Why was Germany Unsuccesful in World War I?

It is of my opinion that Germany's loss in WWI in for the most part due to the political and economic aspects if the war. Another important factor is that culture of the countries involved and the mass misconceptions. While military is certainly a contribution to Germany's failure the military decisions do not hold such a great importance as the former aspects.

The military situation was significant however, in that had it not been for the military strategies of Britain, France and America they would not have been such a strong force to defeat. While the central powers were politically and technically allied their military efforts were not as well conducted as the alies'. The British and French troops were very much under the French commander, Foch.
A military failure, or error on Germany's part was targeting a ship going from America to England under the suspicion of a military transaction. This offense to America may have encouraged America to join the war on the allies' side.

The cultural negativity which contributed to Germany's loss was primarily due to British propoganda which caused people to oppose Germany. This propoganda campaign whish was named "poor little Belgium" guaranteed Britain and the allies the moral highground.
For some contries, loyalty to Engalnd was embedded in the culture and therefore Australie, New Zealand, and Canada joined the war against Germany when Britain declared war in 1914.
Germany also was ill equipped and not psychologically prepared for a war with Britain due to a disrespect or misguided preconception which assumed that the British army could easily be defeated.
And when Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia in 1914 it was cultural loyalty towards the slavic race which rendered Russia into action. And when Russia joined the war it was due to political alliances that France and Britain also entered.

One major disadvantage Germany had was its economic situation. During the war Germany was rapidly running out of money to fund its military activity due to its lack of a national tax. Germany's army was therefore not equipped to remain in such a war for long.
The US entered the war in 1917 and proved to be a strong army. It's most significant motivation to enter the war was to ease the recession of which it was suffering. They thought that by entering the war they would gain access to African markets and other trade routes.

The political situation before the war began, in my opinion, was the greatest determining factor to Germany's loss. The political loyalties of each country in Europe led to the war's massive scale. Had Russia not been allied with France and Britain they, and other countries, would not have entered the war. Brazil would not have entered had it not been for it's trades with Britain, nor would Australia, New Zealand and Canada. And japan also joined only due to an agreement made with Britain from the Russo-Japanese war. Greece would have joined the central powers had it not been for the succession of a new king. And the political situation in Mexico caused them to decline Germany's invitation or suggestion of joining the war as well as created another motivation for America to fight against Germany.

The main reason Germany and the central powers lost the war was due to the fact that the allies were much larger and therefore stronger than the Central Powers. And the political alignments that each country had caused them to go against Germany. And although Germany and the Central powers lost, Germany was not, for the next few decades unsuccesful in it's endevours. What was gained from the war, from Germany's perspective, was first hand knowledge of how a country could be victorious in war. By WWII Germany used certain strategies that other opposing countries had used in WWI. For example in WWII Germany used the Augustan method to use art as a tool of manipulation and political deception which was also used by Britain. This use of propoganda may have greatly increased Germany's power, however, also caused later on many people to consider Germany as immoral and panipulative.
Therefore, Overall I think that the political situation of WWI was the most prominent reason of the allies' victory but Germany's loss had transitioned into victory by WWII.

To what extent were alliances a cause of WWI?

Out of Imperialism, Alliances, Militarism and Nationalism, it is of my opinion that the alliances were one of the most significant causes of WW1.The reason being that it was really due to the alliances that there was such a profound dichotomy between the significant European countries. Without these alliances, WW1 would probably have been a much smaller scale war between only two or so countries. Since attributing one of the causes of WW1 to the dichotomy and tension in Europe at that time, one coud go a step further and claim that the three major alliances and the resulting relations between them were primary contributors in establishing the climatic events that led up to WW1.The three alliances were the Three Emperors League, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance.

The Three Emperors League included Austria, Hungary, Germany and Russia and was established in 1872. This alliance was created mainly for the purpose (at least from Bismarck's point of view) of isolating France and ensuring that Russia could not create an alliance with her, particularly after France wanted revenge on Germany after the Franco Prussian War. Despite this alliance Russia and Serbia still had tensions between them which eventually led to the disintegration and the eventual demise of the Three Emperors League. This had the effect of the creation of more alliances such as the Triple and Dual Entente and the Entente Cordiale.

The Triple Entente was established in 1907 and included Britain, France and Russia. The Triple Entente was composed of the Dual Entente and the Entente Cordiale. The Dual Entente consisted of France and Russia and was established in 1893. This was created due to the isolation felt by both countries. The Entente Cordial was an alliance forged between France and Britain in 1904 and this was created because France still harboured hostilities towards Germany and used this alliance to weaken Germany's relations with other countries. It was also beneficial for Britain because although the Britain had maintained a policy of "splendid isolation", the prevailing situation in Europe triggered the forming of an alliance for the sake of protection. When the Dual Entente and the Entente Cordiale were in place, Germany fearing for its own safety, attempted to create tensions between France and Britain by disrupting the Moroccan clauses of the Entente Cordiale by pushing for Moroccan independance. This only served to further isolate Germany while the Entente Cordiale became stronger than ever before.

The Triple Alliance was the other major alliance in Europe at the time of WWI. It consisted of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy. The alliance was at first called the Dual Alliance, consisting only of Austria-Hungary and Germany, however in 1879 was joined by Italy to create the Triple Alliance. This alliance led to France feeling isolated and therefore creating alies with Britain and France.

Upon Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia, the alliance system ignited.When hearing of Austria’s declaration of war Russia immediately mobilized their forces to support Serbia. This mobilization occurred not just on the Austria border, but also on the German frontier. In support of Austria and for its own protection, Germany demanded that Russia demobilize her forces. Since Russia refused to do so Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st 1914. France refused neutrality and therefore Germany declared war on France on August 3rd. This led Britain to declare war on Germany and since Japan was allied with Britain, Japan also declared war on Germany.

The repercussions of each alliance led to a large scale war. One which divided Europe between Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy and Britain, France, and Russia. Without all the alliances perhaps there would have been a much smaller scale war between just Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

It is for this reason that the alliances in Europe are the prominent cause of World War 1.

Chapter 1 Essay

To determine if the unification of Germany was inevitable regardless of Bismarck's role one must trace back what event caused the unification which is then determined if Bismarck is responsible. In my opinion unification would have occured had it not been for the Franco Prussian war. This is because, had it not been for the resulting hostility, the Southern States would not have felt vulnerable of a French reprisal and therefore would not have felt the need for political unity with the North German Confederation.

The question which follows is whether or not Bismarck's actions led to the war, or whether or not it was deliberate.
In source 11 one historian, Taylor, insists that there is no evidence that Bismarck worked deliberately towards a war with France. Source D on p.25 agrees with source 11 stating that Bismarck believed French politicians would have blocked a war since Bismarck was against preventative war.
The author Eyck of Source E disagrees with the above two by stating that Bismarck is responsible for the war and foresaw that Napoleon would want war.

I personally think that Bismarck's actions were responsible for the war, and to go further, the unification. Seeing as he did pressure Leopold into taking the throne in 1870. At that point in time however, Bismarck may have not been aiming or a war but rather keeping the possibility open much like what Pflatz suggests on page 16, "Prince Bismarck likes to provide himself with an alternative in order to be able to decide the same in one of two opposed directions" (Source 10). Perhaps later Bismarck had the intention of going to war with France which caused him to edit and publish the Ems Telegram later that year.

Whether or not Bismarck was using the tensions with the French as a teleological means to a united Germany is unsure. Though it appears that only after the war and unification took place that Bismarck say that he knew a war with France must take place for a unification of Germany, saying that "I did not doubt that a Franco German war must take place before the construction of a united Germany could be realised" (Source C).
It is for this reason that I disagree with the statement "the unification of Germany was inevitable regardless of Bismarck's role."