Arms+Race

=Arms Race= Newly industrialized European nations sought to maintain a balance of power by matching one anothers military capabilities. France sought to finance Russian expansion and Britian strove to maintain naval supremacy. Many hidden alliances and the surrounding ambience of war, also fueled the need for an arms race between the European powers. Closely approaching the First World War, the arms race began to intensify as tensions ran high with many European nations. Both Germany and England are two prime examples of significantly increasing the expenditures on arms, in particularly naval weapons and ships, as these two nations were close rivals on the seas. Many European countries had already introduced military conscription or military service by the 1880's. Conscription efforts harshly intensified to increase the strength of many standing armies. The arms race in Europe can also be closely scrutinised by looking at the rivalry between Germany and Britain, particularly increases in naval expenditures. Laws were passed in 1898 in Germany enabling the navy to increase the number of battleships in the naval fleet and another law later in 1900 enabled the naval fleet to double the German naval power. This clearly shows that Germany was very eager to be close rivals with Britain in the seas, as they saw an opportunity to attempt to defeat the British. As the arms race intensified close to the First World War, both Germany and Britain began to construct 'Dreadnought's' (A large battleship, which revolutionised Naval battles in the early 20th Century. These battleships marked a significant advance in naval technology in the Arms Race) During the tim eof the Arms Race, some Germans believed that Germany could increase its power in Europe through a war, and this was one of the reasons for increasing military expenditure. As most European countries continued to increase military expenditure, by 1914 all Europen countries were prepared for a conflict. However did this gradual arms race lead to envitable war between the european nations?

//A statement by Winston Churchill, first lord of the admiralty, to the committee of the Imperial Defence, 11 July,1912.//
 * Source A**

//'The ultimate scale of the German fleet is of the most formidable character... The whole character of the German fleet shows that it is designed for aggressive and offensive action of largest possible character in the North Sea or the North Atlantic ... The structure of the German battleships show clearly that they are intended for attack and for fleet action ... I do not pretend to make any suggestion that the Germans would deliver any surprise or sudden attack upon us. It is not for us to assume that another great nation will fall markedly below the standard of civilization which we ourselves should be bound by ; but we at the Admiralty have got to see, not that they will not do it, but [that] they cannot do it.//

Firstly Churchill at this time was a highly educated British politician so there for considering this source we must remember that the perspective of Churchill is from that of a British Politician. Therfore the source could be seen as the opinion of several other higher order thinking British politicians or higher ranked military personnel. In this Source //'A statement by Winston Churchill//' it is evident that the British were very cautious and wary of Germanic expansion in europe. The **Date** is important in this source as it was published 2 years before the outbreak of WW1 it predicts a certain upcoming war, in the eyes of several people both historians and politicians of the time. As said in the Source, Churchill states that //I do not pretend to make any suggestion that the Germans would deliver any surprise or sudden attack upon us// which states the English knowledge of an upcoming war, and the expansion of the German navy. This statement also indicates that the Germans may not have any intentions to 'suddenly' attack Britain. The source is relevant to the arms race because it labels England's fear of upcoming war, one of which they out-geared but not outnumbered in, due to the fact at-least 100 ships out of the 600 in the english fleet were vastly outdated and unequip.
 * Overview of Source A**

The T**one** in this statement is also quite important as it conveys a defensive tone intended to build up anti german views among the committee of imperial defence and later on the english public. It is written in a way that it was intended to strike a nerve among the committee of Imperial defence and generate readiness or anti germanic views pre WW1. The tone of this statement also relates to the **Audience** Churchill is trying to appeal. He is trying to label Germany as the enemy, to convince the public and build 'anti-german' views in order to gain public support for a convincing justification to continue to update weapons and naval battleships. Some of these suggestions may have also lead to significant changes in public policy, implemented by the Government.

Churchill's **Motive** to write this statement was to pressure England through the Committee of Imperial Defence to build and strengthen the British naval fleet. This would pressure the Committee to build up England's naval fleet and would further Churchill in his polictical role and also power as a politician. Churchill was the first lord of admiralty (Minister for naval affairs) so it was in his right mind to push this arguement or demand. Obliviously Churchill's position as the minister for naval affairs would affect his perspective on the arms race and the 'German threat'. This may be useful for a historian studying the British political perspective on the naval rivalry between Germany and Britain. This perspective of the source is effective as it can give historians one perspective of an issue, giving Historians the 'full story' or perspective of an event, in this case the British and German rivalry.

To **conclude** on Source A it is a reliable document and a great example of 'Splendid isolation', the term used to describe England's foreign policy pre WW1. The source's reliability is further strengthened by its origin and date, as it is a primary source, from Winston Churchill, based from 1912 two years before the war. This source is also **useful** for historians studying the rivalry and arms race, showing the build up of events from the perspective of 'higher order (politician) thinkers' of British society. It also shows England's fears of an upcoming war and its acknowledgment of Germany as a rising power.


 * Source B**

//A Graph showing the spending on armaments by the Great Powers, 1872-1912// // It showed Germany 1st, Russia 2nd, Italy 3rd, Britain 4th and France in last. // //Increases in arms expenditure are given in percentage not as an actual figure of expenditure.//


 * Overview of source B**

Source B has no know author and this presents obvious flaws in **Reliably** and A**bility to Know.** Its labeled a broad overview of the military expenditure during 1872-1912 and seen to be a neutral author representing a lack of **Bias**. The information presented in the source is very factual and represents total expenditure as a percentage increase of previous years leading up to 1872 (1832-1871). The source also reinforces the key ideals of the arms race, which is that every European nation gradually started to increase their expenditures on arms, clearly shown in the graph. Therefore the source may be seen as **useful** for some historians as it gives a good indication of the efforts by European countries to increase military expenditure leading up to the war. However in another sense, this source may be seen as un-useful as it only shows the increases as percentage of spending. So for a nation such as Britain, prior to the arms race it may have already had significantly larger expenditures on arms then Germany, and had no desire to drastically alter the spending on arms and military, however during the arms race it has a smaller increase then Germany.

This even though it cannot be considered **reliable** it is a very good source for the 'Arms Race' as it gives us a direct indication of the arms race by showing the increase of spending on armaments by the European powers from 1872-1912. The graph shows expenditures on arms in percentages and this shows that the Germans had increased their military significantly as followed by other european powers. This shows that all the european powers were arming up for a 'inevitable' conflict in the coming years. These spending on arms were increased as many European countries were expanding at the time, and many, such as Germany, saw war as an opportunity to expand. (say something about arming up because of an increase in wars leading up to 1912).

The only reason you could see this source to be seen to be **bias** is the fact that its the percentage increase not money spent increase, where a country like england with consistantly high military expenditure would not increase its military spending as rapidly (percentage wise) as a country like Italy or Germany who have just recently united would need to build rapidly on their pre existing army in order to arm for war. Therefore they may be no real **perspective** of the source, solely to relay information about the increases of expenditure during the arms race.

To conclude, the source gives the audience a very good indication, of factual evidence, of the increased efforts during the arms race, despite a lack of an author. The lack of origin or author in this case can present some oblivious flaws in reliablity, however this creates no bias, and solely a statistic giving the audience good indications of the common trends in the years leading to the war. There is no real perspective of the source and therefore may be useful for historians studying the statistics as there are no bias facts or figures, a 'purely neutral source'.

__**British and German Defence Spending**__
 * Source C**
 * || Britain ||  || Germany ||   ||
 * Year || Average Yearly Spending || % National Income || Average Yearly Spending || % National Income ||
 * 1886-1890 || 626 || 2.35 || 510 || 2.35 ||
 * 1891-1895 || 664 || 2.29 || 586 || 2.59 ||
 * 1896-1900 || 820 || 2.3 || 637 || 2.4 ||
 * 1901-1905 || 1966 || 5.33 || 848 || 2.69 ||
 * 1906-1910 || 1220 || 2.93 || 1294 || 3.23 ||
 * 1911-1913 || 1071 || 2.12 || 1469 || 3.1 ||


 * Overview of Source C**


 * Source C illustrates British and German Spending from 1886-1913. It shows as stated in the other-view of source B that England even though they had a lesser percentage increase in military expenditure they still spend similar amounts of money in armaments comparatively to Germany. This is a useful comparative source, to show the difference and similarities between 'expenditure trends of Germany and Britain naval fleets. Similarly to source B, the source has no author, questioning **reliability**,** simply just a statistic. It is solely a fact not opinion, or indication of the percentage of income spent on defence during the 30 years or so leading up to World War 1. The source itself is quite **useful** as it further illustrates the trends of expenditure on arms, in particular focusing on the Germans and the British. This illistrates my statement in source B that even though the German expediture percentage wise on the overall scale of things the two countries military expenditures were very similar.

The document is quite **useful** for a historian or teacher gaining an understanding for these two military's expenditures before the outbreak of WW1. It shows the Audience a clear representation of military expenditure before WW1 and the

percent of national income spent on defence spending. This provides a factual rather then opinional view on the arments and is more likely to be correct, showing no **bias**.As it was collected

There are no obvious flaws in the reliablity of the source and the fact that it agrees with source B and also with other sources viewed. It shows factual knowledge of the two nations military expenditure and how they rapidly increased before

WW1.

To conclude, this source gives the audience a very accurate table,of factual evidence rather then just a percentage. The lack of origin or author in this case aswell as in source B can present some flaws in reliablity, though due to the fact our sources all agree we can see these sources to be reliable. It being a statistical table states no **bias**, and represents a neutral source documenting the military expenditure. There is no clear perspective in this source which leads to me summerise that it would be very useful for a historian or teacher wanting to look into the 'arms race'.

__Naval Expansion (1897)__ //(i) In my view, Germany will, in the coming century, rapidly drop from her position as a great power unless we begin to develop our maritime interests energetically, systematically and without delay.// //Tirpitz,1895// //(ii )In view of the changes in the balance of power in Asia and America, the Navy will, in the coming century, become increasingly important for our defence policy, indeed for our entire foreign policy. Tirpitz, February 1899//
 * Source D**

Source D is very similar to Source A, as it shows 'higher order thinking', however in this case from the **perspective** of the Germans. Tirpitz was a German Admiral, Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office, similarly to Churchill. Tirpitz's perspective would be of 'higher order German' thinking, similar to other politicians aorund the time in Germany. This would indicate that the source shows a common belief amongst the German politicians, giving histoians very good indications of thoughts on public and defence policies. Tirpitz's stresses that Germany can only reach its full potential as a European power, if they further develop the navy, and in the coming years the naval will play a large role in Germany's defence. The **date** of this source is also significant as it around 15-20 years before the war, and Germany had started to increase its efforts for building a stronger navy. Tirpitz's **motive** is to convey his opinions regarding the navy, and try to convince other politicians of the naval significance, and the future role it may play. These statements are efforts to attempt to increase the German naval power, in order to expand the German Empire.
 * Overview of Source D**

The document is quite **useful** for historians, studying the arms race, leading up to World War One, as it shows the **audience** a clear indication of 'higher order thinkers' in Germany at the time, and their justifications for increasing expenditure on arms, particularly naval fleets. The source is very useful to historians as the motive of Tirpitz's may represent the views and opinions of many other politicians of Germany during the time of the arms race. The **date** is significant and useful for historians as it accurately shows how these trends and beliefs were formed before the war, and gave German politicians and military leaders time to enforce these policies to prepare for any conflict in the future. (inviteable war?)

There are no oblivious flaws in the **reliablity** of the source, as it has a reliable origin and represents a similar view of the naval expansion in Germany of several other German significant figures. After Tirpitz's became the navy secretary, a bill was passed that allowed the construction of numerous ships within seven years, to boost the German naval fleet. The statements remarked are from a powerful figure head in German politics, and are slightly bias, encouraging the construction and strengthening of a German fleet. The date of the source also strengthens the reliablity as it is close to the beginning of the expansion of the naval fleet, showing the audience that his statements and wishes eventually came to fruition.

In conclusion this source is very similar to Source A, showing the perspective and opinion of the 'higher order thinking' Germans and how they influenced the efforts of the arms race.


 * Conclusion and Causes of the War: The Historians Debate**

Many of the newly industrialised European nations continued to build up armaments to attempt to match other nations in military power, however were these actions to lead to an enviteable war in Europe. As shown in Sources B and C, it is clear that there was a common trend spreading across Europe, the increase of expenditures and efforts to further advance armaments. These particular trends are significantly shown beteween the rivalry of Britain and Germany, and the large increased effort made by Germany. Some Historians such as Kagan and Joll, mention the significance of Germany maintaining their military force and that the tension of this would eventually lead to an inviteable war. (However some historians believe that the war was not inevitable, due to factors such as the background of the European nations leading to the war, and the fact that only one event could lead into a chain reaction across Europe.)

Therefore after extensively scrutinising a wide range of both primary and secondary sources we can conclude that there was a common trend among the European nations (some more then others-Germany) to gradually increase expenditures and efforts to build armaments and stay competitive with each other. However alone it was not simply the arms race that led to a war. It was a combination of background events occuring in Europe and th construction and demise of alliances between nations.