Imperial rivalry, World War I and the interwar order
This chapter develops shared European and German historical foundations for the period indicated. It does not establish a regional examination blueprint, official source list, authentic paper language or a complete causal explanation of every event. Distinguish evidence, interpretation and competing explanations.
Core rules and concepts
- Theories of imperialism: Hobson and Lenin (finance capital, underconsumption), Schumpeter (atavistic export of domestic social structures), Cain and Hopkins (gentlemanly capitalism). Use them as competing explanations, not synonyms.
- Flashpoints: Berlin West Africa Conference 1884–85, Kruger Telegram 1896, Morocco crises 1905 and 1911, annexation crisis 1908, Balkan Wars 1912–13.
- July crisis 1914: Sarajevo, 23 July ultimatum, Russian general mobilisation, the blank cheque of 5–6 July; distinguish war aims from war guilt.
- Versailles, 28 June 1919: Article 231 (war-guilt clause), territorial losses (roughly 13% of territory, 10% of population), demilitarisation of the Rhineland, army of 100,000, reparations fixed at 132 billion gold marks by the London Schedule of 1921.
- Weimar stresses: Kapp Putsch 1920, hyperinflation 1923, Ruhr occupation, Dawes Plan 1924, Locarno 1925, Briand–Stresemann reconciliation, Kellogg–Briand Pact 1928, Young Plan 1929, Depression after October 1929.
Worked example
Evaluate the judgement: "Versailles was a Diktat that made the Weimar Republic unviable." Reasoning: (1) What supports it: signature under protest, Article 231, reparations, the "war guilt" campaign in German public opinion. (2) What complicates it: the treaty left Germany a unified great power, comparable with Brest-Litovsk 1918 only after stating which territorial, economic or political criteria are being assessed; the Republic stabilised 1924–29; hyperinflation in 1923 was largely a German decision to finance passive resistance. (3) Judgement: one interpretation emphasizes the legitimatory burden and its use by anti-republican actors, while other explanations weigh material pressures and contingent decisions differently. The evidence supports a multicausal argument rather than automatic collapse. Distinguish material and symbolic effects.
Traps that cost marks
- Answering the war-guilt question with a single cause (Fischer's "Griff nach der Weltmacht" thesis versus the July-crisis research of First World War centenary debates).
- Confusing the 1919 treaty with the 1920 s revisionist successes (Locarno, early evacuation of the Rhineland).
- Quoting reparations figures without naming the schedule (London 1921) or the later reductions.
- Treating imperialism as purely economic and ignoring prestige, domestic pressure and strategic rivalry.