But is it possible that violence and war have had a positive effect on human development? Wars are usually some type of competition for resources. War was the beginning of agriculture. The war can be the basis of political leadership. For example, in the ancient world, as in the Game of Thrones, successful war leaders build up a retinue of fighters in order to keep them happy, the war leaders need to supply a constant flow of booty, the spoils of war.
I think these governments did it either to badmouth another country or to tell the public what they wanted the public to know. It sparked an interest in me as the government's pride or nationalism which made them go to significant lengths to show the public what was right and what was wrong, labelling countries and letting the public know that enlisting to fight against this country was good as they were bad and if you fought against them then you would be a hero. Generally speaking the government would say that if you enlisted that your sacrifice would be rewarded. Due to the government's influence, people were buying books, newspapers, paintings and pictures of propaganda without a thought that the government were misleading them. Without the government controlling propaganda, the British public would have known what was happening, which would lead to people not wanting to enlist.
Although the people during that time period thought that the war was going to end quickly, simply because it was between Austria and Serbia, the war surprisingly included many other strong countries because of nationalism especially regarding the Balkan colonies wanting to be self-governed. But meanwhile, after Austria-Hungary proclaimed war with Serbia, countries from the Triple Entente later joined into war in a matter of time. As shown in Document A: the European Alliances and nations are shown on a map. The nations then started to pick sides. Austria-Hungary and Germany formed the Central Powers and then Great Britain, Russia, and France formed the Allies.
When militarism became a huge deal, it not only meant that every country improved their army and navy, no it also meant the arms race and the government´s attitude. The Government attitude means that many generals had a huge influence on the government of the country, which led to problems, which then turned into long term problems, escalation into the war. This also meant that all the countries were very aggressive, but especially the government of Austria-Hungary and Germany were militaristic. At the time of 1914, the arm force was divided like that, that Germany had about 2,2 million soldiers, Austria-Hungary had about 810,000 Soldier and Russia had about 1,2 million soldiers. When on country improved their army and general armed force, all the other had the idear to grow, causing every country to grow bigger and better.
To conclude, I would prefer to be a soldier in World War II because the conditions were better, conscription was resolved and the Marshall Plan was created. The soldiers during World War II were able to carry out strategic plans, introduce powerful new weapons and learn new things about fighting in future battles. This war was the largest armed conflict in history, spanning the entire world. I would be very proud to be a soldier during World War
Nationalism is a strong force of patriotism, and a strong supporter of political independence for one’s country. Nationalism is also one of the main causes that led to the crack of World War 1, since all the powers had a nationalistic pride. Many nations believed that nationalism helps the nation to gain the support for war, in addition to competing with other countries on which nation is the better, stronger and most powerful. The greatest nationalist movement was the Slavic group in the Balkans. The Balkans was a very unstable area, and it was also known as the “sick man of Europe”.
Nationalism was prevalent in early 20th century Europe and was a significant cause of World War I. Most pre-war Europeans believed in the cultural, economic and military supremacy of their nation. Their attitudes and overconfidence were fuelled by things like jingoistic press reporting. The pages of newspapers were often packed with nationalist rhetoric and inflammatory stories or rumours about rival nations. Nationalism could also be found in other aspects of popular culture, including literature,
Militarism denoted a rise in military expenditure and it increased in military and naval forces. It put more influence of the military men upon the policies of the civilian government. Militarism had a preference for force as a solution to problems. This was one of the main causes of the First World War. The second cause was there were too many alliances which often conflicted with one another.
Nationalism was a very profound in the beginning of the 20th century in Europe. This nationalism fueled many exaggerated reports on the state of rival countries. Due to these nationalist reports it can make a nation become alienated and wrongly dislike other countries. Nationalism in Europe assured its citizens that a war against them would mean total victory, which contributed to the rallying support of the European populous. These victorious militaristic ideas were fuelled by the fact that in the 19th century Europe had not had any large scale military defeat during most of the century.
One minor cause of WWI was militarism. The race to see which country has the superior military, and defense, is sure to get any country to attack another one just to be the best. The London Times History of the World document for instance, shows the growth in armaments from the Entente Powers and