Jump to content


Photo

The Blame Debate


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 historygeek

historygeek
  • Student
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 March 2010 - 05:11 PM

okay sorry.
just wondering
so there are basically just two points that other countries would use?

1.the assasination
2.the refusal of the ultimatum

how would we counterattack an Austria hungary attack regarding the serbians refusing to answer the treaty. would it just be the unfairness?
also,
did serbia do anything else that might have triggered some of these or other causes to the war?

#32 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 28 March 2010 - 08:31 PM

so there are basically just two points that other countries would use?
1.the assasination
2.the refusal of the ultimatum
did serbia do anything else that might have triggered some of these or other causes to the war?

Read the first three points of this post, this post and this post for more ideas.

how would we counterattack an Austria hungary attack regarding the serbians refusing to answer the treaty. would it just be the unfairness?

Read this post.
Many historians blame Austria-Hungary for starting the war:
1. They had already inflamed relations in the region by their actions in the Pig War and the Bosnian Crisis of 1908.
2. They did not really care so much about FF; many people in A-H disliked him, including his father. They just used him as an excuse to attack Serbia. It took them almost a month after the death of FF to declare war.
3. The ultimatum was a very silly idea; it gave Serbia the chance to look reasonable and made Russia feel sorry for Serbia.
4. THEY went to Germany to get support, thereby introducing the idea that this would be a war between many nations.
5. THEY refused to accept Serbia's offer, so they fired the first shots of the war.
6. It was A-H who - by going to war against Serbia - started the chain reaction which dragged the different countries into the conflict because of their alliances. There had been other crises before, but they had never come to war because the hostile countries had controleld themselves and stepped back from war. A-H did NOT do that in 1914, and it was their irresponsibility which set the world on fire.

#33 historygeek

historygeek
  • Student
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 05:01 PM

ok got that
how would i prove Serbia's innocence if asked why we would approve of terrorists running around free in Serbian soil?
also
what points can be said to be used to defend Serbia if asked about our expansion issues.
also is it indeed a fact that the Serbian PM said that Austria was next on the list?if that is true how would i counter that such statement?

#34 historygeek

historygeek
  • Student
  • 7 posts

Posted 29 March 2010 - 05:59 PM

Btw in my debate we will be asking questions rather than stating points
any good questions i could ask Austria that would cause them to be heavily hit and have difficulties in answering?

#35 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:19 AM

ok got that
how would i prove Serbia's innocence if asked why we would approve of terrorists running around free in Serbian soil?

But the Serbian government TOLD the Austrians that an assassination attempt was being planned. Also, the Serbian government took a number of measures to reduce the power of the Black Hand in the military. It was not Serbia who did nothing - it was the Austrians, who basically ignored Serbia's warning and only put 120 policemen (and NO soldiers) to guard the Archduke. (In fact, before mehmedbasic threw his bomb, he ASKED one of the policemen which person in the cortege was FF - and the excited policemen shouted 'That's him!' Did you know that the policemen in duty were watching the cortege, not the crowd?) When you're faced with that level of incompetenece, nothing that Serbia did could have saved FF.
Also, you MUST point out that NONE of the terrorists were Serbians. They were all Bosnians, living in the A-H empire! It wasn't Serbia that was letting terrorists run around freely.
It is true that one of the terrorists was trained by the Black Hand in Serbia (Princip, I think), and also that the 6 men got their weapons from the Black Hand in Serbia. (I think if I were Serbia I would acknowledge that, and explain that that was why we had agreed to 9 out of the ten points of the ultimatum - Serbia wanted to clear up the terrorists as much as Austria.) But did you know that the weapons were delivered by the Austrian Post Office! I think my other point would be that A-H needed to get THEIR house in order.


what points can be said to be used to defend Serbia if asked about our expansion issues. also is it indeed a fact that the Serbian PM said that Austria was next on the list?if that is true how would i counter that such statement?

It was not not Serbia who annexed Bosnia in 1908. EVERYBODY in the Balkans had been expanding at the expense of Turkey.
As for the other issue, I would go for it up-front. The Serbians believed that all Serbians should be united in one country - Serbia. They did not believe that the Austrian emperor had the right to rule Serbians. What's so wrong with that idea. Nowadays we would all agree with the Serbs, not with A-H, and you may wish to point out that self-determination was a principle built into the Treaty of Versailles, when the Serbs WERE in fact united in one country.
By stopping the Bosnian Serbs getting self-determination, A-H was depriving them of their human rights - by that way of looking at things, Austria was the aggressor, not Serbia - and it was only to be expected that a few hot-heads would occasionally take the law into their own hands and commit acts of violence. AUSTRIA was to blame for the assassination, not Serbia.

#36 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:22 AM

Btw in my debate we will be asking questions rather than stating points
any good questions i could ask Austria that would cause them to be heavily hit and have difficulties in answering?

Come on, you're cleverer than that - you're wanting me to do your homework, not help you.
Surely you're clever enough to turn the ideas in this post into questions?
  • Is it not true that you have already inflamed relations in the region by their actions in the Pig War?
  • Did you not inflame relations in the Balkans when you annexed Bosnia in the Bosnian Crisis of 1908?
  • etc.
This is a History Help forum, not a do-it-for-you forum.

#37 historygeek

historygeek
  • Student
  • 7 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 05:32 PM

haha i am sorry im not so used to this forum and how it works yet:D
thanks a lot i greatly appreciate the help

#38 ww1 fanatic

ww1 fanatic
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:12 AM

This is just my 2 cents worth.....

It seems to me that the conflict is everyones fault. Of course it was Bismark who initiated the alliance scheme that allowed it to become a big conflict rather than a tiny scuffle in the Balklands but every nation freely partook in it and therefore allowed it to happen. For instance if Britain had not been in an alliance with Belgium then they would not have entered the war and caused a disaster. And if France had not been an ally of Russia then Germany would have had no need to attack it.

But on the other hand if we look at the common mans view that it was Germanys fault, how can it be. Ok It was them invading Belgium that created the horror that was the westernfront but really they only did so to protect themselves from the huge threat that was russia. Because if Russia had smashed Austria (which was more than likely) then Germany would of lost an ally and the Russian government & army would have been free to overwhelm Germany. They were doing it in self defence and the Schliffen plan shows us this because they felt that they had to attack France first and get it out the way before concentraiting all of its forces onto Russia who they thought was harder to defeat so was more of a threat.

However if we go back to my origional point if Russia had not been in the tripple entente or the Franco-Russian alliance then there would have been little need for Germany to feel threatened and war would have been avoided (this is the same with Russias alliance with Serbia).

Any other views or any facts to credit or discredit my point of view would be egarly welcomed....

#39 maveric2170

maveric2170
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:39 AM


so there are basically just two points that other countries would use?
1.the assasination
2.the refusal of the ultimatum
did serbia do anything else that might have triggered some of these or other causes to the war?

Read the first three points of this post, this post and this post for more ideas.

how would we counterattack an Austria hungary attack regarding the serbians refusing to answer the treaty. would it just be the unfairness?

Read this post.
Many historians blame Austria-Hungary for starting the war:
1. They had already inflamed relations in the region by their actions in the Pig War and the Bosnian Crisis of 1908.
2. They did not really care so much about FF; many people in A-H disliked him, including his father. They just used him as an excuse to attack Serbia. It took them almost a month after the death of FF to declare war.
3. The ultimatum was a very silly idea; it gave Serbia the chance to look reasonable and made Russia feel sorry for Serbia.
4. THEY went to Germany to get support, thereby introducing the idea that this would be a war between many nations.
5. THEY refused to accept Serbia's offer, so they fired the first shots of the war.
6. It was A-H who - by going to war against Serbia - started the chain reaction which dragged the different countries into the conflict because of their alliances. There had been other crises before, but they had never come to war because the hostile countries had controleld themselves and stepped back from war. A-H did NOT do that in 1914, and it was their irresponsibility which set the world on fire.

Yo teach, didn't austrian's waged war cause they weren't able to sign the treaty. Besides after the assassination Gavrilo was like a hero to Serbian people.

#40 maveric2170

maveric2170
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:40 AM

This is just my 2 cents worth.....

It seems to me that the conflict is everyones fault. Of course it was Bismark who initiated the alliance scheme that allowed it to become a big conflict rather than a tiny scuffle in the Balklands but every nation freely partook in it and therefore allowed it to happen. For instance if Britain had not been in an alliance with Belgium then they would not have entered the war and caused a disaster. And if France had not been an ally of Russia then Germany would have had no need to attack it.

But on the other hand if we look at the common mans view that it was Germanys fault, how can it be. Ok It was them invading Belgium that created the horror that was the westernfront but really they only did so to protect themselves from the huge threat that was russia. Because if Russia had smashed Austria (which was more than likely) then Germany would of lost an ally and the Russian government & army would have been free to overwhelm Germany. They were doing it in self defence and the Schliffen plan shows us this because they felt that they had to attack France first and get it out the way before concentraiting all of its forces onto Russia who they thought was harder to defeat so was more of a threat.

However if we go back to my origional point if Russia had not been in the tripple entente or the Franco-Russian alliance then there would have been little need for Germany to feel threatened and war would have been avoided (this is the same with Russias alliance with Serbia).

Any other views or any facts to credit or discredit my point of view would be egarly welcomed....

You're correct. It's everyone's fault for joining the war or quarrel between austria and serbia

#41 Weh

Weh
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:53 AM

This is just my 2 cents worth.....

It seems to me that the conflict is everyones fault. Of course it was Bismark who initiated the alliance scheme that allowed it to become a big conflict rather than a tiny scuffle in the Balklands but every nation freely partook in it and therefore allowed it to happen. For instance if Britain had not been in an alliance with Belgium then they would not have entered the war and caused a disaster. And if France had not been an ally of Russia then Germany would have had no need to attack it.


Indeed, the European system of mutual-protection-pacts is partly to blame for the war.
Also, during this time almost all of the world's surface is finally colonised by one European state or another. Thereafter, further expansion becomes impossible without that expansion being at the expense of another advanced Capitalist state. It is not physically possible to claim more markets without invading a rival. Therefore the ruling-classes set up complicated pacts between themselves in order for their capital to be best protected in the eventuality (some might say inevitability) of a European war (which would become a world-war since European Capitalism has colonised most of the Earth).
The First World War is useful for the survival of Capitalism because it destroys a huge amount of the means of production (factories etc. where things are made). It wastes an enormous amount of actual production (guns boats bombs etc.), the over-production of which had led to the arms-race between the European powers. It also effectively destroyed the powers of Austria-Hungary and Germany (for a time), crippling their ability to compete on the world-market, which bolstered the powers of the victorious nation-states.
It was bad for Capitalism because it helped create the Soviet Union, which in turn had a huge influence on Communist organisation in Europe. In the years following WW1 there were numerous rebellions and uprisings, and real potential for a mass working-class revolution in Europe.

#42 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

Indeed, the European system of mutual-protection-pacts is partly to blame for the war.
Also, during this time almost all of the world's surface is finally colonised by one European state or another. Thereafter, further expansion becomes impossible without that expansion being at the expense of another advanced Capitalist state. It is not physically possible to claim more markets without invading a rival. Therefore the ruling-classes set up complicated pacts between themselves in order for their capital to be best protected in the eventuality (some might say inevitability) of a European war (which would become a world-war since European Capitalism has colonised most of the Earth).
The First World War is useful for the survival of Capitalism because it destroys a huge amount of the means of production (factories etc. where things are made). It wastes an enormous amount of actual production (guns boats bombs etc.), the over-production of which had led to the arms-race between the European powers. It also effectively destroyed the powers of Austria-Hungary and Germany (for a time), crippling their ability to compete on the world-market, which bolstered the powers of the victorious nation-states.
It was bad for Capitalism because it helped create the Soviet Union, which in turn had a huge influence on Communist organisation in Europe. In the years following WW1 there were numerous rebellions and uprisings, and real potential for a mass working-class revolution in Europe.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking interpretation of the causes of war - thank you for suggesting it.

#43 krystals4life

krystals4life
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:16 PM

I have a debate for my history class and its exactly this, who is to blame for WWI, who has to pay, and what happens to the colonies? There are different countries and my country is Germany. I really need help for this and need an argument to why it isn't Germany's fault and who should i blame. I've researched and other countries seem to be blamed for WWI also. 

 

I have to go against France and Austria mainly but there is also Russia, Britain, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire so any help is appreciated! 



#44 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:08 AM

You should be able quite easily to assemble some ideas exonerating Germany:

- Germany was not involved in the murder of Franz Ferdinand

- Russia started the war by mobilising to defend Serbia against Austria-Hungary - and it wasn't as if Germany hadn't warned Russia what would happen if they did.

- the Triple Entente surrounded Germany with a military alliance directed against Germany

- did not France HATE Germany

- had not France and Russia (esp) been building their armies as fast as possible to rival Germany's

- colonies are the key - at base, the war was a Franco-British trick to strip Germany of her commercial and imperial interests overseas ... ask America what they think of Britain's colonies (they HATE them)

- hadn't Britain been OPENLY engaging with Germany in a naval arms race.

- hadn't an anti-German war hysteria been developing in Britain for the last ten years

 

(And seeing as you are coming to this debate as part of your studiess of the Treaty of Versailles, also read this webpage.)



#45 krystals4life

krystals4life
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

Thank you and are there any more reasons to why France should be blamed?

Its going to be a 2 hr long class period so the debate is going to be long.  I need as much information to defend Germany and blame France...

 

Also is it true that Austria refused to accept Serbia's offer, so technically they fired the first shots of the war??






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)