The stage leading up to the outbreak of World War 1 featured incredibly impactful decisions that would eventually create the beginning of the Modern Era. However, diplomacy leading up to World War 1 created a negative impact on the war in that it was largely based upon a balance of power. Globally, this outdated diplomacy lead to the militarism of all countries involved, thus only heightening the tensions, and leading up to the outbreak of World War 1. By the end of the war, it is evident that many of the countries recognized their mistakes and attempted to find long-term solutions through extensive treaties and international humanitarian efforts. The diplomatic tendencies of many prominent leaders invited war.
Several factors prompted this decline such as: several economic problems, the rise of other trade routes, the European hunger for expansion, and weakness in the Ottoman government Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire was both politically and militarily strong, yet, it was too traditional and could not keep up with worldwide changes and modernity through time. Europe and the West were rapidly moving forward innovatively while the Ottomans stayed in their place for too long. All these problems led to the empire being less centralized in Europe. Simply, the Great Powers of Europe took advantage of this situation and allied to completely end the rule of Ottomans. To further affect the empire, European powers chose an Ottoman strength and turned it into a weak point.
Because of their foolish choice to no longer be determined to protect and save the lives of others by giving up their breastplates and helmets greatly damaged the Roman Empire’s strength and changed many invaders’ perspectives and viewpoints encouraging them to contribute to the fall of Rome. In conclusion, the debilitate Roman army is a theory that is one of the top three reasons for the fall of
The ones who inevitably experience the most loss are the soldiers fighting within the war. Experiencing things such as the loss of comrades; the will to fight; mental fortitude; and the will to live. War may bring solution to a problem and bring about peace, but war is always a losing battle in which
General Clinton’s inaction after General Washington’s force departure guaranteed the historical unfolding of the Siege of Yorktown. The largest contributor to this British disaster lay in the lacking of an analytical apparatus, which could have effectively processed and utilized British intelligence. General Clinton chose to focus more on salvation in the form of reinforcements from Britain than on the immediate steps he could implement in his intelligence war fighting function to cement victory. This overreliance on an ineffective logistical support chain, combined with poor strategy, toxic leadership, and indecisiveness, resulted in an overly defensive positon. This ineptitude set the stage for the loss of British populace support, costing him the war of attrition.
The presidential election of 1876 almost ruined the Reconstruction even faster. This election was one of the most controversial elections that ever occurred. This election could have ruined America. The North was focused on protecting the government, they were too caught up in their own affairs to pay even the slightest attention to the South. This helps me answer the main question because the North was almost ruining the South without fully knowing it.
There were additional factors contributing to the US continued involvement in the Vietnam war, including a mistaken belief that the US army and its allies could quickly win the war and an unwillingness to withdraw and signal defeat. These miscalculations led to increased casualties for US troops and a drawn out conflict which prevented a decision to end US participation in what many historians and US leaders considered a mistaken war. (Cook, 1) The US priority to prevent the spread of communism in that part of the world interfered with rational thinking. (Vietnam War, 3) As Robert McNamara, US defense secretary during the Vietnam war, stated: “We . .
To conclude, in my opinion, this event is what sparked the war into action and without it the war wouldn’t of happened. Lastly, The most important person in the cause of the war is Franz Joseph Ⅱ. After his son was assassinated he made many demands Serbia had to fulfil. When Serbia didn’t meet the Duke’s demands he declared war on the country. Franz Joseph Ⅱwas the one who initiated the war when he declared it against Serbia which drawed the other Europeans into it because of their alliances.
He claims that the WWI was “Armageddon” or the end of the world because it was the most destructive war ever witnessed by humanity. He also says that because it was a great war, the criminals and heroes cannot be found in such a war. However, these features are not what we saw in the past wars because in the old wars, there are heroes, such as Fredrick, Napoleon, Hannibal who physically lead their soldiers in the front lines of the army, but this cannot be seen in this war because of the decline of individual’s role in the new war that the process is a cooperative affair rather than individual. Moreover, this new feature is the reason of not having “loin-hearted warriors” because if the leader is away from his soldiers, then who will motivate them and lead them physically to do their job. As he mentions that it is not a stock market for the generals to do their job far away from the center, but it is war and they needs to be at the center of the battlefield and seriously direct their army.
It also opened a gateway into something of a quarrel with many competing countries because they thought Great Britain was vulnerable because they had lost to their once controlled subjects, who were poorly trained and equipped with weapons to win a war. The declaration independence was an important piece in history that changed many lives,
Furthermore, ‘a supreme emergency exists when our deepest values and our collective survival are in imminent danger (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009).Walzer holds that Great Britain was facing such a supreme emergency during a certain period of World War II when it was under attack from Nazi Germany, which constituted an ‘evil objectified in the world’’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). Walzer holds that, at least in the first years of the war while Germany was undefeated, the situation was a supreme emergency because a German victory would have constituted an ultimate threat to Britain. However, Walzer claims that after it became clear that Germany could no longer win the war, there no longer was a supreme emergency (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009).In a supreme emergency situation, it is morally permissible to directly and intentionally target and kill innocents, or non-combatants’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). In Walzer’s example, it was justified to bomb residential areas of German cities, thus directly targeting the civilian population’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). He nevertheless insists that although the prohibition against killing innocents is overridden by more important considerations, it is not being suspended: ‘There are limits on the conduct of war, and there are moments when we can and perhaps should break through the limits (the limits themselves never