Originally, the Japanese adopted policy that modeled after the West's foreign policy, and so this was portrayed by the relatively humane treatment in Taiwan. As shown in the documentary, German prisoners-of-war in Japan were treated quite well. However, a shift in foreign policy brought Japan back to traditional influence, and they began to isolate themselves from Western influence. Japan began to imperialize neighboring countries and colonies; these actions were condemned by the League of Nations. As the Japanese found this criticism hypocritical, they left the League and took drastic measures in order to expand their empire. This contributes to their change in treatment towards other ethnicities. They believed that the emperor was a God, and so any actions under him were justified. They were also taught that the other ethnicities were not human, and that they themselves were the supreme race. As a result of this dehumanization, treatment towards other ethnicities became brutal and atrocious. Massacres and rape were commonly seen in these atrocities.
0 Comments
Arguably, Austria-Hungary deserves the most blame for the start of WWI, as the conflict started out entirely between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was hungry (no pun intended) for more territory and refused to have the Serbs within the empire join Serbia for their "Greater Serbia". The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a trigger, and Austria-Hungary used this opportunity to impose the Ultimatum on Serbia. They were the ones who wished to provoke war with Serbia, because they wanted an excuse to invade Serbia. The Ultimatum was entirely a plot to start war. And so Austria-Hungary's ambitions and conflict with Serbia were the main causes that led to WWI.
Although many historians argue that Germany bears the most responsibility to WWI, being that the Blanc Cheque provided unconditional support to Austria-Hungary, isn't it ironic to argue so? This agreement was agreed on by both sides, not just Germany, and so shouldn't Austria-Hungary bear the same responsibility for the creation of the Blanc Cheque? Even though it's true that without German support, Austria-Hungary would not have reacted so violently to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the truth still remains: Austria-Hungary was the one who declared war on Serbia--and wanted to--Germany was merely offering support in case Austria-Hungary were to need it. Adding on to that, if the blame were to be placed on Germany for the Blanc Cheque, shouldn't the Triple Entente bear the same amount of blame? After-all, all the alliances formed between the European nations during this period could be blamed for the exact same reason. Germany invading Belgium is also a proposed argument for placing the majority of blame of this nation, however, this event was not a CAUSE for WWI. This event simply provoked Britain to join in the war to protect Belgium, and although it was not justified for Germany to do so, it remains to be true that WWI was not caused by this event. To address when WWI really started and became "worldwide", the war was never truly worldwide in the first place. It was simply a name and title given to the war, and so I would define that WWI started as soon as Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Therefore it is arguable that Austria-Hungary was the one that started the war and deserves the most blame, as they were the first to declare war and initiate WWI. Also, Britain, France, and Russia's actions later on were simply reactive and defensive, and so it is not justified to place most of the blame on them. They were simply intimidated by Austria-Hungary's engagement in war with Serbia (and support from Germany), and with Russia demonstrating its alliance to Serbia by joining the war, France enacts its alliance with Russia by hopping on the bandwagon as well. To support my argument, I would like to voice my support for and talk about Dr. Heather Jones and Dr. Annika Mombauer. Both express their views on placing equal amount of blame on Austria-Hungary, however, I feel that Austria-Hungary bears more responsibility in starting WWI than Germany. Both argue that the Blanc Cheque is a justification for placing the blame on Germany, however, Germany simply offered support to Austria-Hungary--they were not the ones who declared war on Serbia and initiated WWI. Although Germany does bear a large part of responsibility to WWI, they do not deserve the MOST fault for this devastating war. So you could say I support only partially of their provided arguments, as I do agree with their point that Austria-Hungary is one of the main actors in causing WWI. Donald Fraser was a Canadian soldier who carried rations to the firing lines, a long with many of his companions. They had walked for three hundred yards to deliver at the muddy trenches and Fraser describes the conditions and situations of these trenches. He describes the unsanitary and miserable lifestyle that the soldiers had to endure, "once a fighting soldier leaves England he practically sleeps in his clothes till he gets back there again" (Fraser, 1915). The frightening conditions while living in the trenches; and even when they are delivering the rations, it was a dangerous task because they were only safe from the rifle bullets once they descended into the trenches. Even at night, both sides continued to fire back and forth, ensuring a tireless night; the soldiers often were sleep-deprived and had a very small selection of food despite the increase in food supplies. Soldiers were even "rewarded" with teaspoonfuls of rum occasionally. Men were often wounded or killed out in the open. Fraser was led to a dug-out, where the soldiers stayed; the conditions were terrible as they were dirty and rat-infested.
One of the most difficult parts of living in these trenches is the harsh lifestyle and stressful conditions the soldiers are required to live under. For example, good sanitation is very lacking, the trenches and dug-outs are infested with rats and pests, food supplies are low and limited, and most of all, the soldiers live under sleep-deprived days where they are faced with the cruelty of war. This could often result in soldiers becoming shell-shocked and psychologically damaged. I would try to deal with the stress by being observant but also laying low, in order to not get thrown out to the no-man's-land and risk getting wounded or killed. Talking to the people around would probably help distract from the on-going dangers in the battlefield as well. Whatever role I was given, I would truthfully be terrified, because no one would want to live under these conditions willingly. However, I would have a sense of duty as this position was given to me and you have to fight for your nation. If I survived, I think the tragedies of war would've devastated me so badly that I would never have the same outlook on life or anything else, for that matter. |
Categories
All
HelloWell this is for my History Class. Archives
May 2015
Please give me an 'A+' |