Jump to content

Causes, practices and effects of wars: First World War (1914‑8)


Julie

Recommended Posts

This topic is dedicated to the First World War (1914‑8).

Major themes

Different types and nature of 20th century warfare

• Civil

• Guerrilla

• Limited war, total war

Origins and causes of wars

• Long-term, short-term and immediate causes

• Economic, ideological, political, religious causes Nature of 20th century wars

• Technological developments, tactics and strategies, air, land and sea

• Home front: economic and social impact (including changes in the role and status of women)

• Resistance and revolutionary movements

Effects and results of wars

• Peace settlements and wars ending without treaties

• Attempts at collective security pre- and post-Second World War

• Political repercussions and territorial changes

• Post-war economic problems


Hey, my semester exams are coming up and our teacher is currently reviewing WWI: causes and interpretation. he has given us a billion different ways to organize the causes of WWI.

We looked at organizing it thematically, chronologically, long-term/mid-term/immediate-term causes, long-term/short-term causes, etc...

I want to study the most, shall I say, sophisticated way in which to organize the causes (the one that will display my knowledge in the most effective, "elite" way). Any suggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronologically is always good for history. But you can mix and match that with the long term/mid term/short term causes as well I would think. If I remember right WWI was basically from a mass amount of tension that some dudes death triggered and everyone began hating each other and said, hey lets fight over it as usual.

Might be good to study the causes of the tension and then the chronological events that caused the blowup session?

*cough*Igota4inhistorysotakethishowyouwant*cough*

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronologically is always good for history. But you can mix and match that with the long term/mid term/short term causes as well I would think. If I remember right WWI was basically from a mass amount of tension that some dudes death triggered and everyone began hating each other and said, hey lets fight over it as usual.

Might be good to study the causes of the tension and then the chronological events that caused the blowup session?

*cough*Igota4inhistorysotakethishowyouwant*cough*

haha, let me see if I understood you correctly:

Take a thematic approach with the causes, and explain the thematic causes in a chronological order?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just happened to be doing this topic at Cambridge (and for some sad reason I still linger around here) so I thought I'd say how I did it. The question I had was 'An ordinary diplomatic crisis, which ran out of control.' Is this an adequate description of the outbreak of World War I? Obviously the way I answered the question is not a simple origins of WWI question in the sense that IB might give them. Anyway, I first discussed the development of international relations from about the unification of Germany, showing how European Great Powers became fixed around two alliance systems (a rather extraordinary thing to have such elaborate alliances in peacetime). From that I moved on to discuss the influence of domestic politics on decision-making and diplomacy. I especially concentrated on Britain and Germany. This is quite a good point for historiography. The way Fischer's book published in the 1960s (I think) shifted the debate from the assumed primacy of foreign policy to that of domestic politics (he discussed Germany). Niall Ferguson, on the other hand, offers a very juicy argument for Britain stating that Britain went to war at the moment it did, because the Liberal Cabinet was afraid of falling apart (and some other factors too).

From this I moved to the issue of nationalism, especially looking how it affected Austria-Hungary's and Russia's relations (there's a lot to dip in in this area, also the way the thinking of many politicians was aimed by nationalist ambitions and ideas of what it means to be a Great Power, ie. territorial expansion, etc.). After this I discussed the cultural and intellectual developments that were taking place in Europe. Much of this is very debatable, but it is interesting. Especially the rise of social Darwinism for example both Bethmann Hollweg, and Moltke (German Chancellor and the military leader that is) can be proven to be influenced by this kind of thinking. Another thing of course is to look at the rise of literature anticipating war (although this is much more debatable and I wouldn't go into it unless you actually know something about it).

Finally, I discussed the extent to which the various leaders understood what kind of a war they would have (bloodiness, length, and scale of participants). This is probably the least relevant part for the origins so I won't really discuss what I said there.

That being said, there are tons of other things to bring in, or that might be done differently. I had a very thematic approach, and some might want to change that. I happen to believe that it is hard to write a good argumentative essay on WWI by simply following a purely chronological approach. On the other hand, if you prefer you might want to take a look at the crisis leading up the WWI (ie. the argument that it was the third Balkan war, the importance of imperial clashes such as Algeciras, etc.). On the other hand, you might be faced with the argument of German war guilt, which is obviously one of the biggest areas of debates surrounding the topic.

Oh, if it still helps and you want that essay please pm me, I can send it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When studying causes, I've always preferred to organise them thematically.

If you go for the chronological approach, you're more likely to fall into a descrpitive essay (kind of like storytelling what happened before WWI), and that's not what IB wants you to do. If you categorise them in themes then it's kinda easier to make an analytical essay... In the first place, just organising the causes in themes shows part of the skills that IB looks to develop in their students (capability of approaching one problem through different angles). Also, by doing this it's more manageable to connect the causes and show how one cause can be categorised in different ways (for instance, one cause could be political but also social). Besides, you can highlight which causes you consider as the most important and WHY. Well, that's my recommendation (at least it worked for me :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this:

Militarism

Alliances

Imperialism

Nationalism

What about Pan-Slavism?

I know that was involved in the causes.

I totally agree with the people recommending you use MAIN, that's how we were taught, and it is a good way to thematically organise your ideas.

MAIN gives the four main (no pun intended) causes, pan-slavism is a sub-category of nationalism :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Chronologically is always the best way to go, but it allows you to incorporate various other methods as well. If you're going to use MAIN, then use those as headings, and under them write down specific incidences that related to that particular cause, in chronological order.

Another thing I learned was Identify and State the Significance. Identify specific facts, and state what impact that event had on the overall cause of the war and how it led to the war. This is very useful in helping you link facts and make connections, which is essentially the most important part of history.

GL on your exam!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Please people help me to understand !!

I have just started revising for history finals.. and I stuck right at the beginning in the causes of WW1.

My history teacher is not competent and i dont understand what was the Serbian nationalism. The book says that the Serbia was pro-Austrian and then pro-Russian but i dont understand what was the whole fuss about. Please help me !

Link to post
Share on other sites

World War I began in 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austria-Hungry Monarchy, by a believed Serbian nationalist Gravilo Princip in Sarajevo. His assassination was the catalyst that resulted in the commencement of the Great War, and the crime was accused to a group of Serbian nationalists created in 1911, known as the Black Hand. The Black Hand was led by Colonel Dimitrijevic, also known as Colonel Apis, and they were the suppliers and masterminds behind the assassination (Ivarone OL). After the assassination, Austria immediately accused Serbia, and with Austria's ultimatum came the declaration of war. In turn, the expansionistic ideals of Austria-Hungry were against Serbian nationalism in the basis of the War, with greater powers taking up the battling. At this point, Serbian nationalism swung into full effect with the Serbs believing what a great power they were. In earlier years, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Garasanin, declared the desire for Serbian rule of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and northern Albania in the "Nacertanije" (Sowards OL). During the war, Serbia saw it self backed up by various great powers, and for the first time felt like it was in control. Serbia regained its desire for rule of the Balkan territories, but also took a backseat to the needs of the Greater powers, such as the desires of Italy for the Dalmatian Coast. Serbia respected their policies, but a new nationalistic approach uprooted during wartime, which was caused by the entry into the war and the new found respect shown to Serbia.

Serbian nationalism affected all those involved with World War I a great deal. Besides being the incendiary for the Great War, Serbian nationalism sought respect throughout all of the Balkan Peninsula, and many refused to leave without a fight. Prior to World War I, those like Ilija Garasanin and Alexander Karageorgevic, new ruler of Serbia, took over Serbia in a radical approach and brought their nationalistic ideals with them. Radicals such as Nikola Pasic pushed Serbia forward and increased anti-Ottoman sentiment. Russia were also affected by Serbian nationalism. Russia kept its alliance with Serbia because it acted as the protector of all Slavic nations and Russia's help led to Serbia's forthrightness, because they knew Russia was there to protect them. Organizations like the Black Hand and the "Narodna Odbrana" (National Defense) led Serbia in their trials against the Ottoman Empire and founded Guerilla units in Macedonia.

Edited by nametaken
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The First Balkan War broke out on 8 October 1912 when Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbian, having large parts of their ethnic populations under Ottoman sovereignty, attacked the Ottoman Empire, ending its five-century rule in the Balkans in a seven-month campaign resulting in the Treaty of London.

The Second Balkan War broke out on 16 June 1913 when Bulgaria was dissatisfied over the division of the spoils in Macedonia, made in secret by its former allies, Serbia and Greece. Their armies repulsed the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked penetrating into Bulgaria, while Romania and the Ottoman Empire took the opportunity to intervene against Bulgaria and make territorial gains. The Treaty of Bucharest was the outcome of this war, resulting in Bulgaria losing most of the territories that it had gained in the First Balkan War.

That's essentially a brief summary, but I think you also have to be aware of the reactions among the Great Powers.

Edited by nametaken
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. ok :P

but why Austria-Hungary had the right to occupy and administer the Turkish provinces of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Novibazar???

and why Germany was cosidered to start the WW1??

Beacuse it assured Austria-Hungary with support to declare war on Serbia?

I've read something that Serbia was firstly pro-Austrian but then became pro-Russian, is it true??

and what does it mean? why it happened like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read something that Serbia was firstly pro-Austrian but then became pro-Russian, is it true??

and what does it mean? why it happened like that?

Russian I think because of the slavic races within Serbia. Russia viewed Serbia as its ally because of this, I think. Am not too sure about the pro-austria part.


and why Germany was cosidered to start the WW1??

Beacuse it assured Austria-Hungary with support to declare war on Serbia?

Germany was responsible for causing WWI because of the "blank check" given on June 6th, 1914 which allowed Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia with Germany's support. They also pushed Austria to go to war.


Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin gave Austria-Hungary the right to "occupy and administer" Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the time there was a widespread expectation that within a few years the Provinces would be formally annexed to the Dual Monarchy. A variety of circumstances, connected with both the foreign and internal affairs of Austria-Hungary, prevented any serious effort to convert occupation and administration into annexation. As time passed objections of the domestic order ceased to be as pronounced as in the years soon after 1878. Under the leadership of Count Aehrenthal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government of the Dual Monarchy found in the Turkish revolution of 1908, a convenient, opportunity for annexation.

The Government of the Dual Monarchy alleged that the Turkish Revolution in 1908 made it necessary for Austria-Hungary to define her position in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The constitutional reforms announced by the Young Turks required that Turkey grant a degree of autonomy to the provinces and representation in the Turkish Parliament. This made it necessary, in the interest of the welfare of the provinces, that Austria-Hungary should no longer leave their status ill defined.

The treaty of Berlin was the revision of the Treaty of San Stefano signed on March 3 of the same year. The treaty formally recognized independence of the de facto sovereign principalities of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, together with the autonomy of Bulgaria, though the latter remained under formal Ottoman overlordship

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look that is the quatation from my book:

"Serbian nationalism was probably the most dangerous cause of friction.

Since 1882 the Serbian government of King Milan had been pro-Austrian and his son Alexnader, who came of age in 1893, followed the same policy. However, the Serbian nationalists bitterly resented the fact that by the Treaty of Berlin signed in 1878, the Austrains had been allowed to occupy Bosnia, and area which Serbs thought should be part of a Greater Serbia. The nationalists saw Alexnader as a traitor; in 1903 he was mureres by a group of army officers, who put Peter Karageorgevic on the throne. The change of the regime caused a dramatic switch in Serbian policy: THE SERBS NOW BECAME PRO-RUSSIAN and made no secret of their ambition to unite all Serbs and Croats into large South Slav kingdom (Yugoslavia)"

another question arises.. why Serbians were nationalists? Was there any country that was trying to invade, or so?? Because nationalism means the desire to free your nation from control by people of another nationality..

I am really hopeless :((

I dont understand it

So Serbia was really angry that AUstria-Hungary annexed Bosnia because they wanted to do the same, am I right?

Yeaaahh

look! my previous post is correct

quatation: " Annexing Bosnia by Autria-Hungary was a deliberate blow at the neighbouring state of Serbia, which also had been hoping to take Bosnia since it contained about 3 million Serbs among its mixed population of Serbs, Croats and Muslims"

:))))

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greater Serbian ideology comes from the idea that Serbians in Serbia wanted a nation of Serbs. Its inspiration comes from the memory and existence of the relatively large and powerful Serbian Empire that existed in 14th century south-eastern Europe prior to the Ottoman invasion. The Austro-Hungarian Annexation of Bosnia, frustrated the majority of Serbian politicians, since there was still a large number of Serbs remaining out of the Kingdom. So yes, Serbia wanted Bosnia.

Awww! You're not hopeless. You need to focus, that's all.

Edited by nametaken
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeaaah :))

And after that annexeation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary,Serbia remained bitterly hostile to Austria, and it was this quarrel which sparked off the outbreak of the war, wasn't it??

And at the same time Russia was humiliated by her allies because when Serbia resorted to Russia for help, the Russian allies let her down and Russia herself could not support the Serbia because she had to recover from her defeat in the Russo-Japansese War (1904-5) yess? :D

But wait ! Hm... why Russia wanted to help Serbia?? Were they allies, or what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...