in the plan, not just one. Next time you might consider using specific dates in chronological order.
Feedback for Caitlin: I like the way you gave an alternative for the way the Germans acted in suggesting they consider the entire situation and feeling in Europe. You could have improved by dwelling on the actual factors of the plan itself and explaining why they didn't work.
DeleteCassie's Feedback: The use of chronology in your paragraph was really well done. However, you could have elaborated on Germany's reliance on assumptions a little more.
DeleteFeedback for Lillie: I like the way you explain the faults of the plan and give specific examples. However you could have included dates and some chronology to further support your argument.
DeleteCaitlin's Feedback: On Maggie's response - Maggie brought up a really good point about Germany's nationalistic mindset fogging over their judgement when thinking about their attack on Russia and equally their attack on France. I think that it would beneficial to talk about how their modified plan brought in other countries such as Belgium and Britain due to alliances and invasion of countries.
DeleteOn Meg's response - Meg used the alliance factor really well in her response, going past the initial concept of it and talking about how Germany's information was overtaken by the alliance. I think that to further this, talking more about the logic behind the plan, that was wrong, would emphasize their lack of judgement.
Natalie's Feedback: I'm liking your paragraph! You go into good detail with explaining and justifying why the Schlieffen Plan did not work. Good chronology of events, however you could consider using some dates in your paragraph.
DeleteCaitlin's Feedback: Caitlin, good paragraph! You explained and justified to a good extent your answer to the Schlieffen Plan failing to succeed. Consider using some dates though in your response next time to enhance your paragraph.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMaggie feedback-
DeleteAlthough this sums up Germany’s plan, it could be better discussed why they did this and the reasons behind their thinking. It is well linked to the themes of nationalism but this could be linked more into the assuming that was made.
The adapted plan you have proposed is well thought out and it is clear that this would have possibly worked more in favour to Germany, rather than the plan that they actually used. Great Job
Meg feedback-
This is well worded and it flows will from one thought to another. My only advice would be to discuss more what went wrong in this plan and how that effected other parts of the plan, a cause and effect cycle.
your adapted plan is well thought out and based on facts rather than assumptions like the original plan. Great Job!
Caitlin - This is really good, and brings in evidence to back up your points. However maybe you could have talked about how the Schlieffen plan was based on assumptions. You could also bring in the idea of Nationalism and militarism. Your adapted plan would have worked a lot better for Germany; I liked the idea of preventing the British becoming involved.
DeleteCassie - You used the TEECL structure really well in this paragraph, and backed up all your ideas with evidence. I liked that you talked about the Schlieffen plan being developed 9 years earlier, and therefore becoming out of date. Your adapted plan would have worked better as it concentrated on facts rather than assumptions, I liked that you would have acted in the opposite way.
Cassie: I really liked your point about the age and therefore irrelevance of the information they were basing assumptions off. I also liked your statement about how Germany’s assumptions “caused an assumed 6 week war to become 4 years of fighting”.
DeleteOne point I believe you should have considered in the second paragraph was how France would react if Germany was attacking Russia and leaving their western borders undefended. They would have probably attacked Germany.
Lexy: I like your point about Germany being over-confident about the war and them winning it. You may want to consider how you would have done it differently.
Lillie - You set out your paragraph well and I liked the way you stated the not effectiveness of the plan. You could have mentioned what happened when events did not go along with the assumptions.
DeleteNatasha - It's great how you stated the dates in order but you could have specified each event clearer (what the event caused)
Natasha - it was a good paragraph with the dates mentions and in order however maybe reference specific events and this paragraph will be excellent.
DeleteCassie - I really enjoyed your paragraph as you stated the irrelevance of the information and how it was assumptions.i agree with Tash's feedback on the consideration of how France would React if Germany attacked Germany leaving the other borders defenseless.
Germany’s Schlieffen Plan was in effecting from 1905 as the plan was based on assumptions for military strategies. Germany relied on assumptions that other Nations made and what they would do in effected to other causes from other nations. Some of these assumptions where in accurate for example they believed that they could defeat France in 6 weeks and it would take Russia six weeks to mobilise along the borders when it took then 10 days. As a result of this half of Germany’s borders where undefended. When this plan was created Germany did not take things into consideration as they were overconfident and did not take certain things into account which left Germany in strife.
ReplyDeleteGermany must pay. They have destroyed us and we should destroy them! They must pay for this mess! They fought on the blessed and beautiful lands of France, and they have turned them into the desolate and derelict lands in which they deserve to dwell. They should have their forces taken away! All of them! They should not have an army, navy and air force! This, I will not allow! France shares borders with Germany and they will take and destroy what belongs to the French people as they already have tried! They have destroyed my land and they should pay for it all. Give them the largest bill that has ever been in existence. You cannot expect the French people, the British people and the Americans to have to spend more money for damage the Germans have done. This is not our mess to clean up. Germany must pay! Furthermore, I demand the return Alsace- Lorraine to the French people, it was once our land and it was wrongly taken from us. It is rightfully French, and the French will have it once more! This treaty must blame Germany for this sorry mess that has been created. The very first battle of this war was started by the Germans and we are all aware of where they were headed! The Germans initiated the fighting; the Germans took up guns against Belgium. It is the Germans fault that we fought, and the Germans will pay! The best way to stop another war is to take away everything from those who are willing to fight again; they will not give up unless we take everything away! We must show them we will not tolerate this, we will not tolerate another war, we will not tolerate Germany! There will be no more war, not now, not ever! Vive le France!
ReplyDeleteI love that you have such a clear opinion in this, that shows exactly what France wants from the treaty. Its very persuasive, and your position on the topic is clear. You made it very aggressive, and demanding. I liked that you spoke about the returning of Alsace and Lorraine to its rightful owners, France, it shows your historical knowledge of the event.
DeleteAs a professor of History, I have a deep knowledge of how wars began and how wars ended. Peace is not a one sided affair; all parties involved should become responsible to some degree. I therefore believe that Germany as well as Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary and all other nations involved should considerably reduce their amount of military possessions and defence force as it wasn’t just Germany who was fighting. Doing so would prevent another devastating loss of life; countries would no longer be locked into a never ending circle of war and peace! Fighting aggression with aggression will not resolve a thing, as we have witnessed. Germany also should not have to accept responsibility for the war; this would be the easy option. Instead of pointing the finger at one person, everyone should accept responsibility for the events that happened as war is not a one sided affair either. In some way, all of our countries have contributed to this war; the destruction of an entire continent. We all sent men to fight and die, we have all suffered in some way. To prevent this ever happening again, we need to stop pointing fingers all together and properly resolve conflict in a humane and just way. Again, peace is not one sided. For it to work, we must all treat each other as equals and learn from the mistakes of the past.
ReplyDeletePoint of persuasiveness: Stating that germany should not be blamed because it was everyone's fault - "We all sent men to fight and die", "Fighting aggression with aggression will not resolve a thing, as we have witnessed" - Good point of bringing up past to the others - conflict isn't the answer to anything
DeletePoint that demonstrates historical knowledge: Stating the most important nations involved in WWI - Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary (Maybe mention France and Italy too or just say Triple Entente and Triple Alliance) ; Professor of History - knowledge of Wilson
Very well written, it is clear that you know a solid background behind the first world war and you have used a very clear structure to convey your message. Through the use of 'we' it makes the reader feel more as it includes them. You clearly know Wilson as in the first sentence you state facts about his life. Excellent Job!! :)
DeletePeace. My grand vision is world peace. I have five points to achieve this utopia. First, Germany’s military must decreased majorly but they still enough for them to defend themselves. Secondly, Germany should pay what they destroyed but leave enough for them to repair their own nation. Then, they should give back the land that the colonised but do not take what is theirs. Also, the responsibility of the war should be placed on mostly on Germany as they inflamed the situation however they were not the only nations that contributed. Finally, the best way to stop the war from every occurring again is to have discussion and form a strong League of Nations allowing them to have a connection and not allow nations to declare war over the death of a person no matter how significant they were. War should be the last option.
ReplyDelete1) your point of persuasion would be the first two sentences, "Peace. My grand vision is world peace." It sets the tone of the whole paragraph very well and I immediately know who you are.
Delete2) your point about making war the final option and each of your five points greatly illustrate what was decided upon in the conference and his perspective on each.
Overall a good job
Point of persuasion: 'war should be the last option' demonstrates that you want conflict to be solved through other means rather than fighting
DeleteDemonstration of historical knowledge: you acknowledged Germany's aggressiveness in WW1 - 'Germany inflamed the situation'
It has come to the attention of all nations here that Germany needs to dealt with immediately. The lives of every French citizen has been upheaved, destroyed and decimated and it is in my agenda to regain what has been taken and to reclaim what is rightfully ours. Upon reflecting on events it is clear that Germany’s army, navy and airforce should be eliminated. Germany must take responsibility for their actions, their punishment must be severe. For this reason they must pay for every reconstruction of not only our destroyed nation but Europe’s. It surely is not expected of France, Britain, Russia and America to pay for the destruction caused by the country who is at fault for war in the first place! Germany must pay highly for the rebuilding of our nation and for compensation for all the men who fought so brilliantly but were sadly lost. It is as clear as crystal that Germany is solely to blame for war and therefore there is no choice but to recognise full this in the Treaty. It is also clear to France that the best way to stop war ever occurring again is to demolish the cause of the last war, Germany. This should be achieved through reducing them to nothing more than an insignificant spec in Europe. The land once stolen by Germany must be reclaimed by its rightful owners. Through implementing these actions, we can restore France and Europe back to a place of superiority. Germany has shattered the nation of France, not just physically but emotionally, and for this reason, Germany must take FULL responsibility.
ReplyDeleteGermany deserves to be blamed. Germany deserves to be punished. France is at a state where damage and destruction is what the French see, and it has come the time to place the blame on Germany. They have fought on our beautifully, visualising land and they caused havoc and mess. It is now time Germany pay for the mess they have made. The best way to do this is to remove them of their forces! Every single one! The army, navy and air force – taken from them! Germany should be powerless, and it is for the best of my country, as we share the border with them! Give them the reparations for not only our country, but all of Europe’s. Why should we have to pay for the damage Germany did to us? All the demolition of our land and pain Germany has caused by what they did – they must pay, literally. It is clearly evident that Germany, alone, are to blame for this war, and it is in the French’s best interest, that I receive justice in the fact that the Treaty holds and recognises this fully. To prevent this war repeating itself again, it is obvious to France that Germany, the cause of this war, should be destroyed. This can be done by taking away everything Germany has. We should leave them with nothing, for it is not only the best way to make them pay, but it also keeps the protection of my country under control, from Germany. Germany is dangerous and need to be recognised as fully responsible, in order to protect the rest of Europe from them. France and the rest of Europe are more deserving than Germany, and by making Germany pay, we will have superiority again! France will be restored and Germany will pay! Germany will pay with everything they have! And we won’t let them!
ReplyDeleteWe all know what should happen to the Germany military. They should be overtaken, made to work for us so that there is no possibility that they should try to “prove” themselves again. You’re all idiots if you think that a little talk will get them to stop on their tirade against us. You’re giving them ammo! Germany should be made to pay 6.6 billion, a worthy number since they’ve caused havoc and destroyed France! They overconfidently said that if they lost they would pay reparations, so where is it now? The money that they’re using now, is OUR money. They must be punished for what they did not only France, but to the stability of all empires in Europe. If they do not accept the important part they played in World War 1 and ultimately the deterioration of all other nations, then they will never learn and will only try again. The only way that they will learn not to do this again is to enforce learning upon them. The only way to do this is to disable their military, because this is the only sense of power they can use to overtake the rest. We must weaken them so we can ensure they’ll never again invade France. They made us look like a joke, and they must pay - not only in money but in confidence. It’s unthinkable that a small nation would come up like that and expect to be able to overtake nations that have been built up from the bottom. It’d be offensive to take such an offense and let it slide and it would mean that other nations would accept it and try to do it themselves. There is land that belongs to the bigger nations, not to the people that wish to overthrow us for themselves. They must pay for it their betrayal.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you sort of played on the reader's emotions a little, by saying they would be an idiot if... and by really highlighting how threatening and bloodthirsty Germany are, it was very convincing.
DeleteHistorical knowledge id evident when you state the reparations sum. You also state that Germany is determined to try and again and won't give up.
Destruction and death; entire towns turned to rubble. Gentlemen, this is the state of France at this moment in time and I feel no regret in saying that Germany is to blame for this! They have invaded my country out of fear that we would attack and so I am here with my counter attack. Let Germany pay! They have killed our men, mocked our power and destroyed our towns and you expect me to sit here and let them go scot-free? They have caused the damage so it is only just for them to pay for the damage. If they do not pay then I fear for our great nations to face poverty. Why should we suffer more? They took land from us years ago so they should also give back all the land that they invaded and colonised. Give back what they took from us. We do not want another war to begin so it is only right that we reduce their armies to next to nothing. Remove their air force and navy. They cannot start another war if they have nothing to fight with. Once we have our land, money and power back, we will be able to preach peace to the world; but with Germany having their strong armies and wealth, how can claim freedom whilst they are waiting to attack? If we want freedom, our only option is to squeeze Germany dry. Germany caused this war and will cause others in the future if we don’t stop them now!
ReplyDeletePoint of persuasiveness - Stating that Germany is the reason why France is destroyed. Use of inclusive language has added to persuasiveness.
DeleteHistorical knowledge: Mentioning of destruction and of the poverty nations now face as a result of war. Reflects Frances position at the time well.
:)
I like the way you say how Germany have damaged the France - going into detail about it allows the reader to be persuaded by Clemenceau. The sentence where you say, "They have killed our men, mocked our power and destroyed our towns and you expect me to sit here and let them go scot-free?" particularly shows this.
DeleteA point that demonstrates your historical knowledge of the event is seen when you say that they should give back all the land that they invaded and colonized year ago. Good job!
I have very clear ideas of what I want from this treaty. France, of all the nations involved have had the most destruction, we have had the most economic turmoil from the costs of the reparations, as a result of Germany’s demolition. It is for this reason that we want to ensure Germany will not have either the military or economic power to regain their prior strength as a nation and restart the war.
ReplyDeleteWe feel, as a nation, that it is only fair that Germany be asked to pay full reparations for the damage done to our country, as well as for other nations. To completely eliminate the possibility of Germany restarting the war, it is our desire to see the German navy, air force and military considerably reduced if not completely eliminated. Another term of the treaty should be that any land overtaken by Germany should be returned to its original owners, meaning that France will regain its control over Alsace and Lorraine. Also to be given the right to mine coal in the Saar. Germany was the sole cause of the Great War, and we feel as though they should take the blame for starting the war.