The Outbreak Of WWI An Accident History Essay

The Outbreak Of WWI An Accident History Essay The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand occurred on 28th June 1914. It can be argued that the Archdukes assassination has led to the idea that the outbreak of World War One (WWI) was an accident, an event that led to the greatest war the world had ever seen at that point. However, no single event can be solely responsible for causing such devastating consequences. There were other factors that led to the Great War, tensions that had been building for some time, a result of issues derived mainly from the past centuries imperialism and the rapid industrialisation that was changing the face of the world. Alliances between countries had been leading to and causing friction between European countries for quite a period of time, namely between the years 1879 and 1914. These alliances were key in factoring towards the outbreak of World War One. Furthermore, a complicated web of alliances across Europe was in place in 1914. The main alliances on either side were; The Triple Alliance (1882), which was an alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, which stopped Italy from taking sides with Russia and The Triple Entente that, was made between Britain, Russia, and France to counter the increasing threat from Germany. At the point of the outbreak of war, it was extremely clear who would be allied with one another. The building tensions between countries factored towards the outbreak of WWI, whilst the alliances in place throughout Europe contributed towards the size and scale of the First World War. Another key factor that contributed towards the outbreak of WWI was militarism. Countries competed were competing with one another in terms of military prowess. The period preceding WWI has been called ‘The Arms Race. In essence, the big four powers of Europe; Britain, France. Germany and Italy were competing to build the most effective battleship. ‘If Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated in 1904 or even in 1911, Herrmann speculates there might have been no war; it was the armaments race and the speculation about imminent or preventative wars which made his death in 1914 the trigger for war. Furthermore, the German naval build up is seen by some historians as the principal cause of deteriorating Anglo-German relations. The outbreak of the First World War occurred at a time of empires and imperialism. Furthermore, many of the economic causes of WWI can be attributed to a growing material dependency of advancing European nations on nationalism. France and Great Britain, for example maintained domestic economies and accumulated great wealth in the late 19th Century through trade, and their control of foreign resources, markets, territories and people. Moreover, Germany being a late arrival on the world stage, had a very modest empire compared to that of Britain or France. It was also locked out of the most valuable colonial regions in Africa and the Far East. There was also an upset in the trade balance with the rapid exhaustion of natural resources in many European nations. This exhaustion of natural resources made many nations eager to seek new territories rich in such resources. Out of this resentment intense rivalries developed between the emerging economic powers and the ‘great powers. Nationalism was another deep rooted factor that contributed to the outbreak of WWI. In Germany for example, Foreign Minister Bernhard Von Bulow adopted a policy called Weltpolitik in 1897. This policy aimed to seek ‘Germanys place in the sun commensurate with its rising industrial strength, namely by the creation of a colonial power to rival those of other powers. Furthermore, Germanys Weltpolitik policy contributed towards the arms race, another key factor in the outbreak of the First World War. When Wilhelm II became the new Kaiser in 1888 he had very different intentions for German diplomacy. Weltpolitik was essentially a plan that aimed to make Germany a large, strong and unbeatable empire in every possible way. The Agadir crisis was the international tension sparked by the deployment of a German gunboat to the Moroccan port of Agadir on July 1, 1911. The Agadir crisis occurred as a result of both imperialism and nationalism. The Triple Entente came into play during this cr isis with Britain at Frances aid as it had been in the first Moroccan crisis. Furthermore, on 21st July David Lloyd George delivered the Mansion House speech in which he declared that national honour was more precious than peace; ‘If Britain is treated badly where her interests are vitally affected, as if she is of no account in the cabinet of nations, then I say emphatically that peace at that price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great country like ours to endure The speech was interpreted by Germany as a warning that she could not impose an unreasonable settlement on France. Moreover the Balkan wars are commonly seen as an important precursor to WWI, to the extent that ‘Austria-Hungary took alarm at the great increase in Serbias territory and regional status. Germany also shared this concern, which saw Serbia as a ‘satellite of Russia. These events factored towards the outbreak of the First World War in the sense that Serbias rise in power contributed to the two central powers willingness to declare war following the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. However, in terms of a counter-argument it can be argued that the outbreak of WWI was an accident, as from surface value it appears to have been sparked by a relatively small event in comparison to the devastation and turmoil that occurred afterwards. On 28th June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie, were assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. The assassins ultimate goal was the separation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and possibly other provinces from Austria-Hungary and attachment to Serbia to form a greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia. This event essentially led to a chain reaction influenced by the alliances between the main European powers. The alliances made prior to the assassination of the Archduke meant that countries were obliged to go to war. Thus, Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in retaliation for the assassination; Russia intervened to help the Serbians. Germany joined forces with Austria-Hungary, and France and Britain wer e bought in as a result of The Triple Entente an alliance between Britain, France and Russia. So in conclusion, I personally believe that the outbreak of WWI was not an accident to any extent. It was a result of deep-rooted factors that had been building tensions for some time, sparked off by a single event (the assassination of the Archduke) If other factors such as imperialism, nationalism, etc, did not come into play then World War One would almost certainly never have occurred. The nature of the period itself, very much a period about incredible power and wealth, a result of rapid colonisation and industrialisation would have also been a leading factor towards the outbreak of World War One. Bibliography Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes Bond, The First World War and British Military History History on the net The causes of WWI Wikipedia The origins of WWI History on the net, The causes of World War One History on the net, The Causes of World War One Bond, The First World War and British Military History History on the net, The Causes of World War One Bond, The First World War and British Military History Wikipedia, The origins of WWI Wikpedia, The origins of WWI History on the net, The causes of WWI History on the net, The causes of WWI

Computers And Strategic Games :: Technology Thinking Papers

Computers and Strategic Games We all know that computers can help a jumbo jet land safely in the worst of weather, aid astronauts in complex maneuvers in space, guide missiles accurately over vast stretches of land, and assist doctors and physicians in creating images of the interior of the human body. We are lucky and pleased that computers can perform these functions for us. But in doing them, computers show no intelligence, but merely carry out lengthy complex calculations while serving as our obedient helpers. Yet the question of whether computers can think, whether they are able to show any true intelligence has been a controversial one from the day humans first realized the full potential of computers. Exactly what intelligence is, how it comes about, and how we test for it have become issues central to computer science and, more specifically, to artificial intelligence. In searching for a domain in which to study these issues, many scientists have selected the field of strategic games. Strategic games requ ire what is generally understood to a high level of intelligence, and through these games, researchers hope to measure the full potential of computers as thinking machines (Levy & Newborn 1). From the beginning, some have argued that computers would never be good at strategic games until humans themselves understood how they themselves played and then modeled computers to play the same way. Most computer scientists felt that humans carried out highly selective searches, and programmers initially set out to have their programs do the same. It was believed that special-purpose computer languages in which gaming concepts could be easily expressed were necessary. There were some that argued that although human intuition could not be programmed, it was required for top-level play. Computers have improved gradually over the years from the point of barely making legal moves to the current state of being world-class players. On the surface, they do not seem to imitate the human thought process, but upon closer examination, one begins to sense that they do. How exactly do computers play strategic games? The best way of answering this question is to look at how computers play the g ame of chess, as this game in order to be mastered requires what we consider to be the highest level of intelligence. Among all the strategic games, the game of chess has been studied the most by AI researchers with the objective of making chess-playing machines that can defeat the best human players.

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail” Dr. Martin Luther

In his â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham Jail† Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenges the preconceived notions of his fellow clergymen and argues that â€Å"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.†Ã‚   (King, 1963). Dr. King had been chastised by a number of clergy in Birmingham as an outside agitator stirring up trouble in their city. Early on, he explained his idea that no citizen of the United States can be considered an agitator when protesting or acting with regard to something else happening with the country’s borders. Furthermore, King argues that what happens in Birmingham affects Atlanta and Washington, D.C. and New York City.   In many ways, he was arguing the idea of globalization and world conscious long before they became buzz words and the way of the world. King argued that as a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference he had no option other than to fight for social justice throughout the South.After justifying himself to t he other clergy, King explains why the demonstrations for which he was arrested are taking place in Birmingham.   In gentle rebuke, he points out that the clergymen have condemned the conditions that resulted because of the protest but have never taken time to rebuke the conditions that required the demonstrations take place. â€Å"Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case, â€Å"King wrote (King 1963).Despite those conditions, leaders within the African American community approached city leaders attempting to find a path to social justice via the law.   They were humored and strung along by the establishment, but never did the city try to make any good faith effort to try to change the conditions. And, at the time of King’s letter, being born an African American in Alabama in general and Birmingham in particular virtually guaranteed a lack of rights.   â€Å"Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants — for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttles worth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.† (King, 1963).The signs were the overt racism inherent in Birmingham, but the roots in the region went much deeper. African Americans were consistently denied the right to vote, sometimes to the point that in counties where the majority of the population was black, not a single African American was registered to vote. King argues clearly that these maneuvers to hold people back from racial equality were often being done within the confines of the law and that was a problem in and of it.He   further argues that taking direct action will spur the community toward negotiation and an effort to change. â€Å"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.† (King, 1963)   If no action is taken, King agues, then the status quo does not change. People are not prompted to change, or even to negotiate for improvement if there is no impetus for their effort.â€Å"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiatio n. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved South land been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.† (King, 1963). It is important to note that throughout his call to action, King reiterates that the direct actions should be non-violent designed to make people uncomfortable and disrupt daily routines, not aggressive or threatening.He answers complaints that the protest came too soon after a city election for the newly elected government to have any impact on the old ways. The problem with waiting for someone to take action is that you are always waiting and nothing changes.   â€Å"The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham.While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle per son than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. (King, 1963). King points to the emerging nations of the world, able to fight for their freedom from colonial oppressors and get it, and then remarks at the â€Å"horse and buggy† pace the United States is making within her own borders to promote equality (King, 1963). â€Å"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, â€Å"Wait.†(King, 1963)†He justifies his actions in terms of the law. This is perhaps the most powerful of King’s arguments outside the â€Å"I Have a Dream† speech. It sets the tone for his later work and justifies the Civil Rights Movement in one fell swoop.   â€Å"Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws.One may won ask: †Å"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?† The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that â€Å"an unjust law is no law at all† (King, 1963).In this short passage, King makes an eloquent and accurate plea for civil disobedience and encourages people to take the action needed to make a difference with regard to changing the law.   His argument is that sometimes the law is simply so unjust that if a person does not take radical action to change the law, he is supporting injustice.The idea that a law could be justly applied but be inherently unjust was illogical, he argued. â€Å"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make b inding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.† (King, 1963).He further argues that the type of civil disobedience he is recommending was first practiced in biblical times by Shadrach and his compatriots when they faced the lion’s den rather than renouncing their faith. He then goes on to chastise the church leadership for their inaction and lack of support for the African American community. â€Å"Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership.† (King, 1963).   He argues that the church should in supporting core Christian values work toward the development of equality for all people and that in failing to do so they have ignored their Christian duty.King’s letter was intended as an answer to critics, a reply to those wh o did not understand the reality of the Southern African American and the way that they were being discriminated against.   Instead, it served as an outline for social justice and for achieving equality. By detailing how and why people of color and white Americans should stand together to fight for equality, he took the effort for equality out of the streets and back alleys to the headlines.His definitions regarding an unjust law made the difference philosophically and religiously for many people. Many people who had previously considered themselves good people suddenly found that they could no longer hide behind the legality of the situation. Instead, King forced them to take the issue of equality to heart and think of it from their conscious and not just from the law. They were no longer able to argue that it was okay by the law so that must make it right. King found the right words to explain that equality was everyone’s responsibility and that unless people were willing to work for justice, no one would have it.Thesis: In his â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham Jail† Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenges the preconceived notions of his fellow clergymen and argues that â€Å"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.†Ã‚   (King, 1963Outline:â€Å"Letter from a Birmingham Jail†I.      Summary and historical contextII.    Why Birmingham?a.    Worst racism in the Southb.    Negotiation failedc.   New leadership might mean an opportunity for change.III. Why direct action?a. Civil disobedience draws attentionb. Unjust laws should not be obeyedc. Christian history of actionIV.   ConclusionKing’s letter was intended as an answer to critics, a reply to those who did not understand the reality of the Southern African American and the way that they were being discriminated against.   Instead, it served as an outline for social justice and for achieving equality.

Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire