WW1 Flashcards
Long term origins of WW1
Triple entente (France/Russia/Britain vs Austrai-Hungary/Germany)
Balkan crisis
Why did Russia join the triple entente
Before foreign policy based on friendly relations with Prussia/Austria-Hungary
-Germany didn’t renew Reinsurance treaty of 1887 (Both parties no support 3rd party if 1 party fell into conflict)
=Russia pushed to seek new allies
-Formed alliance with french in 1894
-Then joined triple entente
The Balkan crisis
Astria-Hungary/Russia both wanted Balkan countries
= 1908 deal: Russian shipping free movement through straights if supported Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina
-Problems:
-Serbia saw BZ as serbian so wanted Russian slavic support
-European powers rejected Russia easy access through straights
-Germany reacted saying would support AH in annexation= humiliation for tsars
How were the consequences of the Balkan wars a disappointment for Russia (Long-term origins)
Had hoped balkan league would damage status of AH but instead squabbled over gains from Turks
Bulgaria most weakened- serious as the slav state most in line with Russian thinking/planning
Significance of the Balkan crisis (Long-term origins)
Showed Russia couldn’t dictate how European conflicts could be resolved
Showed political/military impotence that angered Russian ppl
Short-term origins of WW1
Assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz-Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist Gabriel princip
-Russia had to protect slavic Serbia if A retaliated/needed to make sure AH wouldn’t use as excuse to take balkans
-Issued mobilisation order when AH declared war on S
=Germany/Austria declare war on Russia
=Schlieffen Plan/Eastern block
(Russian leaders worst fears)
What is a mobilisation order
Order for military to prepare for conflict/war
Why mobilisation order bad idea (short-term origins)
-Left R vulnerable to G attack in West
-Railway links to west undeveloped
-Difficult at short notice
-Antagonistic- ppl feared would lead to war and did
When did Russia issue full mobilisation order (short term origins)
30th July 1914
August-September 1914 (Course of First world war)
Initial R victory at Gumbinnen followed by disastrous defeats at Tennenberg/Masurian Lakes
February 1915(Course of First world war)
R forces pushed back from East Prussia but take Memel in March
August 1915 (Course of First world war)
Nicholas II took command of army against advice
Russian retreat temporarily halted but had to abandon Vilna in September
February 1916 (Course of First world war)
Glimmer of hope as Russians took Ezerum from Ottomans
June 1916 (Course of First world war)
Brusilov offensive launched= some initial success but Germans easily realised threat
June/July 1917 (Course of First world war)
Attack on A forces but end of July Russians still in retreat
August 1917 (Course of First world war)
Russia withdrew from strategically important port of Riga in Latvia
December 1918(Course of First world war)
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signing- Trotsky said conditions were diktat
Military failures (impact of war)
-Defeats at Tannenburg/Masurian lakes= dented army/Citizen morale
-2X troops lost as enemy
-Casualties= 8 million (1.7 dead/2.4 captured)
=Tsar left to control army= political vacuum
Failure of industry (impact of war)
-Military failures blamed on “shells crisis” so workers had to put + effort into munitions production BUT industry already working at full capacity
-Communication/transport problems= stockpiling of supplies (e.g in Archangel mountains of hardware sunk into ground)
Economic impact of war
-Huge financial burden of 3 billion roubles (2X gov expenditure in peacetime)
-Gov print more money to cope= hyperinflation (e.g prices + 400% by 1917)
Social impact of war
Rapidly rising population/army food requisitioning/- fertilisers/transport problems= FOOD SHORTAGES/FAMINE (e.g Petrograd bread ration - 25%)
-Some say regional problem as mostly big cities but doesn’t matter because still= WIDESPREAD UNREST
Political impact of war
-Tsar leaving Tsarina in charge= very unpopular as German/Rasputin
-Growing criticism/pressure= abdicates
-Replaced by PG
Pessimists argument
Argue WW1 was NOT significant turning point
-Sympathises with efforts of working-class
-Pro-Bolshevik standpoint
Pessimists explaining how political consequences NOT directly caused by war
-Duma had developed progressive bloc before (acknowledged by Nicholas II who restricted their freedoms)
-Nicholas incompetent leader so only a matter of time, war simply sped up his demise
Pessimists explaining how social consequences (unrest) NOT directly caused by war
-Rise of working class had built up overtime- came hand-in-hand with industrialisation/urbanisation which could be traced back to Witte’s “great spurt”
-Greater WC consciousness reinforced by legalisation of political parties that represented their interests
So war just accelerated these trends
Weakness of pessimist argument
Doesn’t explain why Bolsheviks still able to seize power after July days
Optimists argument
Tsarism by definition was extremely resilient to change so needed dramatic/unique event to change nature of R gov (WW1)
-R industry unable to cope with demands of first industrial war
-Inevitable that Russian ppl would blame their leader
So war was significant turning point
Optimists view on what would have happened without war
Tsar would have made further constitutional reform= less criticisms (already started in 1905 so would have continued)
Optimists argument on how war led to revolution
Military failures= economic pressures that impacted lives of Russian ppl= social unrest, authorities couldn’t cope so= anarchy= formation of PG
-Continuation of war meant PG couldn’t establish authority= opportunity to revolutionaries
