origins of ww1 1900-1914

Question 1

why did the alliance system develop

Answer 1

1. provided European states with a measure of protection.

2. They served as a means of guarding or advancing national interests while acting as a deterrent to war.

Question 2

treaty of London

Answer 2

Britain agrees to protect neutrality of Belgium. The Treaty of London was still in effect in 1914, so when German troops invaded Belgium in August 1914, the British considered it a violation of the treaty.

Question 3

dual alliance

Answer 3

The Dual Alliance was a binding military alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. It required each signatory to support the other if one was attacked by Russia. It was signed after the collapse of the Three Emperors’ League and during a period of Austro-Russian tension in the Balkans.

Question 4

triple alliance 1882

Answer 4

between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, motivated chiefly by anti-French and anti-Russian suspicions and sentiment.

Each of the three signatories to the Triple Alliance was required to provide military support to the others, if one was attacked by two other powers – or if Germany and Italy were attacked by France.

Question 5

triple entente 1907

Answer 5

association between Great Britain, France, and Russia, the nucleus of the Allied Powers in World War I. It developed from the Franco-Russian alliance that gradually developed and was formalized in 1894, the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904, and an Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, which brought the Triple Entente into existence

Question 6

contributions to tension

Answer 6

secret treaties
Long-standing territorial grievances
colonial competition
Rival alliances
clashing interests
fear of surprise attack plagued international relations in the run-up to war.
Once fighting seemed likely, no state wanted to mobilize last, lest its enemies use the opportunity to settle old scores. Mobilization schedules, martial rhetoric, and secret obligations set most of Europe on the path to war.

Question 7

Balkan nationalism as a reason for war

Answer 7

Several Serb nationalist groups formed in the early 1900s and flourished over the next decade. Their primary aim was to free Serbia from foreign control and influence, particularly from Vienna.

In 1908, the Austro-Hungarians formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. This roused nationalist movements in the region. Groups like the Narodna Odbrana (‘People’s Defence’), Crna Ruka (‘Black Hand’) and Mlada Bosna (‘Young Bosnia’) were all formed between 1908-1911 with the mission of driving out the Austro-Hungarians.

Question 8

nationalism

Answer 8

The effects of this growing nationalism were an inflated confidence in one’s nation, its government, economy and military power. Many nationalists also became blind to the faults of their own nation. In matters of foreign affairs or global competition, they were convinced that their country was fair, righteous and beyond fault.

Question 9

reactions to the assassination

Answer 9

Vienna blames Serbia
beginning of July crisis
Kaisers blank cheque
Austrian ultimatum
Serbia's response
declaration of war

Question 10

declaration of war

Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph declared war on Serbia on July 28th, exactly one month after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

Answer 10

This declaration of war triggered a chain reaction that quickly dragged in the rest of Europe. Bound by their alliances – or, more precisely, their leaders’ commitment to these alliances – nation after nation was drawn into the spiral of war.

Question 11

reasons for outbreak of war

Answer 11

B- BALKAN WARS
A- ALLIANCE SYSTEM 
N- NAVAL RACE
A- ARMS RACE
N-NATIONALISM
A- ASSASINATION of franz ferdinand

Question 12

Why was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia in 1914 so important in causing the outbreak of the First World War?

Answer 12

The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia in 1914 was important for several reasons.

1. It was the event which brought together all the various ‘background’ issues in the build-up to the war.
2. It was only sent after the Austrians had ensured they had full German support, and it was, in effect, a declaration of war. Most Austrians were well aware of the implications of issuing it.
3. It was phrased in such a way that the Serbs could not accept it and the resulting conflict was bound to bring Russia in as well.
4. It led to Russia’s mobilisation which speeded up Germany’s military involvement. With Russia in, then France would follow and trigger the Schlieffen Plan which could well bring in the British.
5. Without it, conflict could have been avoided. It forced sides to be taken and played on the fears of the major powers.

Question 13

To what extent should Germany take responsibility for causing the arms race before 1914?

Answer 13

1. Without large armies and navies, conscription and mobilisation plans, a major conflict was unlikely.
2. With the Germans always fearing encirclement, the presence of a large army in France and Russia was naturally seen as a threat.
3. France was determined on revenge (revanche) for the highly punitive treaty of 1871. The Germans were well aware of this, which of course led to the Schlieffen Plan and all that that entailed.
4. The building of a ‘new’ German navy was seen as a direct threat by the British and was crucial in pushing Britain towards the Entente and the military conversations with the French.
5. The various military pressure groups, such as the Navy League, played a role in influencing public opinion, which further heightened tension.
6. It did play an important part in inflaming the actions of most of the major participants.

The British (building of the Dreadnought), French (desire for revanche) and Russians (post Russo-Japanese War modernisation programme) all played a part as well in creating the ‘race’,

Question 14

Why did Germany consider its alliance with Austria as so important?

Answer 14

1. France had been determined to gain revenge since its defeat in 1871.
2. Bismarck had started the alliance process with the Austrians to minimise the risk of facing France alone.
3. Once the Franco-Russian Alliance grew stronger, then there was the additional fear of the ‘war on two fronts’ by Germany.
4. The attachment of Britain to France and Russia only strengthened Germany’s desire for a close ally in the East.
5. There was the fellow feeling by the Kaiser for another hereditary ruler as well.
6. it had always been Bismarck’s policy to work closely with Austria after its defeat in 1866.
7. German military thinking, as the Schlieffen Plan showed, assigned a key role to the Austrian army in withstanding any Russian advance from the South East.

Question 15

‘Austria must take the blame for causing the First World War.’ How far do you agree?

arguments for

Answer 15

1. Austria was determined not only to hold on to the territories which it had gained in the Balkans from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but also to expand in the region.
2. It was determined to repress emergent liberal and nationalist movements in the Balkans for its own domestic reasons, as there were many ‘subject’ peoples within the Austrian Empire.
3. There was a lack of organisation surrounding the Archduke’s visit to Sarajevo; had care been taken, the outcome could have been avoided.
4. Reaction to the death led to assumptions about the role of the Serbs which were incorrect. While some Austrian ministers advised caution, the Emperor agreed an ultimatum which all knew would be unacceptable to the Serbs and would lead to war.
5. There was no serious consideration of what the implications might be of a declaration of war against Serbia

Question 16

Austria must take the blame for causing the First World War.’

arguments against

Answer 16

1. The ‘blank cheque’ gave them enormous confidence; it is possible that without it and the Kaiser’s guarantee, there would have been no attack on Serbia.
2. Russia’s decision to mobilise was unwise under the circumstances.
3. Once the German Schlieffen Plan started rolling into action, there was little that anyone could do.
4. Wider issues such as
   * imperial rivalry
   * the arms race
   * public opinion
   * Alliances and Ententes

Question 17

Why was there an arms race in the years before 1914?

Answer 17

1. The British saw their navy as vital for both their defence and also for the protection of their vast Empire.
2. When Germany started to expand its navy and its colonies and look for bases in the Mediterranean, it was seen as a direct threat.
3. The French were determined to avenge the humiliation of 1871, and a large army backed by conscription for all males and prepared to attack Germany was central to French thinking. This naturally was seen as a threat by the Germans, which led to their desire for a large, well equipped and trained army to counteract a French threat.
4. Germany had become united through military success and the military dominated.
5. The Germans wanted their ‘place in the sun’ so wished to expand their navy.
6. The Kaiser placed great emphasis on military strength.
7. There was also considerable public pressure. In most countries, there was nationalistic and xenophobic press which tended to support and encourage the arms race.
8. After the disaster of the Russo–Japanese War, Russia embarked on a modernisation programme which raised concerns in Germany.

Question 18

‘It was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia that was the critical factor in bringing about the outbreak of war.’ How far do you agree?

Answer 18

1. Giving that ultimatum, knowing full well that the Serbs could never accept it, could be seen as the critical factor.
2. The government knew it was bound to lead to conflict.
3. All in Austria knew that Russia was likely to rally to support the Serbs, which could well bring in the French and widen the conflict.
4. The ultimatum was designed to provoke a strong reaction, and it did.
5. The Austrians were determined to assert their domination of the region, whatever the cost.

Question 19

‘It was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia that was the critical factor in bringing about the outbreak of war.

arguments against

Answer 19

1. The ‘blank cheque’ gave the Austrians the confidence to issue the ultimatum in the first place.
2. The Alliance System could be seen as more important as it ensured that any local conflict was likely to widen.
3. The conflict could possibly have been contained in the Balkans; the earlier Balkan Wars had not spread too widely.
4. Russian mobilisation triggered the Schlieffen Plan.
5. The Schlieffen Plan with its lack of a ‘fail safe’ device was also important.
6. It could be argued that given the tension and rivalries that existed in Europe at the time, if it was not Sarajevo, then another equally quite manageable incident could escalate into war.

Question 20

Why did Britain see the German invasion of Belgium as such a threat?

Answer 20

1. The 1839 Treaty of London, which guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality, could be seen as the principal cause of Britain’s concern.
2. There was a long-established fear that the whole of the coastline facing England might fall into an enemy’s hands and a real risk of invasion might arise.
3. the degree of commitment which the Entente with France and Russia entailed, and also the Military Conversations which followed on from them.
4. The German support for the Boers during the Boer War, the Naval Race and the strong sense of colonial rivalry were also important background reasons.
5. Commercial rivalry was also strong and a fairly xenophobic press strongly influenced public opinion.
6. The Kaiser’s belligerence and obvious dislike of British policy further fuelled public fears.

Question 21

‘It was the existence of an Alliance System which meant that responses to the Sarajevo assassination escalated into a World War.’ How far do you agree?

Answer 21

1. Certainly, the Alliance System played a major part in the escalation process. It was loyalty to it that was vital for the Kaiser’s support for Austria and the ‘blank cheque’ policy.
2. Austria’s policy towards Serbia was contingent on German support and it is highly unlikely that such a belligerent policy would have been followed without German endorsement.
3. While the Tsar mobilised for a variety of reasons, such as support for fellow Slavs and a desire to regain international status, the knowledge that there was French, and probably British, support for his actions was an influencing factor.
4. It was loyalty to the Alliance System that was exceptionally important for bringing France in on the side of Russia and also influential in bringing in the
5. it was the bold policy of the Austrians and the irresponsible attitude of the Tsar that were also very important.

Question 22

‘It was the existence of an Alliance System which meant that responses to the Sarajevo assassination escalated into a World War.’

arguments against

Answer 22

1. there were other factors outside of the existence of an Alliance System.
2. The Schlieffen Plan and its implications were arguably critical as well.
3. Also worthy of consideration are all the other longer terms factors such as the Arms Race, colonial and commercial rivalry and the French desire for revenge going back to the Franco-Prussian War.
4. Italy was in an Alliance System with Germany and Austria, yet they joined the war on the side of Britain, France and Russia.

Question 23

Why did the Tsar’s decision to mobilise his army in 1914 cause such international concern?

Answer 23

1. The French knew that it would give the Germans a pretext for war and they were anxious to be seen in a defensive role.
2. The British knew that it could well lead to war on the Continent and that French and Russian pressure for support, resulting from the ententes, would grow difficult to resist.
3. All were aware that it was partly directed against Austria and they knew that this might pull Germany into a much wider conflict.
4. The Germans, terrified of a war on two fronts against Russia and France, saw this as a critical threat and of course it was to trigger the Schlieffen Plan.

Question 24

‘Imperial rivalries were the main cause of tension in Europe before 1914.’ How far do you agree?

Answer 24

1. It was one factor amongst many. Certainly, in examining the events of July and August 1914, it does not play a direct part.
2. The alliances and ententes and the role of individuals such as the Austrian Emperor, the Kaiser and the Tsar were of greater importance.
3. Possibly the role of the Schlieffen Plan could be considered as well. However, the Naval Race did play an important part in adding to the tension of the previous years.
4. The massive growth in the size of continental armies and the focus on mass mobilisation also raised tension.

Question 25

‘Imperial rivalries were the main cause of tension in Europe before 1914.’ arguments against

Answer 25

1. it certainly played a key role in convincing the Kaiser that Britain was a potential enemy and consistently hostile to Germany. 2. It played a significant part in preparing the British to accept the idea that Germany was a threat, and therefore raised tension. 3. Events such as the Moroccan crisis and the Kaiser’s support for the Boers against the British were significant in arousing public opinion. 4. Russian, Italian and Austrian ambitions in the Balkans were also important and can be seen as ‘imperial’ rivalries. It was from the Balkans that the final crisis emerged. 5. They fuelled the whole idea of an arms race and were linked into the fear of a threat to colonies overseas and pushed Britain towards the ententes and ‘military conversations’. It was an important background factor.

Question 26

To what extent should Germany take responsibility for causing the arms race before 1914?

Answer 26

1. Without large armies and navies, conscription and mobilisation plans, a major conflict was unlikely. 2. With the Germans always fearing encirclement, the presence of a large army in France and Russia was naturally seen as a threat. 3. France was determined on revenge (revanche) for the highly punitive treaty of 1871. 4. The Germans were well aware of this, which of course led to the Schlieffen Plan and all that that entailed. 5. The building of a ‘new’ German navy was seen as a direct threat by the British and was crucial in pushing Britain towards the Entente and the military conversations with the French. 6. The various military pressure groups, such as the Navy League, played a role in influencing public opinion, which further heightened tension. 7. It did play an important part in inflaming the actions of most of the major participants. The British (building of the Dreadnought), French (desire for revanche) and Russians (post Russo-Japanese War modernisation programme) all played a part as well in creating the ‘race’,

Question 27

Why was France hostile to Germany in the years before 1914?

Answer 27

1. France had not forgotten the humiliation of 1871 and the loss of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, both important economically. 2. There had been reparations to pay to Germany as well. 3. The Dreyfus affair had shown that Germany was spying on France and the French knew that Germany saw it as an enemy. 4. The Entente kept the rivalry alive and the French were fully aware of the purpose of the Triple Alliance. 5. The huge German army was just across the Rhine, and German ‘provocation’ in North Africa helped keep the tension high. 6. The Kaiser’s various indiscreet statements did not help, and while the French may not have known about the Schlieffen Plan in detail, they were certainly well aware of the hostility and aims behind it. 7. Events in North Africa did not help either.

Question 28

To what extent were Great Power rivalries responsible for Balkan instability in the period from 1900 to 1914?

Answer 28

1. Certainly Austria can take much of the blame. Her desire for expansion in that region and her attitude towards its inhabitants and their national aspirations were apparent. 2. Its government was short sighted and incompetent and its motives for exploitation were entirely selfish. Russia too must take some of the blame. 3. Her support for fellow Slavs/Orthodox believers was largely for propaganda and justification purposes. 4. There was a real desire for influence and to hopefully to gain territory in the region. 5. Italy also had aspirations there, but few seem to know that now. 6. The Turks still had aspirations of restoring their days of glory in the region.

Question 29

To what extent were Great Power rivalries responsible for Balkan instability in the period from 1900 to 1914?

Answer 29

1. The Ottomans had left a creaking legacy and there were bitter racial and religious divisions throughout the region. 2. The Serbs could be tactless and aggressive and there was a centuries-old tradition of violence and localism in the region. 3. Religion and a nascent nationalism were also significant factors. 4. Socially it was a badly divided region and it was also economically very backward. 5. The hatreds which dominate the region now were just as strong then

Question 30

Why did the assassination of Franz Ferdinand have such serious results?

Answer 30

1. Naturally the Austrians were furious that a key member of their royal family and his wife had been killed in such a way, but it was the chain reaction that it was to set off that was critical. 2. The reaction of the Kaiser was vital as it is unlikely that the Austrians would have reacted in the way they did over the Serbian ultimatum without the ‘blank cheque’ and the nature of the Triple Alliance. 3. Inevitably the Russians would get drawn in and as a result the French would come in to support, which, of course, would lead to a growing likelihood of British involvement. 4. It proved to be a key factor in pulling the ‘trigger’ of the Schlieffen Plan. 5. The lack of perception by so many leaders of what might be the implications of their actions was frightening.

Question 31

Austria Hungary's ‘Decisions to go to war in 1914 were taken for defensive reasons.’

Answer 31

1. With Austria-Hungary, they were concerned to defend their status and empire and stop the growth of nationalist movements within their empire. 2. On the other hand, there was the desire to expand their empire South and East. 3. Her adherence to the Triple Alliance was probably motivated as much by a desire for aggrandisement as to gain an ally. 4. Her thinking in 1914 itself was fundamentally aggressive and they were well aware of the implications of the Serb ultimatum.

Question 32

germany's ‘Decisions to go to war in 1914 were taken for defensive reasons.’

Answer 32

1. Germany was concerned about being attacked on two fronts, and this was triggered by the Russian mobilisation and the Entente. 2. They were also well aware of the French desire for revenge. However, Germany issuing the blank cheque was hardly defensive, and its record elsewhere, such as in North Africa, showed its aggressive side. 3. It is suggested that the Kaiser was unaware of the possible implications of his decisions in the summer of 1914. 4. While the Schlieffen Plan was based on the idea that the best method of defence was attack, it is still difficult to argue that Germany’s motivation was not defensiv

Question 33

frances ‘Decisions to go to war in 1914 were taken for defensive reasons.’

Answer 33

1. The French had been attacked, and were threatened through Belgium, so it could be argued they were motivated by defensive reasons, but they were determined to avenge 1871 and their whole military strategy was based on the offensive. 2. It is possible to argue either way here, but France had done a great deal to build up the tension in Europe by the summer of 1914.

Question 34

britains ‘Decisions to go to war in 1914 were taken for defensive reasons.’

Answer 34

1. The British were not directly attacked, but did feel threatened with the invasion of Belgium, although the strategic thinking behind it was very much out of date. 2. They were worried by German imperial aspirations and commercial rivalry. Arguably it was defensive, but there was also the commitment to an ally and an old Treaty. 3. Much of the UK’s defence was ‘defensive’ but there are stronger counter agreements which could be made.

Question 35

russias ‘Decisions to go to war in 1914 were taken for defensive reasons.’

Answer 35

1. The Russians were not really threatened and perhaps were the most culpable in this respect. 2. The support for the Serbs was hardly defensive, while the mobilisation was done without really thinking through the implications. 3. Much seemed to depend on the Tsar’s ideas of ‘honour’ and saving face.

Question 36

Why were the Balkans unstable by 1914?

Answer 36

1. There are a variety of reasons which could be considered and the better answers will prioritise their reasons. 2. There was the legacy of the Ottomans, who were not known for good government, and there was often bitter conflict as part of the independence process. 3. There was a tradition of bitter hostility between the various nationalities and religions. 4. Several nations had imperial aspirations in the region, such as the Austrians, the Russians and the Italians. 5. The Austrians were poor administrators and their obvious self-interest did not help. 6. There was a strong and aggressive nationalism emerging, as the Serbs demonstrated, and no tradition of peaceful negotiation and sensible co-existence in the region.

Question 37

‘No single country should be blamed for causing World War I.’ How far do you agree?

Answer 37

1. Many countries were involved in the system of alliances. It could be argued that while Germany started the first ones under Bismarck, they were for defensive reasons and that countries like France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and even Italy were the ones that pushed alliances towards becoming more threatening in intent. 2. Many countries were involved in the military build-up. The French on land and the British at sea were seen as threats to the security of others, especially Germany. 3. The Germans argued that all they were doing in their military expansion was responding to the potential threat from others. 4. Several different countries were involved in aggressive actions and imperial acquisition which was important to raising tension. 5. While a good case might be made against one country, such as Austria, when it comes to the short-term causes, others might well be seen as far more responsible when it comes to the longer-term causes

Question 38

certain countries can be blamed

Answer 38

There is a valid case to be made for several countries 1. Austria is a good one. Austria issued the ultimatum to Serbia, which it knew that Serbia would reject and that would lead to conflict. 2. Austria had long been an aggressor in the potential trouble spot in the Balkans. 3. A case could also be made for Russia. The Tsar was a very limited man, but he should have known the implications of his mobilisation. 4. Support for the Serbs and Russia’s known ambitions in the Balkan region could also be added to a list demonstrating her responsibility. 5. Germany could also feature as a response. The Schlieffen Plan, the build-up of both her army and navy, the ‘blank cheque’, her colonial ambitions in North Africa and her role with the alliances could all be mentioned. 6. The French, with their desire for revenge for defeat in the Franco-Prussian war as well as knowing the implications of her relationship with Britain and Russia, could be seen as a candidate as well. 7. Britain, by joining the Entente with Russia and France, its attitude towards German imperialism, its Dreadnought programme and its military ‘Conversations’ with the French could also have a valid case made out against her.