James Joll's Argumentative Analysis

Improved Essays
James Joll was a follower of the Fisher school of thought in that he believed that the opening of the German war guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles was relevant in the discussion of the origins of World War II, but that it allowed for there to be a humanization of the actors in World War I. In his study of History is focus is not on only the political and diplomatic issues that arise from war but the impact that individuals have on the system. In the case of WWI there was many countries whose base of power was concentrated in one central person. If one person is the basis of all foreign affairs it is safe to assume that their proceeding actions are a result of their own political ambitions and are thus open to bias. Fishers view on the …show more content…
His ability to gather information from those in East Germany, served as an issue for many of his critics. In Joll’s article he states that, “One of the most widespread grounds for attacking Fisher is that he has dealt exclusively with German war aims and worked exclusively on German documents.” His defense is that it is not physically possible for one man to be able to analyze all documents that exist on the topic, without focusing on one country one looses the ability to complete a total analysis. As an individual whose life was affected by the aftermath of both world wars, it is of no surprise that the idea of continuation is something that would uses as an origin of …show more content…
In the case of Ritter he is staunchly against the idea that the wars were fought on a scale of continuation since in the first World War, Germany was acting on the defense instead of the defense. In this argument if Germany was simply reacting to the actions taken by it’s surrounding nations than it would be unjust to blame World War I on Germany and that Hitlers reign was an anomaly in the annals of Germanic history. What his theory tends to lack is a historical hindsight. In the contemporary sense, Germany has already taken responsibility for their part in the events leading to the July Crisis, what the true question is did their lack of complete acceptance lead to the hole in nationalism that allowed for Hitler to take rise. In a sense Levin agrees with Fisher that the German military initiative was essentially an act of agression upon the other nations. In other words even with the militarism of the Franco- Russian alliance, as well as their mobilization it was not enough of a direct threat for the level of weapons stockpiling and advancements that took place in Germany before the war. Furthermore there is blame that Ritter places on Britain for their choice to practice non agression in the early stages of the war. In other words the whole war started because Britain had no desire to place itself in a war that truly would not benefit them in any fashion by entering. Ritter being a

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    From Hitler’s point of view, the French and British were too weak to enforce the Treaty. Additionally, due to widespread propaganda of German victim narrative, both French and British were starting to believe that the Treaty of Versailles was indeed too harsh on the Germans. Overall, nuclear weapons would not affect Germany’s violation of the Treaty,…

    • 1047 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He took rights away from the German people by censoring everything and only allowing his ideas acknowledged. Hitler also put his people’s wants and needs on the backburner, putting war efforts and conquering land on the forefront. Even if the German people wanted to get rid of Hitler they had no way of doing it because Hitler removed the democratic election, he would win no matter what. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America feared tyrannical rule just as Aristotle did so many years before. Whether they took warning from what Aristotle had to say in Politics or if they saw the danger in other readings or governments in the world.…

    • 1704 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    There are several instances when Germany demonstrated that it could not credibly uphold any commitments. Each example examined relates to the appeasement of Germany by France and Britain. First, when Germany annexed Austria in March of 1938, it broke the Treaty of Versailles as it exposed the rearmament of the German military as well as territorial expansion on the party of Germany. Britain and France did nothing to prevent this annexation and therefore failed to credibly uphold the treaty. This signaled a lack of intent to enforce the treaty or punish Germany – additionally reflecting how the Treaty of Versailles required complicity on the party of Germany to be effective.…

    • 1643 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This part of the treaty was another failure of the treaty, because Britain and America wanted Germany to have a small professional army. However the French were fearful of a standing army that could quickly be…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this way, the treaty was ineffective in attaining peace because Germany had reached its way out of a hole and fought back in a second World War. Woodrow Wilson had outlined the Treaty of Versailles with his Fourteen Points: an idealized list of proposals with which to satisfy every country and maintain peace. Germany is not mentioned in them, acting as a precursor to the same thing in the Treaty of Versailles. Through these nationalist, excluding points, Germany is left behind while other countries are becoming more independent and not occupied by enemies. This treaty had given Germany a hefty guilt of starting, raging, and continuing World War I.…

    • 1310 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Furthermore, the threat of a German victory, as previously stated, would result in the failed repayment of debts. Britain and France would not be able to pay back their debts while under German rule, which again violates the foundation of freedom in democracy. Wilson had to make sure that the large debt would be repaid, and a German victory would most certainly have quashed this necessity, justifying him involving America in the…

    • 1194 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    AJP Taylor described it as war by timetable and July 28th 1914 is the key turning point when war became inevitable. It is true that other countries could have made different decisions and avoided war in 1914 but the balance of power would have shifted very favourably towards Germany. A situation none of the Triple entente could tolerate. Germany knew this and still Germany forged ahead. The Kaiser’s argument that Britain would not risk war with its ‘contemptibly small army’ over a little scrap of paper’ to defend Belgium neutrality was naive at best.…

    • 1233 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He had wanted Germany to lose its navy and its colonies - the powerful navy threatened the British Empire. Regarding the victors’ point of view, it should be noted once more that if the treaty had requested exactly what France and Britain had wanted out of it in the first place Germany would have not recovered. Another factor to consider is whether or not the treaty was seen as justified at the time. The way Germany had treated Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918 was very severe and the Treaty of Versailles was more justified and fair. This caused many to consider Germany as operating on double standards and consequently, much less felt sympathy.…

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While this agreement did appease Hitler for the time being, it did not adequately fulfilled the policy of appeasement in the end. After the Munich Conference, Hitler felt cheated out of war because the agreement ensured peace and did not give him the war Hitler wanted. To ensure war would occur, Hitler secretly installed military official Konrad Henlein as a leader in obtaining Sudetenland and all of Czechoslovakia for Germany. This is clear evidence of Hitler privately initiating war with his inner circle and violating appeasement policies because the demands he gave Henlein to enforce in Czechoslovakia were kept out of the public image and these demands were to eventually overrule all of Czechoslovakia. These plans inadequately follow the policy of appeasement because they prove that Hitler did not have the intentions of following through with the plans he made in the Munich Agreement.…

    • 1566 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Nonaggression Pact

    • 1188 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Unfit Marriage An anonymous author once said, “Don’t force together pieces that don’t fit.” During World War II the German leader Adolf Hitler tried creating a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, which Hitler found not a true ally or enemy. However, Hitler strongly disliked communist and the Soviet Union believes in communism. Adolf Hitler set his hate aside towards the communist and tied to build a better relationship. While the deceptive motives of the Nonaggression Pact provided peace between Germany and the Soviet Union, it led to the start of World War II to the invasion of Poland and later the invasion of the Soviet Union. To begin, the Germans had different views of the pact than the Soviet Union.…

    • 1188 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays