Compare and Contrast the successes and failures of the Domestic Policies of Mussolini and Hitler

After WWI, many countries were unsatisfied with the results of the Treaty of Versailles, amongst them Italy and Germany, both of which felt they had been humiliated and cheated. Riding on these feelings of national humiliation, two leaders under the banner of Fascism rose to power. Through their domestic policies, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini campaigned for autarky, uniting their people and rising again as a world power, all the while instilling their ideologies into their people and establishing themselves as a cult figure; yet the extent of their success in these policies and what they aimed to achieve from them is what differentiates the two. This essay will attempt to compare and contrast the difference between these two leaders and their successes and failures in domestic policy, hence gaining a better understanding of how their actions accelerated the path towards World War II. The degree of success or failure of each respective policy is my own opinion based on my assessment of the issues, therefore different claims can be made.

At the closure of WWI, both Germany and Italy’s economy was in shambles, poverty rampant, and the people overridden with a sense of shame and anger towards their leaders. It is at this low point where both Hitler and Mussolini came into power, announcing to the world a new doctrine known as Fascism. With promises of a revitalization of their economy and jobs for the thousands of unemployed, the people rallied to their side. To accomplish this, both leaders strived for Autarky, or self-sufficiency, to make sure that their countries could support themselves and never depend on foreign assistance, and the means to do this was by becoming a military state.

The first step in this endeavor was to reestablish their armed forces, which once conscripted eliminated a vast amount of the unemployment rate. From there, every other decision to better their economy was based on militaristic needs.

The second step for the leaders to achieve Autarky was to become agriculturally sufficient. Now that they had the military, they needed to feed their troops as well as protect their country from potential blockades (which proved to be fatal for the Germans in WWI) by becoming less reliant on foreign import. To achieve this, they set up a series of laws that would help the agricultural industry.

Mussolini focused a lot of energy on the production of grain, and although the production did rise drastically to the point almost being self-sufficient in the production of grain, all other agricultural production was disregarded, leading not only to an imbalance in the Italian people’s diet, but also a need to export other crops and animal products. Known as the Battle for Grain (1925), this policy failed to a certain extent, because although they were self sufficient in grains, this unbalance was greatly felt in the lower Italian classes, as well as hindering his overall aim for autarky.

Like his Italian counterpart, Hitler also invested a lot of effort in agriculture with plans such as the Reich Food Estate (1933), which regulated prices and production quotas or the Entitled Farm Law (1933), which supported production by giving land to Aryan peasants. Proving to be much more successful than Mussolini’s plan, it also revealed his racial and anti-Semitic ideals, since only those who were considered pure Arians could receive land under the Entitled Farm Law.

            From these points in agriculture, we can see that although they both want to better their economy through its agriculture and focusing on military goals, Hitler has already started his racial campaigns, something that is not a part of Mussolini’s agenda. 

Next was to establish themselves as strong industrial powers. They needed to produce weapons for their soldiers, and therefore allow factories to go back to work, and to accomplish this both nations set forth laws to further implement the idea of Autarky.

In Germany, Hitler implemented the New Plan (1934), which stopped all foreign imports and subsidized industry, hence raising their production in war essentials such as coal or oil. Later they implemented the Four Year Plan (1936), which was meant to prepare Germany for war in four years, in both industry and army. This left the country in a sate of Wehrwirtschaft, an economic state where both the economics of peacetime and wartime were combined. Although these policies successfully boosted the economy and industry, the economy was strictly controlled, and many small businesses were sacrificed to support bigger industries, which on the long run gave Germany more problems. Labor unions also came under Nazi control by implementing policies such as the RAD, which gave jobs to men while wearing an army uniform, the Strength Through Joy (KdF), which was a controlled leisure organization, or the German Labor Front (DAF). By controlling the labor unions, Hitler was able to control the workers as he pleased.

For Mussolini, the goal of modernization had been long overdue, since he felt this would help establish Italy as a leading European power. Through the pact of the Vidoni Palace in 1925, Mussolini gained virtually total control over all labor unions and their workers. Once they were under his control he underwent policies such as his Battle for Land, which cleared marshlands to make it useable for more profitable purposes, or his Battle of the Lira, where he inflated the value of their currency and therefore making exports more expensive. Although the first battle is considered to be a success, the latter was widely recognized as a failure. This policy made it difficult to trade with foreign countries, yet in the long run it proved beneficiary since once the Great Depression hit Italy wasn’t as severely affected. 

From these industrialization points, we can see that although industry was internalized in both countries, Hitler focused more militarily in his goals while Mussolini was more opportunistic, going with what proved to be most profitable.

With their economy successfully underway, both countries found themselves in need of natural resources, which lead them towards imperialistic expansion. Although these actions are tied with foreign policy, the overall aim of them was for Autarky, which was part of both of their domestic policy goals. What is most important to notice about the two leaders’ decisions in regards of expansion, was how planned their aims were.

Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 proved successful when Mussolini managed to gain victory, mainly due to the failure of the League of Nations. This success earned him respect amongst the people, which encouraged him towards more imperialistic actions such as those in Corfu.

Germany’s actions, such as the invasion of the Rhineland or Anschluss, were more calculated in nature, for they were specifically pointed out in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. 

From here we can see a great difference between the two rulers. Although they both agreed that through the use of the military and expansion into other countries for resources they could successfully solve domestic problems (such as lack of natural resources), Mussolini proves to be opportunistic; swinging from left to right winged actions (Third Way) depending on what favored him at the time, while Hitler maintained a steady path and clearly stated goals.

If we take a prosopography view on all the above events, we can attempt to understand the minds of the common people under their regime. The success  in revitalizing their economy and removing them from poverty, lead to the people to idolize these men who had done so much for them. Therefore when more controversial ideas were presented, they were more likely to go along with them since these leaders had already done so much for them.

If we look at a militaristic point of view, we might consider these actions militaristic in nature, actions that were taken out of a necessity to survive; while a revisionist historian might state that these were provocations of war that were a necessity to their fascist ideal, which relied heavily on militaristic endeavors.

Maintaining strong control over the opposition, aided them to maintain their power. They violently eliminated opposition in events such as the Night of Long Knives (1934) or the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti who spoke out against the Fascists in 1924, with their respective forces – the GESTAPO in Germany and the OVRA in Italy. They were especially radical against the communists, eliminating them in their respective countries and claiming them as the enemy. By making laws that made any form of opposition to their rule illegal, they mad sure they had their county under their complete control. This instilled terror in those who opposed the rulers and allowed them to go about without fear of opposition.  
Although one might attempt to refute this claim by stating that there were numerous assassination attempts against these men, it is important to notice that all these attempts failed. Both would then swiftly eliminate those who opposed them and inflict fear in any other potential enemies to their security,  and it is thanks to this violent success that the bulk of these assassination attempts occurred during their first years in power. 

These actions allowed both men to achieve wide popularity at home, but it is their effective use of propaganda and censorship as a means of glorification that allowed them to achieve a cult status and further strengthen their authoritarian regimes. 

With propaganda that emphasized their greatness and names to match (Mussolini was called Il Duce and Hitler Fuehrer), the two leaders built on their status. Both strictly controlled the contents of the press, the difference between the two being that Hitler controlled the majority of the press while Mussolini simply censored the content of it. They both did however have their own newspapers for that promoted their own interests, Il Popolo d’Italia in Italy and Der Strummer or Volkischer Beobachter in Germany. They also successfully managed to control the radio, Mussolini establishing the URI, a radio show that promoted and glorified the actions taken by his Fascist government.

Through sporting events, such as the German 1938 Olympics, or frequent rallies that celebrated actions taken by the government and its respective leader, they promoted themselves as almost invincible rulers.

By taking advantage and using propaganda in the form movies, Hitler was able to more effectively use the people, for with movies such as Hitler Junge Quex or Triumph of the will: Der Ewige Jude, he was able to spread his ideals to the masses. Mussolini on the other hand did not take as good advantage of the film industry.

Through these media, they effectively created their status as heroes of the nation as well as promoting their ideological ideals while simultaneously dismissing other views. Overall they were both very successful in their propaganda campaigns, Hitler proving to be slightly more competent in the area since he managed to more exclusively control the media. It can also be mentioned that the extent of their control can be seen since although in the beginning neither could do wrong, Mussolini’s empire ended by his own people. Therefore, Hitler was more successful in convincing the masses and securing his position as a nationalistic hero.

A great man historian’s point of view, would point out the success these men had in establishing themselves as cult figures idolized by the masses. He’d agree that this control over propaganda and ability to establish themselves as heroes of the nation was instrumental to their success since it made the people undoubtedly trust them and act out every order they commanded.

To maintain this cult status and therefore spread their ideals, both leaders focused extensively in their youth. Their main aim was to create a future generation that would oblige to the orders of their leaders while acting always for the benefit of Germany and the government. They made sure that girls and boys were separated, the first focusing on activities such as sowing or motherly related activities, while the latter focused on military activities in preparation for the war.

Starting off with more appealing activities for children such as camping or sporting, many became less satisfied with the programs over the years, especially as it became compulsory and militaristic in nature. Some escaped the compulsory part, and although the number of those who did not attend was less in Germany, youth movements against Hitler and the Nazi government were established.

One must point out though, that when the Hitler Youth was established, there was a rapid membership despite the compulsory nature of it; while on the other hand the program was less successful in Italy, where despite it being compulsory many did not attend, especially in the South. This shows to what extent the two leaders controlled their masses, for Mussolini was already losing part of his power, which is evident in his inability to completely control the youth.

They both also exerted control through schooling, altering the curriculum to fit their ideological needs. They both removed all teachers that did not belong to their respective part, and focused only in physical fitness and loyalty. The issue with this, was that intellectually, both nations made little progress in their young, thus creating a generation of dimwits.

For both leaders, the extent of their success is difficult to determine exactly. Although it proved to be more successful in Germany, especially in regards of “brainwashing” the youth with Nazi ideology, during the war it proved unsuccessful since not all were loyal. Overall, it did create a generation that was closely affiliated to the ideologies taught in school, but the extent of their loyalty wasn’t absolute and they gave up intelligence for loyalty.

The role of woman in both countries was generally the same. They emphasized a traditional role, where women stayed at home and made babies.

Both countries wanted to increase birthrates since they had small populations by giving loans for newlyweds and families with many children, taxation on bachelors, or medals to women who gave birth to many children. They presented the situation as one of national duty, as they provided the soldiers for the army, and in Italy it was known as the Battle for Births.

Although unsuccessful in both nations, the Nazi’s racial policies that supported sterilization only limited their success. Also, by promoting them to stay at home, once the war started and the men went to fight, Hitler was forced to reintroduce them to the work force.
One might point out that there was indeed a slight increase in birth rate in Germany during Hitler's rule, but it was most likely not due to his policies, but rather the better economic situation that allowed families to afford more children. Therefore, proving that his policies to increase birth rate in Germany did fail. 

             

            They also attempted to control the church to consolidate their power. Although they were both anti-religious, they understood the vital importance of controlling it to maintain power.

            With the Lateran agreements, Mussolini attempted to please the church by giving them back compensation for the land they had historically lost, therefore allowing him to do as he pleased without Church intervention. By receiving approval from the church, many catholic Italians joined his cause; yet this ultimately proved unsuccessful since he became highly dependant on pleasing the church and wasn’t able to replace Catholicism with Fascism.

            On the other hand, Hitler’s approach was to go against the power of the church rather than appeasing it. He created the Reich Church that went along with his Aryan faith, and arrested individuals who went against it. Therefore, in order to avoid destruction, the Church was forced to compromise. Despite this, the Reich Church wasn’t that popular and they failed in controlling religion.

            The key difference between the two leaders is mainly due to location. The Vatican is located in Italy, and therefore highly influential, making it difficult for Mussolini to control it as well as Hitler was able to. In the end, the Church had a great role in the downfall of Mussolini after their disagreements in regards to the youth and his anti-Semitic policies, while the Church in Germany proved to have little in hindrances to Hitler’s rule.

            Finally, the major difference between the two leaders, lied in their racial policies. From the beginning, Hitler clearly knew his racial views and desire for a superior Aryan race as well as his hatred for the Jewish population; while Mussolini’s racial laws were gradual and highly influenced by his alliance with Hitler.

            Hitler’s entire policy structure was based on his idea of a superior Aryan race, where he created a state that was only meant for the racially pure, known as the Volksgemeinschaft. It influenced all his major decisions and was a main pillar of his Nazi ideology. This purity meant that all those that did not meet his Aryan model – such as Jews, Gypsies, or disabled people – had to ultimately be eliminated. As soon as he came into  power, he established laws that suppressed them, imprisonment, sterilization, euthanasia, and finally his “Final Solution”, which was the mass extermination of these people. These policies were extremely successful, managing to mass murder thousands of people and influence average German citizens to assist him in this task.

            Mussolini on the other hand originally had no prejudice against specific racial groups, since his main goal was to convert them all to Fascism. It was in the later years when he began to align himself with Hitler after the establishment of the Rome-Berlin axis under the Pact of Steel in 1939, that he began to introduce laws against the Jewish population. Unlike in Hitler’s case, these laws were an extreme failure, greatly leading to his demise. It made him highly unpopular with the church, which in turn made him unpopular with his people.

            This difference in racial ideology was the key differentiator between the two. Yet more importantly, it shows how highly in control Hitler was amongst his people that they would commit such atrocities in his name. Mussolini on the other hand didn’t have as much control over his people, and he also proved to be easily influenced, which lead his people to stop supporting his cause. 

            Overall, both of these leaders were highly influential and established themselves as cult figures because of the decisions they took in their domestic policies. Their popularity amongst the masses is evident of their success, which stabilized both of their countries’ economy after a prolonged period of crisis. Their respective ideological goals were also accomplished, although Hitler proved to be more successful in this aspect since Mussolini’s own people took him down when they disagreed with his racial policies. Therefore, based on the above information, I’ve come to the conclusion that both Mussolini and Hitler’s domestic polices were quite successful, the latter proving to be more successful since he managed to stay in power and highly alter the minds of his people. 

Why did Germany loose the war?

The defeat of Germany in the culmination of WWI marked the end of four years of brutal fighting that from the beginning seemed to go nowhere. Although the war ended with an armistice between the Allies and the Central power nations, every nation except for the Germans felt that Germany had been defeated. Even if Germany could’ve continued fighting, we generally assume that they would’ve eventually lost the war due to the path they had been going down since the beginning of the war. It could be considered that Germany lost the war the moment the Von Shlieffen Plan failed, for Germany wasn’t prepared for a two front war that would last so long; but the main culprit for leading them into its collapse, was the poor political structure and the poor choices made by the leadership of the nation, for its lack of foresight and organization lead them on a race downhill. I understand that there are many factors that lead to the downfall of Germany, but based on my personal insight, I’m attempting to narrow it down to one single factor, and even though my claim can be refuted, I will try to convince you otherwise.

Politically, Kaiser Wilhelm II was the impetuous German Emperor who in theory was in control of the country after he dismissed the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and supported Austria-Hungary in the July Crisis of 1914, where Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia after the Serbian nationalistic group The Black Hand assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne; the event that sparked the outbreak of war. But as war broke out, the Kaiser sat back and his generals took control of all affairs, therefore making him only a figurehead. The major issue here is that the generals only consulted amongst themselves, often acting on their own without regards for the opinions of other government officials. The generals took into no account civilian populations or the Reichstag, the German equivalent to Parliament, in their military scheming. With no one to stop these generals, Germany became a state of war, headed by the military and concentrated only on what was beneficial for the army and their efforts, not the country itself. It is this initial error in properly organizing these militaristic leaders of the country that sets the wheels in motion for failure for any future militaristic feats they attempt to pursue.

One could contradict my claim by stating that the Kaiser was quite involved in WWI, with his numerous speeches for the German public urging them to mobilize; one might even argue that it was the Kaiser who is to blame for their faulty involvement in the war. But if we were to look at this war from a great leader historian’s point of view, he might agree with me that Kaiser Wilhelm II was quite the opposite of that, an that his leadership was quickly overshadowed once war started. Furthermore, although It’s true that he was involved in the cause for Germany’s involvement in the war, as for the loss of the war, since his involvement was so limited and generally left at the hands of his generals, we can dismiss him for any involvement in the actions during the war that lead to the defeat of Germany.

Feeling overconfident in their military prowess after recent Prussian success in the Franco-Prussian War, and the embarrassing defeat of the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, the German officials felt they could take on this war without much effort. Evidence of this can be seen in their limited and improper use of propaganda:

As we can see, the British and Americans terrorize their people, showing just how terrible the enemy is, while the Germans make it seem like it will be a quick and easy fight, which is indeed what they believed. If we take a prosopography view on these thee posters, which would be to put oneself into the skin of a common civilian who’s going to fight in the war, if you’re British or American, you fear your enemy and would be on edge at all times as well as desirous to protect your family at home of those terrible “brutes”. On the other hand, if a German sees a poster that states that they can easily win this war, they would go fight more relaxed and therefore not as effective as the American or British; and once faced with the horror and difficulty, their moral would go crashing down, while the American and British expected such horror. The lack of the German leadership to realize the value of properly used propaganda, cost them the lives of hundreds of soldiers as well as facilitating the world to blame them for the war.

            It’s this overconfidence that lead them to fail in their first involvement in the war, the Von Shlieffen Plan. Before the war broke out, due to the high tensions amongst the European powers, every country was already prepared for war, and with the assassination of Francis Ferdinand on June 28^th 1914, countries were one by one thrust into the chaos of war. It is during this time that Germany made it’s first mistake. They set out a plan that would avoid fighting a war on two fronts, France on one side and Russia on the other. Known as the Von Shlieffen plan, German generals set out to quickly attack France and gain control of Paris by crossing through Belgium, this way eliminating one enemy and therefore being able to focus on the Russian army, who although was more numerous, would take longer to get in order. The error of this plan, was that the German leaders didn’t take into account the possibility of failure, and due to their overconfidence, when it failed, they had no alternative strategy, and therefore, when England quickly got involved, they were forced to dig out trenches.

Once on a standstill, Germany was faced with another major dilemma: the reason why the Von Shlieffen plan needed to succeed, was because Germany wasn’t prepared to fight a long term war, even less now that it was on two fronts. As the war started, the German war officials were concentrated on the fronts, not back at home. There was no sector where military actions were coordinated between social and economic actions, and it wasn’t until Walter Rathenau approached the Prussian War Minister and gave him the idea for the KRA that the German heads started becoming more productive with their economy. But even then, although this plan was an attempt at facilitating the war, it too was fallacious from the start due to the incompetence of the German leaders in regards to the management of a country.  (***ONE HOUR***)

The KRA, the German War Materials Office, was a poor system set up to provide the military with war materials. This office chose a few selected businesses to produce only for the government while those companies who remained private had to provide men to work on the machinery from their already limited number to the company working for the government in order to keep it strong. No ceiling was imposed on war profits by business, nor were these profits even taxed at all prior to 1916; and this slowly forced the private companies into poverty, widening the gap between the few wealthy and the many poor. The companies working for the war effort continuously got wealthier without injecting any of the wealth into the country’s economy, while the private companies became bankrupt; therefore Germany slowly sent itself into bankruptcy. In a poor attempt to revive the economy, they printed paper money and sold bonds to recover the costs, which in turn only created inflation. By the end of this cycle, Germany had forced itself into debt and most of the population was suffering for their government’s bad choices. The effects of this lack in judgment, was the heightening of tensions between German people, creating social instability and a cultural strain. 

German leadership was also unable to use their supplies appropriately. After the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, Germany acquired resource filled lands from Russia when their communist government pulled out. Yet although they were being crippled by an Allied blockade at sea, the German leaders weren’t able to organize themselves and use the gained resources to their benefit, instead they let their citizens and members of the army starve, which only gave rise to more social issues.  Germany’s inability to organize their economic effort directly affected their military efforts, which were directly dependant on the economy to keep succeeding. This in turn created further loss of morale and making the tensions between German people rise.

When the Allies formed the Naval blockade, preventing Germany access to their colonies with natural resources, the German people and army were starting to starve due to the lack of food. Instead of thoroughly thinking through the ripples of their actions, the German leaders precipitated themselves into unrestricted warfare. The moment they started sinking civilian ships, they completely lost the moral side of the war.

It’s true that this point can be argued that since they didn’t know for sure if the ships carried weapons or real civilians, it is therefore not the fault of the German leaders. But from a militaristic point of view, where you want to protect your country though all military means possible, taking the risk was a choice, even if they knew they were civilian ships. There was a possibility that the ship carried weapons, and therefore they made a choice in the benefit of their country to sink it. They didn’t realize the repercussions of their actions, but as leaders, they should’ve anticipated the then neutral U.S.’s reaction when their citizens were murdered for no reason.  Therefore, we can see in this example that due to the poor organization presented by the German leadership, their country was deprived of food and natural resources to make weapons, and thus plunging their economy into a crisis, which in turn lead them to the extreme and erroneous military actions which caused them more harm than good.

Another issue that can be seen with the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Allied blockade on Germany is the lack of involvement of their allies. Throughout the war, Germany’s allies were poorly organized and often needed Germany to bail them out of difficult situations, like Austria-Hungary’s continuous conflict with Russia. This distracted Germany from her own front and weakened her to her enemies. But the major piece in this is that although they were all allies, they all acted individually unless it was a case of extreme emergency. Unlike the Allies who organized their attacks collectively, the Central Powers were scattered and weak, and often times their plans conflicted because they couldn’t organize themselves. Especially after the involvement of the U.S. after the sinking of the Lusitania, Germany now had more issues at stake, for their allies were providing useless already with their enemy, and now that such a strong and fresh country such as the U.S. had joined the war, Germany was beginning to sink under. It is their lack of management in regards to international relations and foresight of the actions that would come in reaction to their strategy that lead to them loosing the moral side of the war as well as allowing the U.S to enter the war, who until then had no reason. This is a clear piece that shows how the lack of proper leadership by the Germans and their Allies lead to their defeat for they couldn't coordinate their military actions.

Culturally and Economically Germany was suffering extensively due to the inability for the German leaders to take care of both their home and the war.  But now, even their military actions were going from bad to worse do to the poor choices made by their political leaders. The final example of this is Germany’s final offensive, the Ludendorff Offensive. Their plan was that before the American troops arrived, the Germans would quickly break the French lines and capture Paris with the use of storm troopers and heavy shelling. They had a slight numerical advantage over the French and British troops now that Russia was no longer a part of the war. Although they successfully broke the lines and made the biggest advancements since 1914, their lines thinned out as they advanced, and they left their gained land unprotected since the storm troopers were much faster than the rest of the soldiers who were carrying supplies. Eventually the storm troopers, due to lack of supplies were weakened, and it was an easy task for the Allies to get back the land. The great loss of men during this attack lead of the eventual collapse of the Hindenburg line, one of the many factors leading to the ruin of Germany.

They key culprit for these actions are the military generals in charge, who feeling pressured made rash decisions that cost them the war.

Overall, we can see that the disastrous political actions taken by Germany’s leaders, destroyed not only their economy and social structure, but also lead to rash military actions, which caused them to eventually fall under the pressure of the Allied forces. Although the Germans feel that they responsibly chose to give up the war and sign an armistice, and therefore didn’t “loose”, continuing on the path they were going on, it wouldn’t have taken much time for the Germans to fall. Even if the U.S hadn’t joined the war, the German people were fed up with mass unemployment and starvation due to the war, and would most likely have pushed for pulling out with due time. Therefore, although they did last long enough, the Allied powers most likely could’ve lasted longer, since their people weren’t in such a bad state as those of the Germans. 

Involvment of women in WW1 and the latter affects.

The reason for the beginning of World War 1 is still debated, but what is clear to everyone, is that WW1 was a game changer in all spheres: political, military, and especially social. As the war progressed, social boundaries were broken out of necessity, and unseen until then, women were directly involved in the war. Two countries in particular addressed women and directly injected them into the war efforts, although the style of their involvement was different, it lead women in both countries to experience freedom from their usual roles and set the stage for their demand of more change. In Britain and Russia, women were crucial to the war efforts, but their involvement was different in each country, and thus the magnitude of change in women roles after the war was also different. There is much debate for whether the war was the cause of change in women roles or if it was a natural progression in women’s efforts for equality before the war, and although it might not have been the main cause, it is indeed the catalyst that lead to change – or the lack of it.

To understand the impact of the war on the role of women, one must first analyze their actual involvement in the war to comprehend what factors lead to change.

Before WW1, women in Britain were constrained to what were considered to be “woman jobs”, such as teaching, the textile industry, nursing, commerce, or domestic work. Those that worked in factories were paid much lower wages than their male counterparts, and although unjust it was the only work available to them. Women suffrage was very active in Britain, but their efforts seemed to be arriving at a standstill. When war broke out many women actively supported the war hoping that it would help their chances for change.

Russia on the other hand, was still under Tsarist Russia, which expected women to maintain traditional roles; but as royalty unraveled and communism began to spread throughout Russia, their ideology of equality for all – including women – began to make Russian women lean towards communism and support the cause.

Once war broke out, women’s involvement was necessary, especially at the home front, where as

 #

The Main Cause of World War I - Imperialism

World War I, one of the most catastrophic events in modern history and the first to involve so many nations at once, has been studied profoundly in an attempt to find the one underlying cause for the war. Although it historically began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, on the 28^th of June 1914, historians have agreed that the assassination was just the final ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’. Over a few decades, all the main European powers had build up many small and seemingly isolated events that ended with the assassination of the Archduke and catapulting Europe and all their territories into a world war. The main reasons behind WWI were events caused by the ideological factors of Imperialism, Militarism, and Nationalism, as well as the vast alliance system created in Europe at the time. Yet historians have not been able to define out of the four, which one was the most important and relevant to the beginning of the war. In my eyes, the outbreak of war in 1914 stemmed from a deep economic resentment by the late players of the Imperialistic game, which lead to all their military actions, alliance making, and the growth of Nationalism. I understand that there are many ways to refute my claim, and that this is simply my opinion on the matter; and although there isn’t a correct answer to the underlying cause of WWI, I’m attempting to prove exactly that.

Nationalism, the sense of pride people feel towards their shared history, language and achievements, is one of the main causes for WWI. Yet, from where does this pride originate? I believe the culprit to be imperialism. Although imperialism began as a means to gain wealth at the expense of others, slowly these conquering countries began to feel superior not only economically and militarily, but also as a country and society. They started to excuse their presence in their colonies by stating that they were bringing them civilization, yet those imperialized colonies felt they had nothing in common and fought for independence. All the while the late players in the “Imperialistic Game” tried to find means to reduce the power of their enemy and prove themselves as equal or superior to the ‘Main Powers’ economically, militarily, and as a society. This race to become the best was driven by Nationalism, but Nationalism itself originated from the economic resentment by the rest of the world to those who dominated it through their Imperialistic feats.

Taking Pan-Slavism for example, one might directly think it to be Nationalistically motivated, for a movement aimed at uniting all the Slavic people seems to be as Nationalistic as can be. Yet the mighty Russian Empire supported this movement, and used Pan-Slavism as a political and military tool to influence and control them. The Slavs confused the Russian’s aim to control them as generosity. One could also consider this act as Nationalism, yet Imperialism doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical thing. The definition of Imperialism states that it’s a “policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force”. Thus, wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the Russian’s subtle yet strong political control over the Slavs be considered as Imperialism? Although controlling the Slavs was something the Russians were proud of, the fact that they could control them through politics is in itself an act of Imperialism.

We also see evidence of this in the German’s gain of the territories of Alsace and Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War. Although it was motivated by a sense of unity because of the shared language, the people from those two states didn’t feel this unity towards the Germans, and the Germans knew of this fact. Thus, we can reason that although they wanted to unite with them because they felt they shared history and language, in reality is was an imperialistic act, for the territories they “united” did not feel this same sense of unity with the Germans.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavril Princip, a member of the Black Hand is also considered to be promoted by Nationalism. Yet the Black Hand was a Serbian society that used terrorist methods to promote the liberation of the Serbs. The world liberation itself implies that someone else dominated them, in this case the Austro-Hungarians. Then, it makes sense to say that since the Austro-Hungarians had political and military control over the Serbs, the Serbs can be considered as a sort of “colony” of the Austro-Hungarians; making the Serbs an imperialized territory by part of the Austro-Hungarians.

Yet, on could refute all these events by saying that in reality they are nothing more than acts of Nationalism, for they are all fighting for the goal of uniting a group of peoples and feeling proud of ones country, and that Imperialism has nothing to do with this. Or that in reality, the countries that are said to be using imperialistic methods to control others, are actually truly trying to help them achieve independence. Taking the Balkan Wars for example, it is seemingly entirely motivated for the Nationalistic reasons of seeking independence for their ethnic groups. Although this is an obvious underlying reason, this war would not have occurred in the first place if the Ottomans hadn’t wanted to maintain their control over the Balkan territory.

Through prosopography, one can put itself into the skin of a civilian who is fighting for independence. If for example we take the Serbs fighting for their independence form Austria-Hungary, they were probably first thinking that they have the right to be independent because they speak their own language, have their own customs, and have their own history; yet they might also be thinking that they are just being used and controlled by the militarily superior Austria-Hungary not only by force, but also through politics. Thus, since they are being controlled by what they would consider a foreigner, they might view this foreign ruling force as imperialist taking advantage of their land. 

Nationalism was a strong force throughout World War I, yet Nationalism wouldn’t exist if Imperialism didn’t. Imperialism, gave the Main Powers something to feel proud of, something to declare their superiority to other countries; and thus creating this pride in one’s country and the feats they have achieved, otherwise known as Nationalism.

To achieve these Nationalistic feats, which were triggered by either a desire to separate from a dominating country or to be the dominating country (both derived from Imperialism), one needed a strong militaristic force. With events such as Industrialization, The von Schlieffen Plan, or the Franco-Prussian War, we can see evidence of how Militarism had a great role in the success of imperialistically related feats, be it to dominate a nation or to separate from one.

Industrialization was a great leap for the military, for the mass production of steel allowed for new and advanced military technology to develop. This also meant that all the powerful nations would compete to see who had the greatest military force. The two main contestants in this battle would be Germany and Britain with their constant goal to surpass the other in the naval field. Although this little ‘battle’ ended with Britain’s launch of the Dreadnaught in 1906, this aim to succeed the other maintained. This desire to surpass another started with Imperialism, both in Asia and in Africa, when all the European powers wanted to gain more territories – and thus more economic revenue – to surpass the other.

In events such as the Franco-Prussian War militarism had an important role in Prussia’s success. Their avid use of the railway system and their better steel artillery, allowed the Prussians and Germans to defeat the French. The Franco-Prussian war itself was an act of Imperialism justified by Nationalism, for the Germans wanted to expand their territory and they used the excuse that Alsace and Lorraine spoke German to claim them as part of their territory. This war wouldn’t have been successful if not for the avid use of both an advance in military tactics and weapons by part of the Germans and Prussians.

As we see in the previous paragraph, not only did their weaponry advance, but also their strategies to accommodate the new weapons. Strategies such as the German Schlieffen Plan and the French Plan 17 developed during this time period. The Schlieffen Plan, which was created in case they were confronted with war on two fronts, was a plan where the Germans aimed to quickly defeat Franc through Belgium and then be able to defend the more difficult enemy of Russia. The French response to this plan was the Plan 17, where they decided a plan of mobilization in the case that Germany attacked. Although the Schlieffen Plan failed and only brought about years of trench warfare, it also brought about advancement in military tactic planning. Yet again, all of this tactical warfare wouldn’t have been necessary if it weren’t for Imperialism; for the origin of this tension and preparation for a war that at the time hadn’t yet begun, came from the resentment between nations over who had the most control of the world and its wealth, which inevitably led to wars.

Although one could attempt to refute my claim by stating that militarism is the ideology to maintain a strong military force in order to defend national interests, and thus the events stated above are only to defend ones’ country and not to extend imperialistic power. Yet seemingly unrelated events to Imperialism such as Bloody Sunday in Russia 1905, can be proven so. The peaceful protesters who were shot by Tsar Alexander’s soldiers were there because of their dislike of the tsar. Then, why did they dislike him? It could be because of his massive spending while his country was suffering in poverty, their humiliating defeat by the Japanese, or Russia’s involvement in WWI. Yet all of these come back to imperialism, for his aim for expansion into Japan is an imperialistic act; the money he spent was mostly on wars and the building on the Trans Siberian Railway – which can be considered imperialistic since they wanted to connect all of their territories (and some which technically weren’t theirs) and thus have a better control of them; and finally, his involvement in WWI was to defend his country and allies, and the war itself wouldn’t have started if not for the economic resentment between the main powers because of Imperialism.

From a militaristic historian’s point of view, actions such as the Germans’ Schlieffen Plan or their advancements in artillery, were taken to protect their respective countries’ best interests; while a revisionist such as V.R. Berghahn, would consider these events as a provocation for war, “a decision that made war inevitable”.

Thus, Imperialism and Militarism are closely linked, for without a strong military, a nation can’t attempt to physically gain control over another or to politically manipulate and scare them into doing what they want. Also, on many occasion as we have seen throughout WWI, words came to death ears, and the only way nations responded to another’s’ plea was through military force. All Nationalistic actions often took the form of militaristic actions, such as constructing a stronger navy or assassinating an Archduke, yet again, Nationalism itself wouldn’t have been developed I it weren’t for Imperialism, and thus there wouldn’t have been a need for a militaristic mindset.

The complex alliance system created during the years before WWI was also vastly influenced by Imperialism, for many of these alliances began as a means to take power away from the more dominant powers at the time as evident in events such as the Triple Entente, the “blank cheque” issued by the Germans to Austria-Hungary, or the Entente Cordiale.

The United Kingdom and France over the past hundred years had been in an almost constant conflict over colonial concerns, and the Entente Cordial signed on the 8^th of April 1904 finally ended this long conflict. In order to protect themselves by a seemingly more aggressive Germany, they decided to put away their differences and join forces in order to avoid going to war. This union has at its base an imperialistic output, for their main differences were because of imperialism; which once more proves my point that indeed imperialism was factor that forced this two nations into years of hatred and eventually led them to a forced reconciliation.

The Triple Entente, an alliance created in 1907 by Britain, France and Russia along with agreements by other nations such as Japan, the United States, or Spain; was to be used as a counterbalance to the alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, known as the Triple Alliance. This alliance, as with the Entente Cordiale, was also vastly influenced by imperialism, for the reason they had to unite was because of the fear of the war, a war that had its roots in imperialism and the economic resentment between all the belligerent nations.

We can also consider the “blank cheque” issued by the Germans to the Austro-Hungarians to do as they please with the Serbs, as a sort of secret alliance with Imperialistic roots. The Serbs, who searched for freedom and had assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne to achieve their goal were obviously influenced by their Nationalistic feelings and their desire to free themselves from the Austro-Hungarian control, which in itself was a form of Imperialism. Thus, if there had been no Imperialistic control over the Serbs, they in turn wouldn’t want to rebel and express their Nationalistic thoughts, which in turn wouldn’t have lead to the assassination of the Archduke, which finally wouldn’t have lead to the issuing of the “blank cheque” or the catastrophe that was WWI.

It could be difficult to see how a treaty such as the Re-Insurance treaty between Russia and Germany could possibly have any ties to Imperialism, but the treaty was a form of reassurance between the two, an attempt to minimize the amount of damage they would receive through their predictions of the war. Yet as all the countries struggled to seek support and protection from another, it all stemmed back to Imperialism. If there hadn’t been Imperialism, there wouldn’t have been as many tensions between the nations and a disturbance in the balance of power, which would have meant that there wouldn’t have been a war in the first place, making the creation of such a treaty useless.

A political and diplomatic historian might have argued that these alliances were made in order to protect oneself from an impending war; while an economic historian could consider the fact that the alliances were made to economically protect themselves and gain some strength by combining forces economically and thus weaken a common enemy, and that the origin of the war itself was due to economic factors such as resentment from imperialism, which in turn lead all the nations to the actions they did –especially alliance making.

Thus, it would be reasonable to agree that all the alliance making at the time was due to the fact that they needed to protect themselves from the reality of the threat of war; a threat that originated from Imperialism itself, for if there hadn’t been imperialism, there wouldn’t have been resentment, and without resentment, there wouldn’t have been a war. 

Finally, one must wonder about Imperialism itself. It emerged from an economic desire to expand and use other countries to achieve such wealth, it’s a long-term event that slowly trickled and contaminated the world with warfare. The origin of the war is what matters the most, and although the Assassination of the Archduke is what started the actual fighting of the war, the real cause had been building up for decades. Yet in close proximity to the actual start of the war, there are plenty events that are closely linked to Imperialism such as Germany’s Support of Morocco, Italian-French Resentment during the era or the Opium Wars.

The Opium Wars of 1840’s and 1850’s, begun due to Britain’s economic aims in China. When China refused to buy any more opium from the British due to the visible negative effects on society due to Opium addiction, the British responded by ravaging a few coastal towns with their superior navy and forcing the Chinese to sign a treaty in favor of British commerce. Britain’s control of China was through Opium, and when the Chinese threatened to eliminate this massive source of wealth, the Brits needed to act.

Germany’s support of Morocco was also influenced entirely on Imperialism and the desire to achieve economic revenue. Due to the resentment they felt towards the French’s increasing control in the territory, Germany pushed for an Open Door Policy, one that would allow German business to access their rich market. They promoted Moroccan Independence in hopes to further increase the gap and instability between Morocco and France. It eventually led to the Algeciras Conference of 1906 where the main European powers and the U.S attempted to mediate between the two countries.

The Italian-French resentment during the era was also caused directly by Imperialism, which in turn provided more build-up and tension between the main powers. Italy, who had control over a small part of Africa – Libya, Tunis, and Ethiopia – was often forgotten in decisions about Africa by the British and French. The Italians resented this sense of superiority that they flaunted, which influenced their decision to join the Triple Alliance rather than the Triple Entente (although Italy secretly agreed with France, which in turn nullified Italy’s agreement with Germany).

There might be issues in trying to justify how an event such as the decline of the Ottoman Empire could have any relationship to Imperialism and WWI. Yet the Ottomans had been loosing power since and territory since 1827, power that came from the territories they controlled, and the territories, which came from their Imperialistic feats.

An economic historian would most likely agree that Imperialism was the underlying cause of WWI, for the envy of other powers felt towards those who had achieved greater wealth through their larger colonies and influenced territories, lead those countries to attempt to prevent any more Imperialistic power to be held by only a few, and instead partake in the ‘Imperialism Game’. And thus this feeling of resentment grew, and without the economic resentment, there wouldn’t have been a war.

However, how would we know how to answer such a question? Why is it even important to answer? As to it’s importance, we can clearly learn from our predecessors, and by understanding the reasons behind the war, especially by identifying the main one, we can make sure that in the future we don’t make the same mistakes. Yet as to how we identify the main reason, depends not only on logic and reason, but also on emotion and sense perception. If we analyze the causes reasonably by using the Socratic Method, we can try to narrow our reasons to just a few, and thus decide on the most important one, eliminating those that we can find exceptions to. It also depends on how you view the world and what you emotionally would consider important, thus Sense Perception and Emotion have great influence in our decision, especially since it’s a personal one.

As to the underlying cause of World War I, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed Imperialism, for the outbreak of war in 1914 stemmed from a deep economic resentment by the late players in the Imperialistic game, which lead to all their military actions, alliance making, and the growth of Nationalism. If Imperialism gave the Main powers something to feel proud of and the other nations to aim at, Imperialism created Nationalism. If Nationalism was responsible for many of the military actions taken during the time, since Nationalism originated from Imperialism, than that means that Militarism is also related to Imperialism (not only in the fact that to achieve Imperialism you need a strong military). That also means that if Alliance making was all done in order to protect themselves from the impending and approaching war, that since alliance making was to prevent any militaristic acts, and militarism was tied to both Imperialism and Nationalism, the latter also originating from Imperialism, that logically, it would seem that it all goes back to Imperialism, thus making it the underlying cause of World War I. It was human greed for wealth and the envy of others that caused world war one, which lead them to expansion, and in turn lead them into their own destruction and death. 

Reflective Question 4

Now that you have completed the book, I would like you to tell me in specific detail what you have ACTUALLY LEARNED (or not learned) ABOUT WORLD WAR ONE as a result. Could any of this information be scrutinized for its accuracy or validity?  Explain your responses.

Although All Quiet on the Western Front is not a factual novel, it expresses clearly the emotions a soldier would feel during World War I. The author himself was a World War I veteran, and that is why I think it dramatically conveys the scene and general atmosphere felt during those years of massive poverty, violence, and death.

I have learned in great length what it must feel like to be a soldier during that time period. I have learned how they fought, what weapons they used, how hungry they were, how poorly equipped they were, how terrible the hygiene was, and most of all how easily it was to die. I guess these are things we all previously knew about, but after reading the book, I feel like I have a better and personal understanding of it.

I find that all wars are devastating, regardless of which one cost the most lives. My grandfather used to tell me stories of World War II, and I recall having a much less depressing image in my mind. I thought of them as heroes, who barely got hurt and destroyed all the bad guys. Yet in this book, the “bad guys” are the ones we read about; and I learned that they were just like my grandfather and not “bad guys” at all. 

So in reality, I haven’t learnt anything factual like who, what, when, or where; instead throughout the 296 pages of this book, I momentarily got a glimpse of the horror and almost felt I could relate to the soldiers. It is as if you were transported through the pages and had to live in the trenches with them. Although I doubt I could ever completely understand how horrific their experience was, I feel like I have caught a glimpse of it, enough to make me realize that war is not a battle of heroes vs. bad guys where the heroes come out unharmed and the bad guys “pouf!” into clouds of smoke; instead it is a bloody mess where very few are lucky to survive and continue on with life normally.

For me the best part of this book was that it was not factual at all. It focused on the emotions and experiences only, and that is what makes it so different form other war novels. As for accuracy and validity, the fact that it is not a factual novel and that the author was a WWI veteran, proves to me that this is as close to experiencing World War I as I will ever be. I’m sure that throughout this book are the author’s personal experiences, which makes it so much more realistic and thus so much more shocking.

When we read of World War I in history books, we never learn of what it actually felt like to be there, to fight and die at the trenches. Instead we get the same detail we just read in this book without the emotional ties. The fact that there are no emotional ties is what makes it hard to relate to; something I have learned after reading this book. All Quiet on the Western Front truly is “The greatest war novel of all time”, for it has taught me what no other book had: what it really felt like to be there during the WWI. 

Reflective Question 3

History is generally taught through the consideration of two opposing forces; black and white sides. What are the possible impacts and implications of this process of teaching and study history?

 In a war, there are two opposing sides: the good/white side and the bad/black side. Yet what makes one side black and the other white? Are they not both fighting to defend their beliefs? Are they both not killing thousands of people? Then what is it that decides which side is good and which one is bad? Although they are the same, why do we consider one “good” and one “bad”?

It all depends on the winner. While a war rages on, both sides will criticize each other and refer to them as the bad ones; yet this does not matter, for once the war is over the winner will be the “good” and the losers will be the “bad”.

 Yet can a whole country bad? We see in All Quiet on the Western Front that not even the German soldiers quite understand why they must hate their enemy, for as Kropp says, “…we are here to protect our fatherland. And the French are over there to protect their fatherland. Now who is in the right?” (Remarque, p.203). 

The ideas they are fighting for might be different, but when it comes down to the soldiers, the ones who are actually fighting, they are all the same. It is like when Paul stabs the French Soldier, Gérard Duval: “… you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forth its appropriate response. It was that abstraction I stabbed. But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me.” (Remarque, p.223). Paul realizes here that the men he is fighting are simple men like him; who suffer, fear and die just like they do. In reality, they just fight because they must; and so the Germans fight the “bad side” that shoots and attacks their country; and so do the French. Even if at some point Paul and his comrades realize that in reality they are fighting the idea that the other side is the “bad” side and that the people are not actually “bad”, “...their riffles and guns are aimed against us, and if we don’t destroy them, they will destroy us.” (Remarque, p.115).

When the winner calls themselves the good side, it is to excuse themselves from wasting the lives of so many people. It is a way for them to feel better about the fact that they have killed so many (often times these people being innocent) to defend an ideal. Then is it fair to learn only form one side? For if what we now consider the “bad” side had won the war, would we not consider them the “good” side and despise the ideals that the other side fought for?

Thus, I don’t believe there is a clear white side and a clear black side; I believe it to be more of a collective gray side. Each force had their reasons to fight, and we should learn from both sides; because in the same way one side committed atrocities, so did the other. If we study only from the victorious side, we are missing out on a lot of information, and learning only what the winning side wants us to. To truly understand what happened and what the people felt during the war, we should learn from both sides; because in a war there are two stories, and if one is being omitted we only get a biased picture of what really happened. 

Remarque, Erich Maria. All Quiet On The Western Front. US, New York. Ballantine Books, 1957-58

Reflective Question 2

History is generally taught through the eyes and experiences of “Great Men” and “Leaders” as opposed to considering the average citizen’s experiences.  What are the possible impacts and implications of this process of teaching and study history?

What we learn from these “Great Men” and “Leaders” is mostly a bunch of battle plans, statistics, and ideals thought up by angry men in their magnificent looking offices. Yet it is the thousands of soldiers who fight and die for the ideals of these grumpy men. And these grumpy men in turn receive reports, where these soldiers are no longer individuals, but instead they become another statistic to the casualties of war. All the while, these “Leaders” and “Great Men” not once standing to fight beside those men who are giving up their lives to maintain the ideals of these “Leaders”.

By learning from the “Great Men”, we are only listening to the opinions of a handful of people who sit behind desks, while the vast majority of civilians might not agree with what their “Leaders” are saying. In a war, there are multiple points of view, and by limiting the information we learn to the words of a few “Leaders”, the idea we get of the time is vastly different than what it probably was.

During wartime, a leader might make things not seem as bad by giving out different statistics about the causalities, print false stories about how cheerful everyone is at the fronts, or by simply exaggerating their victories and making their losses seem much less than reality. By doing this, the civilians might not be as depressed about the war, and some might even be encouraged to enlist.

Yet the war’s source is a conflict between a few men; the civilians have nothing to do with it. As Albert says, “We didn’t want the war, the others say the same thing – and yet half the world is in it all the same.” (Remarque, p.206). Then why do we learn from those who started the war yet didn’t actually fight for it? It makes more sense to learn from those who actually experienced the horrors of war, does it not? From their office desks, they can’t truly express the sentiment, death, and chaos that a war brings to a country; they can only imagine that all of those who fight are fighting for the same beliefs that they so strongly support.

It is like Paul’s school professor, Kantorek. He encouraged his young classmates to fight for a cause that he so strongly believed in, and giving in to the beliefs of their teacher, the students agree. Yet what did Kantorek know of the war? Had he ever fought in one himself? Because of he had, he would most likely want to spare the lives of such young men, rather than waste it on the bickering of some “Leaders”. Would you read the book of a man who believes in the war yet has not fought for the cause? Yet that is what we do when we learn from these “Leaders” and “Great Men”, for most of the time they have not once hold a gun and fought for their cause; they let others do it for them. And it is these others, the soldiers, who die for their cause.

Remarque, Erich Maria. All Quiet on the Western Front. US, New York. Ballantine Books, 1957-58.