Any essay you ever write should contain the following:
Introduction- An opening paragraph of about 100 to 150 words in which you make it very clear to anyone you might read the paper exactly what you hope to demonstrate in it. It is useful to introduce the general topic, in our recent case, World War I, for example. Then some reforming of the question should appear here so the reader knows what you are writing about. Some of the ideas you will be presenting should appear here, leading to the thesis statement. Often this topic sentence comes near the end of the paragraph, explaining the theme -the main idea: cause, development in our recent case- of the paper. The introduction can be thought of as a condensed version of your whole essay
Body- If you have written a good introduction, the two to four paragraphs of body should follow in a logical order from it. The ideas you expressed in the intro should be detailed in each of these paragraphs, and each should be clearly related to your theme. No, this is not repetitive; it is good writing style. Never let the reader lose focus of where you are taking him.
Conclusion- Brief, 50 - 100 words, summarizing what you have written, and possibly offering some personal comment on the topic, or suggestion other areas which might be explored.
For example, let us say you chose the topic, The Major Cause of WWI. And, you've decided that the major cause was the per- existing alliances. The introduction might read something like this:
World War I began in July and August of 1917, shortly after the assassination of the Arch Duke and heir to the throne of the Austro Hungarian empire by a Serbian national. The shooting set of a chain of events which plunged Europe into four long years of war. The European nations had been obviously preparing for this war for a numbers of years. There already existed two major alliances encompassing six major nations, and many smaller agreements which involved countless lesser ones. It was the existence of the two major alliances which encouraged, and even forced, the nations to go to war in the late summer of 1917.
Paragraph Two: would explain how the Triple Alliance had come into being, who was in it and why it had formed.
Paragraph Three: the Triple entente
Paragraph Four: once the shot was fired, the way each nation came to declare war, related to the alliance system
Sample Conclusion:
So, one can see that the Europeans nations had set the stage for their own destruction. While some felt that being part of an alliance system would work as a deterrent to war, it actually had the opposite result. Had these alliance not been so firmly in place, it is possible that this war might have been very localized, involving only Serbia, Austria, and Russia.
This form will works for any and all essays in just about any subject.
its = possessive form, as in, "The nation fought for its security."
it's = the contraction of it is, as in, "It's obvious that the leaders had no idea how long the war would last."
In fact, it is always best to avoid contractions in formal writing.
Their, as in their security, is spelled correctly here.
Avoid `I' and `you.' A formal essay should not be a personal note. It could be read by anyone.
The word 'led' as in, "Kaiser Wilhelm led his nation into war," is spelled correctly here
When you refer to a person by name, it is always advisable to give a brief note about who he/she was. Do not assume that the reader, whoever he might be, knows everyone who ever lived. And, never refer to a famous person by the first name only. Never!
[Introduction]
World War I began in July and August of 1917, shortly after the assassination of the Arch Duke and heir to the throne of the Austro Hungarian empire by a Serbian national. While the shot was fired in the interest of Serbian nationalism, and the major nations of Europe declared war along the lines of the pre-existing alliances, neither was the major cause of the war. For the war was not so much caused as it was allowed to take place. That which allowed this war to take place was the romantic notion of war, the promise of glory it held out to those who participated in it, reminding one of the heroic days of yore. That these ideas were so widely held was due to the romanticism of those who led, and the absence of any serious objections to war on the part of those who followed. For the world of 1914 was far different from the world of 2001.
[this would be followed by two to four paragraphs of body]
In 1914 Germany was led by Kaiser Wilhelm who viewed war through the eyes of his inner child. He had overcome the personal obstacle of his deformed arm by excelling at war games at school. He had been enamored with the great British navy. The events of 1914 presented him with the opportunity for his nation to play at these games on the large chess board that was Europe. In Russia, Czar Nicholas II reluctantly accepted his role as emperor and his nation's role as ally of Britain and France. In early battles the decrepit Russian army suffered sever losses. The Czar's reaction was to comment how honorable it was for his nation's people to die in the interest of its allies. The nation's stature had grown as its men had perished. While the youth of these two men might excuse their naivet�, both France and Austro-Hungary demonstrated a more mature example of this misrepresentation of war. In France aging General Joffre saw the war as an opportunity to polish the French image still tarnished from the disastrous results of the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. At a time when imperialism was on the wane, Franz Joseph of Austo-Hungary viewed the Serbian situation as an opportunity to reinforce imperial control. In both cases these men fought a war to defend a world that no longer existed. In all cases, the assumption that this would be a short war, and therefore justified, over ruled the potential realities of death and destruction.
What did the people of Europe know about war in the summer of 1914? The last major European conflict had ended in 1815 with the final defeat of Napoleon. Since that time, Great Britain had been involved in a barely remembered conflict in the Crimea. The most recent conflict had been the Franco Prussian War which lasted a mere six weeks. So wars occurred once in a great while, but of late had been quickly finished. Sure, some died in 1871, and others would surely perish in the coming conflict, but that was acceptable with a prevalent theory of the day, Darwin's survival of the fittest. Darwin published his The Origin of Species in 1859. While his theory of evolution did not reach wide acceptance, other parts of the book spoke volumes to a wider audience. These were his conclusion that some species were superior to others, and that some would survive while others died. Taken together these made war a mere stage in humanity's version of natural selection. Combined with the Protestant work ethic which explained why people and nations succeeded, this conveniently accounted for and justified the failure and demise of others, even in war.
As well, in the summer and fall of 1914, there were few if any voices who spoke out against or even questioned the efficacy of this war. The major peace figure of the day, Jean Jarez, was murdered on the eve of the war. The press was still in its infancy and often complied with government's requests for caution. Neither the French nor British press discussed either war aims or specific peace terms. Instead, they reported what happened with little investigative reporting or expos�s with which the modern world is so familiar. Newspapers were mostly text. Grainy black and white still photos did little to document the evil of war. Noted author H. G. wells wrote, "I find myself enthusiastic for this war against Prussian militarism . . . Every sword that is drawn against Germany is a sword drawn for peace." Economist Max Weber wrote, "This war, with all its ghastliness, is nevertheless grand and wonderful. It is worth experiencing." If educated liberals could so embrace the war, who were the common people to question it?
As people became more educated and informed of the realities of war, some did react against it. Most of these took acceptable, controlled ways. Enlistment in Canada fell off after the Spring of 1915, reacting no doubt to the return of the dead and wounded. In 1916 the British government released the film, The Battle of the Somme, with actual war footage in the hope that more interest, and therefore enlistment, in the war would follow. The graphic horrors shown on the stark silent screens of that day caused some movement against the war. The film was withdrawn from theatres and the war effort continued. The one successful protest against the war came in Russia where the labor movement expressed its dissatisfaction with continuing the war in two stages. First, in March, 1917 the Czar was forced to abdicate his throne. Then, when the less dictatorial Kerensky government continued to press the war, the climate became ripe for revolution. To appease the people, the new leader, Lenin, did sign a separate peace with Germany.
[then a short conclusion]
In 1914 the murder of one man, albeit a political figure who in some way represented the forced subservience of one nation to another, justified war to the leaders of the day. The common people also accepted it. In 2001, the totally unjustified murder of at least 5,000 innocent people by terrorists has merely served as a wake up call to the dangers of the modern world. Before any extreme actions are taken, even the President of the United States must make doubly sure that he can justify any war not only to his own nation, but to the world at large. The common people are much more attuned to the realities of war. Had they been so well informed in 1914, it is very likely that World War One might never have happened.