1.) a.
• Firstly, according to source E, actions taken by Austria-Hungary were difficult to resolve; for example, “… it made it difficult to eliminate those [Serbian] activities by rapid and resolute action.”
• Secondly, according to source E, decisions executed by Austria-Hungary were difficult to revoke, “…to retreat, to equivocate, to delay, once the decision to take action had been made.”
• Thirdly, according to source E, unsatisfactory decisions by Austria-Hungary were troublesome to rescind, “…ill-defined and unsatisfactory as the decision was.”
b.
• Firstly, because source B depicts Russia as a bear, the message conveyed is that Russia has a domineering and powerful military.
• Secondly, because source B depicts Austria-Hungary as
…show more content…
a soldier being crushed, the message conveyed is that Austria-Hungary had a weaker military on the Eastern Front that was easily decimated by Russia. 2.) The origin of source D is a document, Austro-Hungarian Red Book No. 7, written by the Austrian government and sent to Serbia in July of 1914. Considering the document is the 1914 ultimatum given to Serbia, the document is valuable to interpret the desires of Austria-Hungary to stop Serbian encroachment and nationalism. Considering the document is the 1914 ultimatum given to Serbia, the document is limited in that does not discuss the Serbian counter argument against Austria-Hungary or reasoning for rejecting the ultimatum. The purpose of this document is to elicit a response from Serbia over the peace conditions presented in the ultimatum from Austria-Hungary in response to the Serbian nationalist’s assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Considering the purpose of this document is to elicit a response from Serbia, the document is valuable for outlining the transgressions over perceived Serbian aggression from Austria-Hungary. Considering the purpose of this document is to elicit a response from Serbia, the document is limited in that it interprets all Serbian actions as hostile towards Austria-Hungary. The content of the source is an ultimatum that Austria-Hungary sent to Serbia on July 23rd, 1914. Considering the content of the source is an ultimatum that Austria-Hungary sent to Serbia, the document is valuable for explaining Austrian antagonism towards Serbian nationalism. Considering the content of the source is an ultimatum that Austria-Hungary sent to Serbia, the document is limited in that it does not include any Austrian antagonism towards Serbia or a Serbian counter argument. 3.) One comparison between the views expressed about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles between sources C and E is that both agree that Serbia threatened Austria-Hungary as source C states, “Serbia was the only Balkan nation threaten the Great Power directly,” and source E states, “…one problem that was neither negotiable nor repressible was raised by [Serbian] threats to the integrity of Austria-Hungary.” A second comparison between source C and source E is that both imply that Serbia was engaged in anti-Austria Hungarian activities.
As source C states that, “…Serbian leader Nicholas Paschich adopted an openly anti-Austrian policy…” Likewise, source E states that, “[Austria-Hungary was] fatally vulnerable to the activities of the Serbs.”
A contrast between source C and source E is that source C implies that Serbian aggression was the main cause of Austria’s involvement in WWI, for example, “[Serbia] a jackal snapping at the Austro-Hungarian Achilles heel.” Source E, however, states that the Austrian inability, “…to retreat…[or] to delay…” military actions was the problem that resulted in
…show more content…
WWI. Another contrast between source C and source E is that source C implies that the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group responsible for assassinating the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was responsible for creating vulnerabilities in the Austro-Hungarian empire, “…[Serbia] would do little to stop the activities of the anti-Austrian society, the Black Hand.” Source E, however states that the Austrian government created vulnerabilities, “The composition of the Habsburg Monarchy made it [Austria-Hungary] fatally vulnerable to the activities of the Serbs…” 4.) The Congress of Berlin in 1878 allowed Austria-Hungary to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbia strongly believed in Pan-Slavism, an vision that all ethnic Slavic people would be united under one nation. Russia, a Slavic nation with a strong military that also believed in the concept of Pan-Slavism, allied with Serbia and other Balkan nations to protect Serbian and Slavic interests. The Serbians were displeased with the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In response to Austria’s occupation, Serbia began to harbor anti-Austrian sentiments. Serbian nationalist groups like the Black Hand, headed by Serbian military leader, colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, worked surreptitiously to undermine Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary had alliances and government weaknesses leading into World War I. While Austro-Hungarian alliances and government weaknesses was a contributing cause to the start of World War I, Serbian nationalism was more responsible for the start of World War I. The Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and sparked the July Crisis, a diplomatic crisis in the summer of 1914 that led to World War I. During this crisis, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. While the conditions in the ultimatum were intentionally too harsh and difficult to agree too, Austria-Hungary issued this ultimatum as a response to the Serbian assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Russia, Serbia’s ally due to the ethnic nationalist ideology of pan-Slavism, volunteered their support to Serbia in the event of war. The strong military backing from Russia was assurance for Serbia to act more brazenly than the nation would have if alone. According to Source C, “To the Austrians, the rise of Pan-Slavic nationalism, and particularly Serbian aggression was a direct threat to the future of the Austrian Empire.” Therefore, Serbian aggression instigated alliances and dauntless actions towards Austria-Hungary that directly led to World War I. While the Serbian nationalism was more responsible than Austria-Hungary, Austria-Hungary’s alliances and government structure was partially responsible for causing World War I. Austria-Hungary’s Dual alliance with Germany began because Germany feared a two-front war with France and Russia. According to source A, both nations were bound to one another if Russia attacked, “…one of the two Empires be attacked by Russia, … [Austria-Hungary and Germany] are bound to come to the assistance one of the other with the whole war strength of their Empires…” After this initial agreement, Austria-Hungary, feeling they need protection from Serbian nationalism and aggression, requested that Germany solidify their alliance by signing ‘the blank check,’ an agreement to support Austria-Hungary regardless of what action Austria-Hungary took in response to its ongoing conflict with Serbia. Germany agreed, and this check allowed Austria-Hungary to give Serbia an ultimatum regarding war, the ultimatum was a response to the Serbian nationalist group, the Black Hand’s assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This action increased animosity between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and caused both nations to bolster their military alliances. Likewise, the structure of the Austro-Hungarian government system also led to World War I due to the inability to react to Serbian aggression.
According to source E, the structure of the Habsburg Monarchy, the Austrian governing system, made it difficult, “…to retreat…[or] to delay, once the decision had been made, ill-defined and unsatisfactory as the decision was.” Austria-Hungary’s inability to revoke decisions, led to the diplomatic mishaps of the July Crisis, a diplomatic crisis in the summer of 1914 that led to World War I. After the ultimatum was issued to Serbia, Austria-Hungary’s government would have difficulty controlling the actions that followed. According to source D, the ultimatum demanded, “…a formal assurance that they [Serbia] condemn this dangerous propaganda against the [Austrian] monarchy.” However, according to source C, “…[Serbia] could… do little to stop the activities of the anti-Austrian society, the Black Hand.” Regardless of Serbia’s response, Austria-Hungary would have difficulty reversing the decisions made. Ultimately, the inability of the Austrian governing system to control actions made in times of war, was partially responsible for the start of World War
I. In summation Serbian nationalism was more responsible for the World War I because Serbian aggression, backed by Russia under the ideology of Pan Slavism, led the Black Hand to assassinate Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination elicited an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary that Serbia refused. Serbia then requested help from Slavic superpower, Russia. Austria-Hungary then declared war on Serbia in response to the assassination, due to Serbian nationalism. The Serbian nationalism that caused the assassination can be pinpointed as a larger contributing factor to World War I than Austrian government weaknesses and alliances.
He felt that several forces of opposing countries took part in fighting each battle and ultimately believed that global opposition caused the Great War. Similarly, in the Balkan Region, several ethnic minorities desired independence from Austria-Hungary. As shown in Document 3, the Austro-Hungarian government demanded that action be taken regarding propaganda against Austria-Hungary. This ultimatum was a result of the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, who was killed by a Serbian nationalist. Russia, a large Slavic nation, has close ties with Serbia.
and Serbia in 1914. It was transformed into a general European struggle by declaration of
First, the causes of the conflict were superficial and could have definitely been dealt with in a different way. The murder of an important government figure, regardless of the nationality of the victim or the murderer, is not an acceptable reason for war. Within all of the countries involved, there were entire judicial systems that had as their sole purpose dealing with major felonies. Moreover, after hearing about the incident, Austro-Hungarians openly took advantage of the situation and posed an ultimatum to the enemy with several demands in order to “stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary’s influence on the Balkans” (“The Cause of World War One”). After both sides went through much discussion and refused to comply, the war finally erupted. Evidently, there were other causes. One example is imperialism, with people waging battles due to European greed; however, most of these complications were between a nation and its colony, not two different countries. In addition, if nationali...
Hence the blank cheque to Austria. Austria-Hungry looked for no other possibility but war to solve the problem because of their short sighted plan to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist movement Conclusion: § Conclude that three long term factors contributed to war, failure of triple entente to accommodate Germany as a dominant power, instead allowing them to feel threatened, hence the naval and arms race progressed. Austria Hungary and Russia could not resolve Balkan conflict peacefully; Germany's backing of this making a small local war a world war. Attitude in the time, Nationalism, no country backing down, notably Germany. Austria Hungary looked for no other possibility but war to rid themselves of a Slavic Nationalist Movement.
Chamberlain’s enthusiasm, conviction in his beliefs, and the fact that he would not listen to criticism, led him to pursue appeasement with a nearly unlimited spirit. This would have been noble had it not been for another problem which was also caused, in part, by Chamberlain’s enthusiasm to pursue appeasement. In his rush to stamp his name on the appeasement process, Chamberlain was too eager to foster good relations with Germany and her allies. To this ...
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
Although Milosevic was a key figure during this period whose actions undoubtedly influenced the chain of events that unfolded, I believe his power-seeking motives were not unique to him; his actions in the former Yugoslavia could have been committed by a number of others who had the same desire for power driving them. Nevertheless, as he was president of Serbia and essentially commander-in-chief of Serb forces who carried out unconscionable acts of cruelty against Muslims and other non-Serb civilians, particularly in the attempt to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina, he bears responsibility for his actions as an authority figure. Though his main goal seemed to be focused on territorial expansion of the Serbian state, he led military forces to deport and murder non-Serb civilians in massive numbers and therefore was in vi...
Austria-Hungary has historically tried to pass blame onto Germany; however, it is evident that the Austro-Hungary government and military needed no convincing to go to war in 1914. From a military standpoint, war was seen as a political and strategic necessity. Similarly, from a political perspective the government prematurely ready for war. Although, Austria was prepared to start a war it’s unclear whether or not Austrian leadership would have deemed military action in Serbia necessary had it not been for the
In the July Crisis Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) despite not having conclusive proof. Austria-Hungary asked for German support to "eliminate Serbia as a power factor in the Balkans". Germany agreed, offering her full support for Austria- Hungary to start a war with Serbia, and this became known as the "blank cheque". Austria-Hungary and Germany could not have failed to realise the possibility of Russian intervention and a European war, suggesting to me that war was their objective. Austria-Hungary issued an impossible ultimatum to Serbia, which was likely to provoke a war. Serbia was given only 48 hours to reply, so was forced to think quickly, or other countries would be mobilized and ready to attack. Serbia accepted all but one point of the ultimatum. Consequently war was announced. If given more time Serbia could have discussed the issue further in a conference. The British foreign minister, Grey suggested a conference, but this was rejected by Germany and Austria-Hungary, suggesting that they had deliberate aims for war during the Balkan Crisis, rather than the Balkan Crisis being mismanaged.
After the following events, all the countries were ready for war, they expected it. Things were brewing from all 6 countries (Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia). The two alliances- Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia, formed in 1907) and the Triple Alliance (Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany, formed in 1882)-just needed a spark to ignite the war. This spark that possibly became the most likely cause of the start of war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. He was hated by the Bosnian people, because he made it clear that when he became emperor, things would change for his countries benefit and also because of the Balkan Crisis (when Austria Hungary gained control of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1908). Of course everyone was nationalist in those days. Everyone believed that their country was the best, the richest and the most powerful. They believed that they had the biggest empire and each person patriot to one’s country. Obviously did not like being ruled by another country especially a country that’s in the triple alliance. But many small countries did fear Austria-Hungary, because of one man who was powerful and rich.
The Germans thought it unfair, as they persuaded themselves and others that they had not lost. It came as a shock that the conclusion of the reparations clause, under the terms of article 231, demanded that Germany was legally subjected to pay up and accept the “financial burden of putting Europe back together again” (merriment, 1996). The conditions of the treaty given as an ultimatum, to the German democratic parties whom, later were addressed as the November criminals for ‘stabbing Germany in the back’, had no choice but to accept the terms or face invasion. They had to Acquiesce the proposals that “curtailed the power of the nation, deprived it of its prestige, attacked its transitions, and impaired its integrity. (Abel 1938). Consequently, irritated German leaders, wanting to arouse international sympathy, deliberately lead to the mistranslation of article 231, making it refer to Germany’s sole guilt, as opposed to the joint guilt of Germany and her allies, setting off an increasing wave of righteous indignation about the war guilt lie and so with the acrid debate that was arising, the article turned into a war guilt clause enhancing the impression of a charge of German moral
... On 28 June, 1914, the assassination was successful and this was the action that triggered war. Austria-Hungary wanted revenge because their next ruler was killed so they declared war against Serbia. This is what caused the war. The Alliances ties in with these events as Austria-Hungary formed an alliance with Germany who also went to war with Serbia.
The acknowledgement of this failure dissuaded them from any desire of interfering in Europe. This failure also resulted in the realization that “meddling in the affairs of others was useless and self-defeating” as the involvement made no difference (Jonas). Involvement in international affairs once again became a dangerous notion, as it had been at the beginning of World War One.
After years of hostility and aggression between the European superpowers and large states, the balance of power began to be challenged. The Serbians in 1914 assassinated the Arch-duke, Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. The country counteracted and “issued an ultimatum to Serbia, which would bring the assassins to justice. And with that action Serbia’s sovereignty was nullified” (Duffy Michael, 2009). Since Serbia did not succumb to the harsh demands of Austria-Hungary, “preventative” war was declared on Serbia on July 28,...
Personally, I, feel like this scenario was invertible. But let’s say that Archduke Franz Ferdinand wasn’t assassinated. What would have happened to the events that we know, like the rulers of Vienna which threaten Serbia? The whole inflexible diplomatic alliances between Germany, France, England and Russia was able to create chain reactions, I think could had different borders. Countries similar to Russia wouldn’t need to defend Serbia. Followed by Germany providing support in Austria’s defense.