Comparison of the Foreign Policies of Mussolini and Hitler until 1939

With the end of WWI multiple problems surfaced. Fascism took a form under the name of Mussolini, followed by Hitler as well. Communism ruled in the east, and the fear of it in the west, was strong. The League of Nations, the few lasting remains of the Treaty of Versailles, seemed to be shattering while wars continued on. Thus it came down to the individual powers to try to keep the few remaining strands of peace together. With the rise of new powers this became more and more difficult especially with the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Their way of action was usually far more drastic then England or France would have liked. To that their foreign policies were mostly focused on their own gains and not that of international peace. Until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies.

Why both Mussolini and Hitler acted at certain times in certain ways has been discussed by multiple historians. Some think that both had fixed agendas and followed them all the way through. Other saw them as opportunists and took every chance they had. However the nationalistic goals were there and can be clearly traced through their actions.

For Mussolini and Hitler there was nothing more important than their countries. Thus both of their foreign policies were motivated by the main leading cause of nationalism. Mussolini having risen to power already in the 1920s had nationalistic aims to make Italy greater. He wanted to return Italy to its former Roman Empire glory. This meant increasing Italian landholdings, resources, and economic as well as militaristic strength. It also meant connections to greater powers. These actions can be seen by his expansions into Abyssinia and Albania as well as his method of autarky (economic self-sufficiency). Even his links with U.S. one of the rising powers of the time made it clear that Mussolini was aiming for Italy to become a world power once again.

Hitler also had similar nationalistic aims, focusing on German glory. Although in his original plans he wished to claim the old colonies lost after WWI, he decided for a more realistic goal of expansion to the east. The unity of the German people, revision of the Treaty of Versailles, economic strength (also the idea of autarky), military strength, and alliances with great powers (Britain was a possibility here) included some of his aims.

All these aims can be reflected back upon each of these members in their actions of foreign policy, using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances.

Of course there is the counterargument that neither Hitler nor Mussolini had any plans. In truth they were just opportunists. Not even their nationalistic parties had an influence on their actions. Rather they were focused on gaining glory for themselves.

From a Revisionists viewpoint, the aims of fascism can be seen as forever changing. As Mommsen in his book “National Socialism: Continuity and Change” puts it: “It is questionable… whether National Socialist foreign policy can be considered as an unchanging pursuit of established priorities.” He then goes on to say that “Hitler’s foreign policy aims…knew no bounds.” A counterfactualist would question that what if Mussolini had not risen to power at all and therefore created fascism, would Hitler even have existed? What if there never would have been either leader, would their still have been such a nationalistic focused foreign policy of each respective country?

The first method used by both Mussolini and Hitler to accomplish their nationalistic foreign policies was militarism.

Mussolini wanted a glorified Italy, and for this he needed to expand. However to expand he needed an army, and a strong one. This is why he started to build his army. Italy had been looked down upon during the Washington Naval Conference, limiting its naval power. Why should Mussolini abide to this? In order to gain more resources, to return Italy to its former glory, Mussolini needed an army, thus he started to rearm.

Hitler had similar feelings. In the Treaty of Versailles Germany had been given a limited amount of army, no air force, and no navy. To that the Rhineland area had to stay a demilitarized zone. This was enough to cause problems for any nationalistic aims for a greater Germany. If the own land was not even fully controlled by a German army, how could one ever hope to expand to the east?

Another important aspect which shows that the nationalistic aims of the foreign policies were converted by militarism was the Spanish Civil War. With the aid of Mussolini and Hitler, Franco was able to rise in Spain. Of course both Italy and Germany would be happy about an ally in the west however this was not their major goal. For Hitler, what better place was there than the Spanish Civil War to test his military machine, especially new inventions such as rockets? For any foreign policies aims of expanding Germany, Hitler needed to have a well-trained army, and he needed to be sure it could work. Mussolini had other aims in the Spanish Civil War. While he too may have been testing his army, he most importantly wanted to have glory in war for Italy. To show the might of Italy to the rest of the world. Thus both countries used militarism to prepare their countries for further goals of their nationalistic foreign policies.

A counterargument to the whole idea of militarism playing a role in the foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler is that since all of their aims were more based on expansion, this could be achieved through clever political games. Therefore the main focus was actually was gaining political strength not military strength.

The actions of both Mussolini and Hitler can be analyzed from different viewpoints of historians. For example from a militaristic historian viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini were only able to pursuit political as well as physical land goals (nationalistic goals) with military power.  A cliometric historian in contrast would credit the fast growing economies of both countries to the aggressive foreign polices of Mussolini and Hitler. Since only through this economic upswing could they guarantee their polices a success and keep a happy home front.

With the full aid of militarism, Mussolini and Hitler, following their nationalistic foreign policy aims of expansion and greatness of their countries, decided to follow a path of Imperialism. This was however not possible without the militaristic strengths and actions mentioned before.

One of the most similar actions both Mussolini and Hitler take are that of protectorates. Albania for Italy became a protectorate in 1926. For Germany, it was Czechoslovakia (for a short time). Both had the wish to expand and both used whatever means necessary. A small difference can be found though: Italy was focused on colonies while Germany wished more for expansion within Europe.

Interesting to note is that the foreign policy aims of both are first done through political means and then by military force. Hitler first receives the Sudetenland through the Munich Conference, a clear political tactic. However then he continues to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, to the great horror of its citizens.

Italy follows the same steps. Forming Albania as a protectorate in 1926, Mussolini then invades it directly in April of 1939.

Other imperialist actions taken by Mussolini for his nationalistic foreign policy aims is the invasion of Ethiopia. Having lost before to this country, Italy did not wish to keep this humiliation unaddressed. To that, the imperialistic wish to expand further and gain more resources, had a clear factor as well.

Hitler in contrast, has no wish to expand outside of Europe and therefore could not solely rely on military actions. Both however use military force to put pressure on the western powers, who wish to avoid war to get what they want in imperialistically. Mussolini invades Abyssinian and then receives a piece from the League of Nations. Hitler too, used military force especially in the aspect of Czechoslovakia to gain the upper hand on the Munich Conference table (meeting of Italy, England, France, and Germany) and gained Sudetenland. Therefore all in all, it was through the use of militarism, that imperialism could be used to continue on the nationalistic foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler.

In the case of Hitler, it can be argued that what he pursued was in fact not imperialism but simply war. Imperialism is usually only argued for countries which are expanding outside of their countries. This would then work in the idea of Mussolini since he wanted colonies outside of the European continent.

From a political viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini pursued political strength and in order to have more influence over the negotiating table, they wanted to have more land. Thus the strength of imperialism and militarism was needed. From a Marxism stand point, there was no reason at all for these focuses on imperialism and nationalism since all borders would soon dissolve for one united people, the working people. Thus the struggle of Mussolini and Hitler for more land, more power, was simply pointless.

The foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler, mostly motivated by Nationalism, then continued on to use alliances in exchange for areas were imperialism and militarism failed.

Hitler wanted ‘Lebensraum’ (living space) for his German people. To that, his racial theories of the Aryan race caused great dislike for Eastern countries. While it can be argued, Hitler’s main goal towards the east was Russia. However a two front war had proven catastrophic for Germany in WWI. To that, the need for an ally was stronger to the years leading up to WWII then the main goal. For Hitler, alliances were only for the moment, “scraps of paper” as he would famously call the agreement between England and Germany at Munich.

One most important use of alliances, were militarism and imperialism served impossible at the time was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler wanted to gain Poland, and Stalin wanted to keep Germany from Russia’s throat. Both were happy, for the most part. Although Hitler’s nationalistic foreign policy aims focused on expansion to the east, there was no way he could risk a war with Russia yet. Hitler, while he may have been aiming for war, still hoped to gain as much land as he could by militarism and then political negotiations before total war was needed.

Mussolini also tried to use the work of alliances to in a way complete his foreign policies. A strong Italy alone could not stand long therefore he needed something to support him. To that, the more connections one had the more powerful one seemed. Allies could meet victory or defeat. However just like Hitler, Mussolini varied in his alliances. At first, with the Stresa Conference, it seemed as if Italy would side with Britain and France. A strong Stresa front against Germany. However this holding together with Britain, just like Germany with the Munich Conference, would not hold long. Britain wanted peace, Germany and Italy wanted expansion, and if war was needed they were open to it. To that it was Britain which often criticized Mussolini’s actions, just like the invasion of Abyssinia. In contrast Germany supported Italy. It was therefore only natural that the two countries would in the end join hand in hand in the Pact of Steel. This alliance worked since Mussolini had no wish to in anyway expand northwards, therefore this did not come into any conflict with his nationalistic foreign policy aims. The old former glory was focused on gaining colonies. Germany, too had no wish for Italian land. It was focused on the unity of the German race as well as expansion to the east.  Thus with the use of alliances, both countries could keep things politically under control until possible militaristic actions could be taken to fulfill the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

One could counter argue that Mussolini never considered alliances as a way to reach his goals. He saw it more as a needed method for being present in the world. If he could cut himself off and rule separately like the Roman emperor had done there would be no problem.

Hitler in contrast, it could be argued, saw alliances as the first mean to create a path for militarism, which then leads to imperialism. This can be seen by the actions he took to gain control of the Sudetenland. At first he seemed to ally himself with Britain, even signing the famous ‘scarp of paper’ at the Munich conference, declaring he had peaceful intentions, when he suddenly turned around, claimed the Sudetenland (politically legally) and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia as well.

Using prosopography, history taught through the eyes of a common man, then the path Hitler was taking to lead Germany was very confusing. As a common man he wished to follow his leader, and if his leader saw it fit to make allies with Russia or Britain it was fine as long as the up swinging economy and life style stayed. From a militaristic standpoint, Mussolini used alliances for nothing more then to gain more power for himself militarily speaking. This meant making alliances with countries whose land Italy wanted was a hindrance to the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

 

Analyzing the foreign polices of Hitler and Mussolini and aligning them with each other is something we can do now. At the time, each was acting for their individual goals, and for them the similarities may not have been as apparent. There is also the problem that we ourselves were not there at the time. We cannot in any way know whether they were both really opportunists or not. We do not have the feeling of anxiety at the time. To that, my analyses may be off. I, limited to a few textbooks and my view (which could be biased and only reflect one standpoint) can limit this analyses. Even questioning their similarities and difference of Mussolini’s foreign policy and Hitler’s can already cause complication. All we have to go on are the few things left behind.

Looking at the events mentioned above, it is possible to see that until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies. Nationalistic aims included bringing glory for their countries, economic strength, and expansion. It is of course hard to say who influenced who. Both living at the same time they may have subconsciously influenced each other. However what each leader wanted was clear, and how they went about it is clear as well. While it may be true to state that had it not been for the policy of Appeasement and the Failure of the League neither Hitler nor Mussolini had have gotten so far, there is no way we can ever be sure. We can only look at what facts we have and try to formulate our own opinions. 

Why were Germany and her Allies unsuccessful in WWI?

Germany’s downfall along with that of her Allies in WWI happened fairly rapidly, although this may have not seemed the case to the men fighting the War. However the German High Command knew that the end was nearing. Although some did not want to admit it, but the German fighting machine was chocking out its last few attempts at survival. Still with the “Black Day of the German Army”, the outflanking of the Hindenburg line and the taking of 100,000 German soldiers prisoners, it was clear to Hindenburg and Ludendorff that the end was nearing. Yet what had caused this huge failure of Germany and her allies? It is clear that from the very beginning the idea of the war was corrupted by a mislead government, politically unfit and unsound to lead a war, which in turn affected military, economic and social sides of Germany, irreplaceably important towards the war effort. Since the leadership of a country could not cooperate nor judge its enemies correctly, it poisoned all other pathways for any sort of functioning Germany or its allies.

One main problem with the idea of questioning what caused Germany’s failure is of course the fact that it is still possible that we do not have all the information, and to the fact I am limited to my own cultural view. Of course, for some, the German army never lost WWI and therefore this question is out of discussion. Also, the allies might not even have wanted Germany to win towards the end, which is totally based on the countries opinions. Still it can be argued that had it not been for Germany’s catastrophic political leadership, the areas of military, economics, and social may never even have been affected.

Political problems within the structure and leadership of Germany existed already before WWI, although this did not become evident until Germany went into War. German government was set up in a way that if Germany went to war, the Kaiser who controlled every other aspect of German affairs, would give the reigns to German Generals. This created several problems politically. Suddenly the head of the government was not in control anymore of his people, in a way the Generals were and they lead the war the ways they set fit. This therefore lead to people running the state which were not set on the well-being of the people and country but more in the sense of winning a war.

Another political issued which formed was the fact that the German government did not tax its people. Structurally this idea was never implemented in the German system, for one reason or another. However in war times, such a crucial side to be able to lead a functioning political body was important. Unused to such an idea, implementing tax during a war time, where people were already suffering would be irresponsible and showed the short-sightedness of the German politicians.

To that the German government also had no system in which it analyzed or handled the International Community with could also have bad effects on military, economy and social aspects of Germany.

With the main political problems mentioned above, these then had negative effects on the military aspects of Germany.

With the generals leading the war, they were overconfident in their War machine and therefore were sure any war attempted with France or Russia, would be easily won. Why should they not think this? Evidence in history showed that France and Russia were easy targets. Only a few decades earlier, Prussia had defeated France and taken over Paris in a number of days. Why should Germany not be able to do the same again? The same went for Russia as well. In the Russo-Japanese war, the country with the most human resources had been defeated by an island nation. In the eyes of the politicians and generals in Germany, it would be laughable not to be able to defeat them. To that, Germany was already more mobilized and prepared than any other country, as far as the Germans could see. During the Race of Industrialization, Germany had pulled through and followed well, even pulling out their own navy. What could possibly stop them now?

It is through these factors mentioned above that the birth of the Von Schleiffen Plan took place, under the overconfident eyes of the leaders of Germany. A two front war would not be a problem with weak enemies such as Russia and France. However another factor the German politicians did not consider was the resistance of Belgium and the quick reaction of England towards this violation of a neutral country. Again the German leadership had over exceeded itself by being unable to interpret international countries correctly.

It is also the lack of insight of the German political side that Allies such as the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary were taken. The Ottoman Empire had crippling strikes within itself and therefore was called the “Sick Man of Europe.” This did not actually strengthen military power, but actually weakened it, due to the fact that often the German army would have to come to the aid of its allies, and fighting a two front border already, this was too much to handle as well.

Another political lack of foresight which caused military problems was that of the effects of the Zimmermann Telegram, inciting Mexico to attack the U.S., and the unrestricted submarine warfare on the USA. By not accepting the possibilities of what such a telegram could mean to the U.S. if intercepted was not thought through. Neither was the fact that sinking American ships with civilians, or at least what could be possible civilians, thought maybe a too provoking act. In this way, the German politicians did not know how to use propaganda nor did they know how to play America in any way to their side, or at least to neutrality.

As counterargument, one could say that the German leaders had no way of knowing that the USA would enter the war, even if they intercepted the Zimmermann Telegram. This was of course totally based on observation. One could also argue that Germany was not overconfident of itself and underestimated its enemies, but factually saw the weakness of their enemies as facts. Therefore it only made sense that a plan as ambitious and simple as the Von Schleiffen Plan would work. This of course is perfect speculation since we cannot know the full scale feeling of the time.

From a prosopographic view, it was natural for the stronger country to invade weaker countries, as any common man in Germany would view France. To that, for them, the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had to be brought to justice and if this involved going to war so be it.

With the political problems bleeding into military decisions and affecting the war in grand scale, these actions also influenced the economy of Germany greatly.

With the Generals having unrestricted control over the countries resources, the war was soon led without thinking of the civilian population. This therefore went that the political leaders did not coordinate the military and the home front economy at all. Having built up the German economy mostly on war goods, a suddenly new implemented German Government Office known as the War Materials Office started deciding which companies produced war goods and which did not. They also decided who would fight and who would stay to work in the factories. This could only cause economic problems.

Suddenly companies where being paid by the government to produce war goods, therefore their production rate went up. However since the same company was producing materials for war, their workers also did not get taken from them for the war effort.

In contrast other companies not working for the war effort are suddenly having less circulation of goods while their workers are being taken for the war. Trying to clean up such a system once it has been implemented by the government is almost impossible, and the problems which arise from this set up does not become apparent to the German government until too late. German politics, without realizing the effects of letting generals run the government, had suddenly started ruining their own economy.

However the problems continue. Since the German government did not tax its people, the few companies who were making huge profits, did not aid the German economy or government funds at all. This also had therefore negative effects on how to finance the War. Simply put, we suddenly have unlimited war profits and the German government does not even take part in it! Thus the German government can only cover 15 percent of its costs, while in comparison England can cover almost twice that number.

Here again we see the problem of the German political structures. With it not using political possibilities available to it, it starts to affect the economic situation of Germany as well as its military side.

To level off the suddenly rising costs, the German government also does something which in long term is crippling: it starts to print money. Inflation ensues, which again affects the economy negatively. This lasting effect reaches all the way to the German government during the Inter-War period were it becomes dependant on USA loans.

German political actions had started to crippled the German economy, which in itself was very important for Germany’s military success. Suddenly, German politicians were faced with the problem of where to support its army from and with what?

The idea of German politics leading to economic problems can be challenged by the fact that since Germany had always never taxed its people, how should it know to start now, during the war? As well is the lasting effect of the printing of German money: politicians could not know the effect of such an action in 10 to 20 years.

From a cliometric perspective, Germany lost the war due to the failing home front economy, which could only lead to Germany being unable to finance its huge army. Factories begun to go bankrupt in answer to the bad economy and this downfall*of the economy at this moment, lead to the issues faced by the international community of the Interwar period as well as the beginning of World War II.

With the political leadership unable to solve the rising economic problems and is loosing the war, the social impact is strongly negative, molding the mindset of Germans for the next decade.

The people of Germany had always been proud of their Kaiser and of their government. However suddenly, people were suffering: famine and unemployment ensued. What was the reason for this? The German government. Therefore, suddenly people began to mistrust the German government system of a Kaiser. If the Kaiser let the generals run loose and destroy the German economy, why should the people continue to tolerate this government?

This in a way, brought forth the social breaking of Germany with the Kaiser and the political structure of the time. Without food and without work, the people decided to break away from the norm. This was one huge social change brought forth by the bad leadership of Germany.

It was the bad handling of International affairs by the German government, that USA enter the war, and with that, suddenly a huge enemy loomed at their gates. To that, with the Battle of Jutland, a stalemate between German and British navy, German population began to starve under the blockade and economic problems. With German politicians unable to find a solution to the problem, this blockade is kept up by the Allies even during the negations of 1919 and not until the Treaty of Versailles is signed do they lift it. German population starved which again reflected negatively on the relations between the government and its people.

Another change socially was that of the breaking away from German traditions. We can see this better during the Interwar period, but Germany began to blossom into something which wanted to break loose from its old bonds.

One could argue that in effect the society in itself would have broken from the government anyway since the war was lost. Even if the German government had not created all these problems within the country (unemployment, rising inflation) perhaps the German population would not have acted as negatively towards the Kaiser and gotten rid of him.

One could also say that the German nationalistic pride was more hurt by the fact that they had to go through all that suffering and then loosing the war, that they broke with German traditions. One can never be sure.

From a counterfactual view, what if the German society had not shunned the Kaiser? Would this still have caused the huge social change over the next decade? To that, would Germany have fallen had the Kaiser actually controlled his generals instead of letting them have free-reign?

It is clear that the question of why Germany and its Allies lost the war is perfectly based on opinions, why exactly could be because of all of multiple factors combined. For some, military decisions may be the main reason why Germany collapsed, for other it may even be economic. However, what can be said is that multiple factors affected Germany and its allies which turned the table in the favor of England, France, etc. It is clear though that the loosing of WWI by Germany lead to its turbulent years of Interwar Period and to WWII.

Analyze the Ways in which the First World War was fought

War has existed ever since we can remember. In the beginning they were small skirmishes, growing to become famous battles, and then leading to wars such as the First and Second World War. However the ways we fight nowadays compared to back in the ages is immensely different. World War I can be analyzed for so many different things, but its most obvious aspect is that of Warfare. In a way, World War I brought forth totally new sides to war causing huge changes in the way war is fought, the birth of propaganda, and the concept of Total War.

Analyzing the actual way the Great War was fought always brings forth speculations. Why are we actually asking ourselves this? I believe in a way we believe that World War I totally changed the way we look at warfare, however this could be challenged. Perhaps it was not the war itself which makes us so different nowadays but the actual actions the people took under the war.

However it is clear that the First Great War’s fighting had many impacts on later wars, especially World War II.

Looking at one aspect which World War I influenced, this includes the actual technical aspect of war, such as weapons and the way battles were fought. In the beginning there was the machine gun. This new weapon enabled a single man to shoot multiple bullets at a time, enabling him to mow down several people in one go. Sudden charges of huge masses of men had lost their effects. This continues with the tanks and artillery. Although horses where still used to pull the artillery, the actual effect of a horse rider versus artillery or a machine gun were close to zero.

Another invention which in the beginning was looked down upon was the tank. For qhen they were launched they were close to useless. Cramped in tiny spaces, soldiers would often become sick from the fumes of the engine, not to forget that often the tanks would not even move or turn on. However, with the idea of an armored car, the basis was founded for the rise of the great tank divisions of Germany in World War II.

Also, suddenly camouflage became important to soldiers. With fast guns, an easily spotted target would not live long. Therefore it became more and more important to blend in with the surroundings. The red pants of the French were soon to their disadvantage as they were easily to spot. This had never been of such importance before as in WWI.

The newest and most horrifying invention of warfare however was the trench warfare and its follower: poisonous gas. Without being able to outflank each other, the Germans began to dig in trenches in order to put up a hard line to overrun. Soon men were rotting away in cold, rat ridden trenches. The fast pacing battles were practically over now. Instead men fought over meters of land.

Poisonous gas, first used in the Battle of Ypres by the Germans, only served to escalate the misery of trench warfare. It served no purpose other then to kill the enemy in masses, causing totally new aspects of warfare to open. This had not come before World War I.

Arguing the idea of change of warfare due to World War I, one should not forget that although many new weapons and ways of war were brought forth, horses and cavalry were still present within the First Great War and were used a lot on the Eastern Fronts. Therefore new inventions did not totally flush out the old. To that, the mechanization of the army already started before World War I, with the invention of guns and artillery. It is only with the escalation of WWI that this went to such extreme measures.

Looking at the new warfare from a Militaristic point of view, the new warfare started a totally new epoch within war, something which could perhaps later be called Total War, (discussed more later) in the respect of the aspect of killing people. From a counterfactual standpoint, one would question whether World War I would have been so terrible and cost so many lives if none of the technical war changes would have been made? Would WWI even be discussed as much without the technological changes?

Another aspect of war which changed during World War I was how to gain the support of the people, how to recruit men, and how to incite women to work. This new method became propaganda. Propaganda was a mean to control the masses of a country. While each side used propaganda, each however was effective on different levels, such as Adolf Hitler states in his work “Mein Kampf”.

The British clearly made the Germans figures out of horror stories calling them Huns, and saying they raped and mutilated Belgium which made the British folk stand behind its government. Not only that but it caused men to be ready for the horrors of the war.

However the Germans in contrast, by actually making the English look insignificant and weak, caused the exact opposite effect upon their soldiers. Suddenly a German soldier felt like its fatherland was lying to him and that the war was for nothing. Propaganda soon had huge effects upon the moral of men, which again changed the way a war had been fought.

Propaganda also could be used to gain allies. A good example of this is England’s manipulation of America through the Transatlantic Cable by telling them horror stories of how the “Huns” of Germany misused “innocent little” Belgium. This could been seen on posters of propaganda everywhere, in movies, and even in art pieces. The power of propaganda can be seen especially well in movies of the time as well. When Britain brought forth actual filmings of the front to its people without realizing that the showing of men dying in masses could have negative effects on the moral, we can gain a small glimpse on how propaganda can backfire and yet how much mass of people it actual effects.

However it was through this propaganda that World War I was able to spread throughout the ranks of society, even inciting school teachers (who had almost never before marched to war) to grab their gun and enter the army. War was no longer just for the professional army men but also for farmers, workers, etc. Propaganda also enabled the country to use its women as labor workers in factories, working for days on end to help their men at the front.

One could argue however that the effect of propaganda was not as huge in World War I as in World War II. To that, propaganda had existed in small amounts before World War I and was therefore not just an invention of the First Great War. Propaganda also has its limits, for like Hitler stated in his analysis, propaganda is limited to the least cleverest in society. Therefore propaganda, no matter how much effect it had, it could not effect everyone.

Looking at the birth of propaganda in WWI from a Women Historian view, women suddenly were also involved in war. While they have been so in limited amounts before, they suddenly had become the driving labor force. With propaganda inciting women to work the hardest they can for their men, and also seeing the horrors men had to face out their in the fields upon propaganda movies, this incited women to work hard for their country as nurses, factory laborers and whatnot.

A revisionist would see propaganda as a new field opened within society where the government suddenly possessed a tool which they could use effectively to manipulate and control its people. This also gave birth to the even larger usage of propaganda during World War II, especially by Hitler.

The third aspect which the new ways WWI was fought gave rise to is the concept of total war. Total war uses all resources of a country, including natural resources as well as human resources. Suddenly huge amounts of soldiers like never before were required. Citizens were also suddenly involved as well, often acting as side victims to war. Even women, like stated in the before paragraph, became used more and more. Not only that but resource such as food, iron, etc. where used to a countries limit amounts. Colonies became very important in order to provide the substances needed for a country to endure in the war, be it food or humans. Suddenly war was no longer a side effect for a country. Instead everything went into one single purpose: war.

With the concept of total war, men could no longer fight without the support of the homeland. This is one of the reasons why women, even in the worst conditions continued in producing shells. They knew that the men in the front needed shells to survive. No matter that the women began to be poisoned by TNT and soon began to be nicknamed “canaries”, women fought onwards for their men.

Another aspect of Total War seen within World War I is the actual involvement of the citizens. With the bombardment of London by Zeppelins, it was no wonder that innocent bystanders would be killed, such as Jay Winter states, a kindergarten. War no longer involved only men at certain battle fields far away from main cities. Instead, it became the actual horror of every person within the country, no matter whether old or young.

Total War was born through the new technologies (since through them new resources where needed such as shells) but also propaganda caused the spread of total war. Before, war was seen as something a king was holding with another country and it did not really affect the citizens as much as it did the professional knights. Perhaps there were higher taxes and less food but not the big involvement such as in World War I, stirred up by propaganda. Ignoring posters and movies everybody else was watching became practically impossible.

A good example of total war was DORA of the British. Acting as the Defense of the Realm Act, the society and resources was suddenly perfectly controlled. Bread was prohibited from being fed to animals, instead to be saved for the army. Gold and silver could not be melted down, etc. The country suddenly started to control the resources more and more to ensure everything was used for the war and to keep any rumors from spreading since this also could hurt the war.

As a counterargument, looking at Napoleon for example, countries had always invaded other countries and then used their resources. Otherwise it was practically impossible to feed larger armies. To that new stage in war for each new epoch was seen as the horror of the time. Therefore in a twisted sort of way, Total War was simply a new invention seen as something totally horrific when it actually also had its positive sides.

From a Militaristic standpoint, the concept of Total war is the idea of just war: the killing of people, new weapons and new strategies of war. It has nothing at all to do with the economic or social aspects of total war.

Prosopography would say that with total war, the common man became an active participant, opinion, and voice within the war, therefore being able to fully state what Total War is. Seen from the eyes of the common people therefore, Total War was horrible since innocent people without defense were being killed at the time, and the people who wanted nothing to do with the war, had to suddenly produced huge amounts of weapons.

All in all, World War I was the beginning of a totally new way of fighting. Still why would we analyze the fighting of WWI? Even with the huge changes which where brought with World War I (such as propaganda, tanks, etc.), how is this in any way significant? When looking at the First Great War using our sense perception and reasoning, we could say that in a way, it shaped all the later wars, especially World War II. In a twisted way, without understanding the origins of WWI and its inventions, there is no way to understand WWII. To that, reason tells us that no matter how insignificant something is within society at the time (which World War I certainly wasn’t) it still will have an effect on our society today. *** With using our four ways of knowing from TOK, we can learn to understand exactly how the war changed the times then and now.

With World War I everything changed. It was no longer just professional soldiers marching out to battle fields but also scholars and headmasters, and even in a metaphorical sense: women. Not only that but World War I also brought forth totally new sides to war causing huge changes in the way war is fought, the birth of propaganda, and the concept of Total War.

With the new ways of fighting, new weapons begun to be used. While horses and cavalry still existed and where used in multiple numbers, they now where backed-up by artillery or could not be used at all, like in the trenches. Propaganda, lead to the including of civilians and making a war not only the business of kings and rulers. With these two things, World War I was able to give rise to something totally new and shocking of the age: Total War. With it, the war had suddenly reached no more limits. No matter who, they could die, and no matter what, it had to be used for the success of the army. The world didn’t care anymore what the limits where, it just kept on fighting.