The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why has Germany been the 'troublemaker' in Europe?

delete
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Some could say that it's historically been hemmed in by its neighbours.

Others may say that it's neighbours have been hostile to it as its seen as a threat.

Some may say that power shifts in Europe historically. In order to weaken France, the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) is strengthened. When power shifts to them France respondes and the power shifts back to France.

Others may argue that ww2 was a carry over from WW1 which in turn had its seeds sown in the Franco Prussian war of the 1870s.

WRY ww2, it wasn't only Germany at that time that embraced crazies. There's only the UK that hasn't embraced totalitarian dictatorship in Europe in the last 100 years or so.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 2
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by Lady Comstock
In recent times re WW1/WW2? I am just curious.


Location i'd say.

Being next to France, Spain and the UK with a large population gave it both rich trading partners but also threats which gave it an incentive to innovate coupled with a relatively educated and large population. By the 1890's Germany was on a par technologically with the US and UK and it's economy was thriving. This naturally led to German-UK relations (when had the UK ever been happy to have a rival?) turning sour and of course we all know WW1 and WW2.

In short, very few countries aim solely to be wealthy and developed. You get rich, you have a large army and whether your the USSR or Britain, you exploit your advantage.
Original post by Rakas21
Location i'd say.

Being next to France, Spain and the UK with a large population gave it both rich trading partners but also threats which gave it an incentive to innovate coupled with a relatively educated and large population. By the 1890's Germany was on a par technologically with the US and UK and it's economy was thriving. This naturally led to German-UK relations (when had the UK ever been happy to have a rival?) turning sour and of course we all know WW1 and WW2.

In short, very few countries aim solely to be wealthy and developed. You get rich, you have a large army and whether your the USSR or Britain, you exploit your advantage.


Would kind of disagree with that.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0z1kvM6ns

Germany was catching up, but it wasn't on a par. Watch the above for the first twenty minutes and catch the deitscheworkbund
Reply 4
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by MatureStudent36
Would kind of disagree with that.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0z1kvM6ns

Germany was catching up, but it wasn't on a par. Watch the above for the first twenty minutes and catch the deitscheworkbund


Apologies, i did not mean militarily.

In terms of general technology, the UK, US and Germany all developed electricity grids within 5 years of each (from your global shift book, you'll know this represented a K wave) and in general Germany had as much innovation as the UK.
I think this is the image you're looking for OP.
I
Original post by gordonbennetton
I think this is the image you're looking for OP.
I


Oh joy. Another tin foil hat wearing, holicaust denying conspiracy freak.
Germany has a large production capacity and a small market.
Original post by Lady Comstock
In recent times re WW1/WW2? I am just curious.


If this were an exam question, I would argue that the proposition is nowhere near as clear-cut as is it might appear.

After Germany became a country in 1871, there was a long period of peace until the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913. Neither can be blamed on Germany.

While Germany bears a large share of the blame for WWI, particularly with regard to creating tension and the division of Europe into two armed camps, others contributed at least as much if not more to the actual outbreak of war in 1914. Austro-Hungary was determined to have its reckoning with the Serbs (who knew of the assassination plot and did little to stop it) and drew fully on Germany's 'blank cheque' of support. Russia, encouraged strongly by a belligerent France, was the country which drove the mobilsation process forward in secret - all the while lying through its teeth about doing so. Germany's other main responsibility was in having a war plan which involved invading a neutral country (Belgium) in an attempt to knock France out of the war. (To complete the blame-game, Britain's lack of a clear public position confused everyone - even though ultimately it would almost certainly honour its pre-existing agreements with Grance.)

Yes, WWII was largely a consequence of WWI, but can only be realistically be put down to Germany - specifically Nazi ambitions.

Since then, has Germany been responsible for 'troublemaking' in 'recent times' in Europe? There have been many wars following the break-up of the USSR, but Germany can hardly be blamed for conflicts between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, or for the current war between Russia and Ukraine.
Original post by ageshallnot
If this were an exam question, I would argue that the proposition is nowhere near as clear-cut as is it might appear.

After Germany became a country in 1871, there was a long period of peace until the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913. Neither can be blamed on Germany.

While Germany bears a large share of the blame for WWI, particularly with regard to creating tension and the division of Europe into two armed camps, others contributed at least as much if not more to the actual outbreak of war in 1914. Austro-Hungary was determined to have its reckoning with the Serbs (who knew of the assassination plot and did little to stop it) and drew fully on Germany's 'blank cheque' of support. Russia, encouraged strongly by a belligerent France, was the country which drove the mobilsation process forward in secret - all the while lying through its teeth about doing so. Germany's other main responsibility was in having a war plan which involved invading a neutral country (Belgium) in an attempt to knock France out of the war. (To complete the blame-game, Britain's lack of a clear public position confused everyone - even though ultimately it would almost certainly honour its pre-existing agreements with Grance.)

Yes, WWII was largely a consequence of WWI, but can only be realistically be put down to Germany - specifically Nazi ambitions.

Since then, has Germany been responsible for 'troublemaking' in 'recent times' in Europe? There have been many wars following the break-up of the USSR, but Germany can hardly be blamed for conflicts between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, or for the current war between Russia and Ukraine.


One may argue that Germany hasn't been any trouble since the end of WW2 because it's had a hundred thousand odd garrison troops stationed in it ensuring that it disnt become a problem again and was weakened with a split in the country.

As for ww2, there was a linkag with ww1 but also Germany did take the European thirties love of facism to new heights.

I often wonder how Germany would've panned out had it done facism like Italy. However Italy could grow into Africa. Germany I still feel wanted the old Austro Hungarian lands back.
Original post by MatureStudent36
One may argue that Germany hasn't been any trouble since the end of WW2 because it's had a hundred thousand odd garrison troops stationed in it ensuring that it disnt become a problem again and was weakened with a split in the country.

As for ww2, there was a linkag with ww1 but also Germany did take the European thirties love of facism to new heights.

I often wonder how Germany would've panned out had it done facism like Italy. However Italy could grow into Africa. Germany I still feel wanted the old Austro Hungarian lands back.


Agre with much of that.

Nazi Germany wanted a lot more than part of what used to be A-H territory - it wanted large tracts of former Russian/Polish lands as well.
Reply 11
Avatar for DJKL
DJKL
17
An argument could be made that Germany, being a late developer as a unified country, missed the expansion into empire "enjoyed" by UK, France, Netherlands and Spain(albeit much earlier). The same might also be said of Italy.
Germany's difficulties expanding into non European countries may have caused part of the friction that erupted into the conflicts of the 20th century.

I am not fully on board with the line of thought, but colony/empire envy may well have had a part to play and can certainly be developed into a line of argument to be supported or conversely disputed.
Original post by DJKL
An argument could be made that Germany, being a late developer as a unified country, missed the expansion into empire "enjoyed" by UK, France, Netherlands and Spain(albeit much earlier). The same might also be said of Italy.
Germany's difficulties expanding into non European countries may have caused part of the friction that erupted into the conflicts of the 20th century.

I am not fully on board with the line of thought, but colony/empire envy may well have had a part to play and can certainly be developed into a line of argument to be supported or conversely disputed.


While i don't think Britain is at fault for WW1 I've often wondered if a war between the British Empire and Germany was inevitable when you consider that we have never had peace with an economic rival at that stage.

Spain - Resulted in the Spanish Armada
France - At war for 100 years
US - Not sure you'd call it a war but for most of the 1800's we were shooting each other on the Canadian border
Germany - While i'm not sure of any 1 event that built tension, the 3 events above would not bode well for British-German relations
because negative yielding bonds
Some people just love a bit of War and conflict.


Skips :smile:
Its a relatively new country it was only formed in the 19th century from the unification so missed out on the great game and all of its neighbours had vast empires i.e. Russia, Britain, France etc. Its leader in the 1st world war was a tool and that was little more than blood feud.WWII was without a doubt the allies fault.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Some could say that it's historically been hemmed in by its neighbours.

.


Yeah, also not enough coast- drives people mad. As proven by middle America.
because Germany didn't cause WWI. that's bull invented to justify UK participation after the fact.

Its just so. The French couldn't take getting beaten by the Prussians in 1871, and wanted revenge against the Germans. and the UK was pissed off that Germany wanted a big navy and was rivalling us economically.

To say "Germany's fault!" is ****.
Reply 18
Avatar for Wellzi
Wellzi
16
Original post by 24yearsSpurs
because Germany didn't cause WWI. that's bull invented to justify UK participation after the fact.

Its just so. The French couldn't take getting beaten by the Prussians in 1871, and wanted revenge against the Germans. and the UK was pissed off that Germany wanted a big navy and was rivalling us economically.

To say "Germany's fault!" is ****.

But German aggression and its own actions isolated itself and drove Britain to hostilities.
And the Germans offered a naval trade off before the war, and we refused. sorry, but then it's more complex to say Germany caused it.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you