 |
| Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary assassinated in Bosnia by Serb nationalists 28th June 1914 |
The 28th June 2014 marked a hundred years since the event that 'sparked' the First World War-a devastating and World changing event that decimated entire countries and, some would argue, an entire generation (the 'lost generation'). The event in question is of course the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand who, at the time, was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz was targeted by Bosnian Serb nationalists as a way of showing their frustration with their Austrian rulers. The Bosnian Serbs no longer wanted to be part of the Austro-Hungarian empire-they yearned for their freedom and had the desire to create a 'greater Serbia' with Austria-Hungary's neighbour Serbia.
Today (3rd July) marks a hundred years since Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were laid to rest in a private ceremony in Austria. The official ceremony that took place in Sarajevo (where the archduke was shot) on the 28th June to mark 100 years since the assassination was marred with controversy with the notable absence of many Serb and Bosnian officials. It would seem that even a hundred years on there are still debates to be had over who or what was to blame for the outbreak of war in 1914. And rightly so in my opinion-historians have been debating this very thing for decades and historiography proves that opinions have changed over the years. The question of who or what was to blame for the events that followed the 'July Crisis' (the term given to the period from when Franz was shot to the first declaration of war by Austria) go way beyond the event of the 28th June 1914-they include, but are not limited to; the naval race between Britain and Germany, the Moroccan Crises, imperialism, the war plans of various European nations, the complicated alliance system, German aggression and the infamous 'blank cheque', the personality of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and nationalism. The debate of who exactly was to blame for war in 1914 will rage on further, especially in light of the centenary this August (when Britain entered the war) and has already been on the lips of many British politicians with the left being accused of shying away from the blame game. You may not think it particularly matters who or what was to blame for the war-but there is no doubt that it is a topic that will recur over the next four years as the world contemplates a hundred years since the event in question.
Please let me know your thoughts on the subject.
8 comments:
In my opinion there was many reasons for the start of WW1. Without a doubt, the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a reason, but so was Nationalism,
Imperialism, Militarism, and the personality of Kaiser Wilhelm. The assassination set in motion a chain of events which led to the outbreak. Kaiser Wilhelm had a strong-willed and impatient personality. With the assasination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, the Kaiser gave the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph a 'blank cheque' - in which he promised to support Austria if it went to war against Serbia. Wilhelm acted hastily and only encouraged Austria to invade Serbia, which brought the Russians to Serbia's aid. His hot-tempered personality led to rash decision making along with his jealousy of the British Navy which led him to try and outdo Britain in this sense, as there was a growing race to see which navy was the best. The Moroccan crisis is seen as one of the most long term causes of World War One. It led to a breakdown in trust between the most prominent European powers. Morocco became the centre of the world’s attention between 1905 and 1906, the crisis indicated that Germany’s relation with France was very fragile at this point in time. All these factors add up to the start of World War One, even though the assassination is one of the most famous, other factors also played a major part which sparked the war.
- LD
I think that the there were a number of factors involved with the outbreak of World War 1, however I think the main cause of WW1 was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as it was a key trigger.
As far as blaming the Kaiser I think that the majority of the blame should not be pinned on him, as he took measures, however unsuccessful they may have been, to try to stop the conflict - for example when he made contact with Tsar Nicholas II. However his rash decision making did add fuel to the fire, especially in the case of the "black cheque".
The main reasons were that there were high tensions anyway caused by the following reasons:
Alliances - this was the reason for the scale of WW1, as countries were committed to go to war if their allies were involved.
Nationalism - countries were beginning to think that they were bigger and better than other countries, so a conflict was on the cards.
Militarism - the Arms Race meant that countries were constantly trying to outdo each other on who had the best weapons and the biggest military, and it is the case with human nature that if you load the gun someone is bound to fire it eventually!
Imperialism - there was a lot of jealousy between Germany in regard to the British and French Empires.
So overall, these tensions do indicate that war was inevitable at some point but the assassination Franz Ferdinand just pushed the situation over the edge.
And I would argue that although the Kaiser did not help the situation - he cannot be blamed for being the main cause of WW1 because although rash actions did not help the situation most of these underlining tensions would still be present.
Anyways that's my view :)
A.W.
I think there were many causes for the First World War, the most immediate being the assassination Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. In June 1914, a Serbian nationalist assassinated him. This led to conflict between Austria and Serbian, which evidently led to Russia and Germany going to war as Russia allied with Serbia side and Germany having signed the ‘black cheque’ declared war.
However, more long term causes such as imperialism also led to WW1, where Germany grew more hostile and jealous towards the British and French Empires. Also Militarism, the arms race which also caused tensions between countries as they constantly tried to outdo each other in terms of military advancement. Also Nationalism was a cause as countries grew unsatisfied with being part of other countries and wanted to be independent, again causing more tension among the countries.
SW
I think that the First World War came about as a result of a number of factors triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 by Serbian nationalists leading to the Serbian/Austrian conflict, Germany’s blank cheque with Austria and eventually the Russian/Serbian alliance.
One of these key factors were the actions and personality of German Kaiser Wilhelm II which lead him to make rash decisions such as improving the Navy to rival Britain which was misconstrued as a threat of war and the blank cheque as previously mentioned.
The latter was a part of another major point in that many countries were allied with one another meaning that a large number of countries and armies were already involved and ready to fight on either side, leading to this being the first war to encompass the whole world.
Another Kaiser-related point is Germany’s imperialism i.e. Germany’s jealousy of the British and French empires (possibly in part due to the Kaiser’s iffy relationship with his own grandmother and his childhood)
These, as well as other issues such as militarism whereby countries have a sort of military show-off and try to beat each other which only fuelled the desire for war, were all elements that came together to form WW1. However, the key factor, I believe, is the role played by the Kaiser and his questionable actions. The assassination was really just the tip of the ice burg. Berg? You know what I mean.
D.T.
LD-your analysis of Kaiser Wilhelm's personality and how you link it to events that led up to WW1 is excellent-exactly how it should be done. It would've been good to see a link made between poor relations between Germany and France and between Germany and Britain.
AW-your answer is a little too generalised-more exact evidence is required. There are a few times where you could've used examples within your argument to make it tighter. You have the basics right-it just needs padding out.
SW-similarly to AW-your answer is too generalised for the most part. Explicit examples need to be used.
The naval race is not a good example of where Kaiser Wilhelm made a rash decision DT. It was a key policy of Wilhelmine Germany and was funded for many years-with money for it being granted by the Reichstag. There is a lack of analysis in your argument-you need to think about the impact of specific events, not general ideas.
Post a Comment