Week 6, Monday: The First World War (1914-1918) Flashcards
- The First World War has been called the “Mother of all Catastrophes”, or the “seminal
catastrophe of the twentieth century”.
Mention two consequences of the war that were disastrous. Explain your answer.
Can you mention a positive result of the war?
Consequences of World War I
Human and Economic Toll:
The war caused approximately 10 million military and 7 million civilian deaths, leading to widespread poverty and economic devastation in Europe.
Political Upheaval and Rise of Extremism:
The collapse of empires (Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, German) created political instability, paving the way for extremist ideologies like fascism and communism, contributing to World War II.
Positive Result of the War
Advancement in Social Change:
The war accelerated women’s rights as they filled roles traditionally held by men. This shift contributed to the suffrage movement, enabling women to gain the right to vote in several countries.
- Discuss German foreign policy:
- What was Bismarck’s first concern and what was his second concern? How did he deal
with them?
- Why did emperor William II end the reinsurance (or non-aggression) treaty with
Russia?
- Why and how did Anglo-German rivalry develop?
- How did the Germans test the strength of the Entente in 1905? What was the result?
German Foreign Policy
Bismarck’s Concerns:
First Concern: Preserve peace and stability in Europe to maintain the newly unified German state.
How He Dealt With It: Bismarck established a series of alliances, including the Triple Alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy, and focused on isolating France diplomatically.
Second Concern: Prevent a two-front war against France and Russia.
How He Dealt With It: He negotiated the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1887 to ensure neutrality if one of them was attacked.
William II and the Reinsurance Treaty:
Reason for Ending It: Emperor William II sought a more aggressive foreign policy and believed that an alliance with Britain was more beneficial than maintaining the treaty with Russia. He viewed the Reinsurance Treaty as a constraint on Germany’s potential.
Anglo-German Rivalry:
Development: The rivalry intensified due to Germany’s naval expansion under William II, which threatened British naval supremacy. Additionally, colonial competitions in Africa and Asia exacerbated tensions between the two powers.
Testing the Entente (1905):
Event: Germany challenged the Entente by sending the Panther to Agadir in Morocco to support local leaders against French control.
Result: The move backfired; it united Britain and France against Germany, solidifying the Entente and increasing diplomatic isolation for Germany, leading to a more aggressive stance from France and Britain in subsequent years.
- Describe the rise of the Triple Entente. Pay attention to:
- the French -Russian alliance (1892)
- the French-British Entente Cordiale (1904)
- the Anglo-Russian agreement (1907).
Rise of the Triple Entente
French-Russian Alliance (1892):
Background: Concerned about the rising power of Germany and the possibility of a two-front war, France sought an alliance with Russia.
Details: The alliance was formalized in 1892, committing both nations to mutual military support in case of an attack by Germany or Austria-Hungary. This strengthened France’s security and provided Russia with a counterbalance against Germany.
French-British Entente Cordiale (1904):
Background: The entente marked a significant shift in British foreign policy from isolationism to cooperation with France.
Details: Signed in 1904, it resolved colonial disputes in Africa, with Britain recognizing French interests in Morocco and France acknowledging British control over Egypt. This agreement improved relations and set the stage for closer military coordination.
Anglo-Russian Agreement (1907):
Background: The Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia had created tension, but the two powers recognized the need for cooperation against Germany.
Details: The 1907 agreement settled territorial disputes in Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet, allowing for a more unified front against the potential threat from the Central Powers. This effectively completed the formation of the Triple Entente, solidifying military and diplomatic ties between France, Britain, and Russia.
- Why did Austria annex Bosnia in 1908? How did this influence Russia?
Reasons for Austria’s Annexation of Bosnia (1908)
Strategic Interests: Austria-Hungary aimed to strengthen its influence in the Balkans, a region of ethnic tensions and national aspirations. Annexing Bosnia would enhance its territorial integrity and counter the influence of Serbia, which sought to expand its own territory.
Preemptive Action: Following the weakening of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary viewed the annexation as a way to preempt any potential territorial gains by Serbia and to secure its position in the Balkans before other powers could intervene.
Nationalist Movements: The annexation was also motivated by rising nationalist sentiments within Austria-Hungary, particularly among its Slavic population. By annexing Bosnia, the government aimed to assert its control over Slavic territories and quell nationalist movements within its borders.
Influence on Russia
Anger and Resentment: Russia, a Slavic nation and protector of Slavic peoples, was outraged by Austria’s annexation of Bosnia. This act was perceived as a direct threat to Russian interests in the Balkans and its ambitions to support Slavic nationalism.
Increased Tensions: The annexation heightened tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia, contributing to a deterioration in relations. Russia felt compelled to support Serbia, further deepening the divide between the two powers.
Reasons for Austria’s Annexation of Bosnia (1908)
Strategic Interests: Austria-Hungary aimed to strengthen its influence in the Balkans, a region of ethnic tensions and national aspirations. Annexing Bosnia would enhance its territorial integrity and counter the influence of Serbia, which sought to expand its own territory.
Preemptive Action: Following the weakening of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary viewed the annexation as a way to preempt any potential territorial gains by Serbia and to secure its position in the Balkans before other powers could intervene.
Nationalist Movements: The annexation was also motivated by rising nationalist sentiments within Austria-Hungary, particularly among its Slavic population. By annexing Bosnia, the government aimed to assert its control over Slavic territories and quell nationalist movements within its borders.
Influence on Russia
Anger and Resentment: Russia, a Slavic nation and protector of Slavic peoples, was outraged by Austria’s annexation of Bosnia. This act was perceived as a direct threat to Russian interests in the Balkans and its ambitions to support Slavic nationalism.
Increased Tensions: The annexation heightened tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia, contributing to a deterioration in relations. Russia felt compelled to support Serbia, further deepening the divide between the two powers.
Diplomatic Isolation: Austria’s action, backed by Germany, contributed to Russia’s feeling of diplomatic isolation. It prompted Russia to reconsider its alliances and strategies in Europe, eventually leading to a more aggressive stance in the Balkans and greater military preparedness.
- Deal with the July-crisis. Pay attention to:
- the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, 28 June
- the German “Blank Check” to Austria.
- the Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia, 23 July
- the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia, 28 July
- the Russian response
- the subsequent declarations of war.
The July Crisis of 1914
Assassination of Franz Ferdinand (June 28, 1914): Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the nationalist group known as the Black Hand. This event triggered a series of diplomatic crises in Europe.
German “Blank Check” to Austria (July 5, 1914): Following the assassination, Germany extended unconditional support to Austria-Hungary, known as the “Blank Check.” German leaders encouraged Austria to take a hard line against Serbia, believing that a strong response could help strengthen their alliance and deter Russian influence in the Balkans.
Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia (July 23, 1914): Austria-Hungary issued a harsh ultimatum to Serbia, demanding a series of concessions, including the suppression of anti-Austrian propaganda and the involvement of Austrian officials in the investigation of the assassination. The demands were intentionally provocative, aiming to create a pretext for war.
Austrian Declaration of War on Serbia (July 28, 1914): Serbia’s response to the ultimatum was deemed insufficient by Austria. Consequently, on July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, marking the beginning of the conflict.
Russian Response (July 30, 1914): In defense of Serbia, Russia mobilized its military in response to Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war. This move was part of Russia’s commitment to protect Slavic nations and its interests in the Balkans.
Subsequent Declarations of War:
Germany declared war on Russia (August 1, 1914) following Russia’s mobilization, viewing it as a threat to Austria-Hungary.
Germany declared war on France (August 3, 1914), anticipating French involvement in support of Russia.
Germany invaded Belgium (August 4, 1914) as part of its war plan against France, prompting Britain to declare war on Germany the same day due to its treaty obligations to defend Belgian neutrality.
- Explain which great shift in the debate about the causes of the First World War
occurred in the second half of the 1920s. Why did this happen at this moment?
In the second half of the 1920s, a significant shift occurred in the debate about the causes of the First World War, moving from a focus on individual nations’ responsibilities to a broader analysis of systemic factors. Initially, many historians attributed the war to specific actions and policies of particular nations, particularly Germany, and emphasized national blame in their narratives.
Reasons for the Shift:
Rise of Revisionist Historiography: A new wave of historians, often referred to as revisionists, began to emerge, questioning the dominant narratives of guilt. They argued that the war’s causes were not the result of any single nation’s aggression but rather a complex interplay of various political, social, and economic factors across Europe.
Impact of Economic and Social Changes: The aftermath of World War I, particularly the economic turmoil of the 1920s, prompted scholars to reassess the long-term causes of the conflict. The global economic crisis led to a reconsideration of militarism, nationalism, and imperial competition as interconnected phenomena rather than isolated issues.
Access to New Sources: The 1920s saw the emergence of new primary sources, including documents and memoirs that provided different perspectives on the war’s origins. This increased access to historical material allowed historians to build more nuanced arguments about the complexities of the pre-war environment.
Desire for Understanding: There was a growing need to understand the causes of the war to prevent future conflicts, particularly as Europe was still recovering from the war’s devastating effects. Scholars aimed to identify root causes rather than assign blame to facilitate reconciliation and international cooperation.
- How did the Second World War impact history writing on the origins of WWI?
The Second World War had a profound impact on the historiography concerning the origins of World War I. Here are the key ways it influenced history writing:
- Reevaluation of Causes:
Post-War Context: The devastation of World War II prompted historians to reevaluate the causes of World War I. Many sought to understand how the conditions and decisions of the early 20th century contributed to not only the first but also the second global conflict.
Emphasis on Total War: The concept of total war emerged, leading historians to analyze how the social, political, and economic systems of the time contributed to both wars, thus broadening the perspective on World War I’s origins. - Focus on Diplomacy and Alliances:
Complex Interplay of Powers: Historians began to emphasize the intricate web of alliances and diplomatic failures that led to the outbreak of World War I. This included a closer examination of the roles played by various powers rather than attributing blame to one nation.
Shift from Blame to Systems: The narrative shifted from attributing guilt to nations (particularly Germany) to understanding the systemic failures in international relations and diplomacy. - Emergence of New Theories:
Marxist and Social Histories: The rise of Marxist historiography post-World War II brought new interpretations that emphasized class struggles, economic interests, and imperialism as significant factors in the war’s origins.
Cultural and Psychological Factors: Historians began to explore cultural and psychological dimensions, including nationalism and militarism, as drivers of the conflict. - Access to New Sources:
Archives and Documents: The end of World War II and the subsequent opening of archives, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia, allowed historians to access previously classified documents. This provided new insights into diplomatic communications and military strategies, influencing interpretations of pre-war decisions. - Interdisciplinary Approaches:
Incorporation of Other Disciplines: The study of World War I’s origins began to incorporate methodologies from sociology, political science, and economics, leading to more comprehensive analyses of the factors that led to the war.
- What does the development of historiography / history writing on the origins of WWII
tell us about the profession of historian, and the approaches they take towards their
research object?
- Diverse Methodological Approaches:
Interdisciplinary Influence: Historians have increasingly integrated insights from political science, sociology, economics, and cultural studies, leading to a more holistic understanding of events. This interdisciplinary approach enables a deeper analysis of the social, political, and economic contexts surrounding the origins of World War II.
Comparative Analysis: Scholars often compare different countries’ responses to fascism, totalitarianism, and imperialism, examining how these varied contexts influenced the onset of the war. This comparative framework highlights the complexity of historical narratives. - Evolving Perspectives:
Shift from Traditional Narratives: Earlier historiography often focused on key political figures and events, attributing blame to specific nations or leaders. Over time, there has been a shift towards understanding the broader socio-political environment, including the roles of ideology, public sentiment, and international relations.
Emergence of Revisionism: Revisionist historians have challenged mainstream interpretations, arguing for more nuanced views that consider the motivations and actions of various actors. This has led to debates about the adequacy of previous explanations and a search for new evidence. - Access to New Sources:
Opening of Archives: The fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of Eastern European archives provided historians with previously unavailable documents, prompting reevaluations of established narratives. This demonstrates the profession’s reliance on primary sources to support interpretations.
Oral Histories and Personal Accounts: Increasing interest in oral histories and personal narratives has enriched the understanding of the war’s impact on individuals and communities, illustrating the importance of diverse perspectives in historical scholarship. - Ethical Considerations:
Moral Responsibility: Historians grapple with the ethical implications of their work, particularly when addressing sensitive subjects like the Holocaust, imperialism, and war crimes. This concern for moral responsibility reflects a growing awareness of the impact of historical narratives on contemporary society.
Public History and Engagement: The profession has increasingly recognized the need to communicate historical research to broader audiences, engaging in public history initiatives that seek to educate and inform about the implications of past events. - Dynamic Nature of Historical Inquiry:
Ongoing Debate and Revision: The historiography of World War II demonstrates that history is not static but rather a dynamic field of study where interpretations evolve as new evidence emerges and as societal values change. Historians are part of an ongoing dialogue, constantly reassessing and refining their conclusions.
- What four main interpretive trends are there in the controversy over the origins of the
First World War according to Porter and Armour?
Which one of the four interpretations is most convincing in their view? Why?
According to Porter and Armour, the controversy over the origins of the First World War can be understood through four main interpretive trends:
- The Blame Game:
This interpretation focuses on assigning responsibility for the outbreak of the war to specific nations or leaders, often emphasizing militarism, nationalism, and alliances. Historians within this trend analyze the decisions and actions of key players, such as Germany and Austria-Hungary, to identify who bears the primary blame for the conflict. - Structural and Systemic Factors:
This view emphasizes the larger structural forces at play, such as imperial competition, economic rivalries, and the rigid alliance systems that created a precarious balance of power. It argues that these underlying conditions made war increasingly likely, regardless of individual decisions or actions. - Cultural and Ideological Influences:
This interpretation highlights the impact of cultural factors, including national identity, public sentiment, and prevailing ideologies. Historians here explore how societal attitudes and beliefs influenced political leaders and contributed to the climate of conflict. - Revisionist Perspectives:
Revisionist historians challenge traditional narratives by arguing that the war was not inevitable and that other outcomes were possible. They often focus on the complexity of diplomatic interactions and the potential for negotiation and compromise that could have averted war.
Most Convincing Interpretation:
Porter and Armour find the structural and systemic factors interpretation to be the most convincing. They argue that this perspective effectively accounts for the broader geopolitical context that made the outbreak of war more likely. By focusing on the interlocking alliances, imperial ambitions, and economic tensions that characterized the early 20th century, this interpretation highlights the inevitability of conflict under the prevailing conditions, regardless of individual actions or decisions.
- How did Vera Brittain experience the war?
Vera Brittain experienced World War I as a profound personal and emotional upheaval, shaped by her roles as a nurse, writer, and bereaved family member.
Personal Loss: Brittain lost many loved ones during the war, including her fiancé, Roland Leighton, and several close friends. These losses deeply impacted her worldview and fueled her pacifist beliefs.
Nursing Experience: She served as a Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) nurse, providing medical care to wounded soldiers. This firsthand exposure to the horrors of war—dealing with severe injuries and death—intensified her anti-war sentiments and revealed the grim realities of combat.
Literary Response: Brittain documented her experiences in her autobiography, Testament of Youth, where she eloquently articulated her disillusionment with war and its devastating effects on individuals and society. Her writing combined personal grief with broader social critiques, highlighting the futility of war.
Advocacy for Peace: Following the war, Brittain became an active advocate for peace and women’s rights, using her experiences to speak out against militarism and the gendered impacts of war.
