In Honors Word History, we are preparing for our annual World War One debates. Students spend two weeks preparing for a three-day debate (40 min. class period). We are to argue which of these countries was responsible for WWI: Great Britain, France, Germany, Serbia, Austria-Hungary, or Russia. I feel I have done adequate research and understand the facts that preceded the war. What I am looking for are other people's perspectives as to how these facts - the assassination, alliances, militarism, nationalism - fit into the big picture and ultimately blame a singal country for World War One. Any help would be appreciated.

http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm

Wow, that sounds like a really interesting debate... If only our school had that too.

Well, for me, there are many different causes of World War 1 was the Austrians. Since the Serbs wanted freedom and I guess that's what made them want to murder Franz Ferdinand. That's my point of view, since it was the Austrians who declared war on the Serbs first. And I highly don't agree to the Treaty of Versailles, where they blamed Germany for the whole war. And it was that certain Treaty that was one of the main causes of World War 2.

That's my point of view, but there are many others too, of course.

Thanks Pam
That's a really good comment, and I'm sure it would be useful as a quote in an essay!!!
However, you need to distinguish between importance and sequence.
The FIRST event in the causation sequence is not necessarily the most important.

So - e.g. - OK, so the Austrians were the first to attack the Serbs - but what had the Serbs been doing to lead to a situation where the Autrians felt they had to attack Serbia.
And - countries fight all the time - what had been happening which led to a situation where, when two countries had a spat, the whole world set to a four-year slaughter of humanity?

Quite frankly, I think it would be possible to portray the Austrans as the only ones who went to war validly!!! I mean - compare what the USA did when Al Quaeda wrecked the two towers ... they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. How would we feel if somebody assassinated the Queen, or the Prime Minister ... the Autrian heir to the throne had been assassinated.

There's lots to talk about in a debate like this!!

For a Masters assignment I looked at the question 'Was the outbreak of war inevitable in 1914? I examined the causes to pinpoint the time it became inevitable.

Today scholarly work on the origins of the war is inclined to be the reworking of earlier writings or if they offer new thinking or fresh research, to centre on single areas of study. The studies on the origins of the war make the task of covering the origins apparently endless.

During my research I read the telegrams that were sent between Tsar Nicholas II and his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm during the July crisis of 1914, they make interesting reading: You can read the telegrams online:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynami...willynilly.html

Thanks guys. Also, for the debate my team is Serbia. Any defense of the assassination would be helpful.

Easy.
No Serb did it. The assassination was done by a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian, and lived in Sarajevo, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria blaming you for the assassination is akin to a New Yorker assassinating Bush, and America attacking us because the killer spoke English. Strikes me that Austria needs to to look to itself about the assassination - why were some Austrian citizens so angry that they had been driven to such a measure? Why were the security arrangements so pathetic?

And as for the Ulitmatum, you have agreed to 9 out of the 10 demands, even though all ten are clearly outrageous (Serbian schools to teach that the A-H Empire is great/ Serb newspapers not to criticise Austria etc.) You have only questioned demand 6 (Austrian police to come in and judge Serbs aacused of terrorism) because it takes away your sovereignty - it is part of your constitution that Serbs have the right to be tried by a jury of their peers (the British constitution has the same rule).

All this is quite clearly a ruse by Austria to do what they have always wanted to, and which the Austrian army has proposed (???) 20 times in the last (???) decade - to invade and destroy Serbia. Ask the Austrians outright - telling the truth, before God and befre man, can they look you in the eye and deny that the demands of the ultimatum were set deliberately outrageous so that Serbia would refuse them and then they would be able to invade?
And has Germany given the Austrians a 'blank cheque' to do whatever they want to you and Germany will support them whatever?

You are the victim here, not the culprit.

Thank you so much, it really helped. Today I was instrumental in the elimination of France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany from the debate. Now only Great Britain and Serbia remain. As it is, some "dirt" on Britain would be helpful. Also, it would be nice to have this information ASAP!!!

Easy.
Britain owns a fifth of the land mass of the world.
Much of it has been acquired by a simple process of beg, borrow and steal in the last years.
Britain sits there with this pompous 'isolationist' 'we-want-peace' hat, when really - in reality - they are the most aggressive, militaristic, imperialistic nation in the History of the world.
Look how aggressive they got when Kaiser Wilhelm ventured to suggest that maybe they weren't 100% right in the Boer War (the war when the British invented concentration camps and systematically starved and diseased the Boer civilin population into submission, by the way).
AND they are racists - did you knowhat Hitler's racist ideas were all based on the ideas of an Englishman named Chamberlain.
AND they have created the present situation! It was Britain, in 1905, who put France up to contest Algericas, and pioneered the Triple Entente as an anti-German force ... France was wanting to back down.
AND they are militaristicly anti-German - think of the Daily Mail and all those novels that imagine a German invasion and The 39 Steps and all that kind of thing. The British population are jingoistic and bellicose in the extreme.
Just because they entered the war last doesn;t mean that they didn't create the tensions which caused the war - remembe what they are: Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism and Alliances. If you look, ou will see that Britain virtualy invented ALL of them at the end of the 19th century.

I have a history debate due next week. I need help. I need to defend Austria and prove that Serbia did it. I've been doing research but I really can't find my answer. Can you help me?

Easy.
Serbia has been causing trouble for years - the Black Hand have been assassinating Austrian officials for years, and the Serb Prime Minister has openly declared that, having destroyed Turkey, Austria was next on his list. Serbians didn't actually assassinate FF, but the Black Hand supplied the weapons and there were Black Hand observers watching to see what happened!
Secondly, does anybody undertand what has happened? FF has been assassinated. In Britain the murder of Prince Charles would cause a huge national outcry, but Austria-Hungary is a monarchy - Emperor Franz Josef is the absolute ruler - the government - and FF was his heir. The assassination of FF wasn't just the murder of a prominent public person, it was a direct strike at the government - an act of war.
Thirdly, whatever anybody says about your ultimatum and how harsh it was and how unreasonable you are being to contemplate war when all Serbia is refusing is point 6, ignoring the Serb propaganda machine, the TRUTH of the matter is that - after this act of war in which the Black Hand (which Serbia protects) were fully complicit, you didn;t just go to war, but issued a considered ultimatum AND NOW SERBIA HAS REJECTED THAT ULTIMATUM. You have a cast-iron justification to declare war on Serbia.
Fourthly, what pushes the world to war is NOT your declararion of war on Serbia, but Russia's mobilisation against you AND Germany, whch forces Germany to deploy the Schlieffen Plan. Russia doesn't NEED to mobilise. Russia could see the justification in your cause. And if Russia didn;t mobilise, all that would happen would be that there wuld be a little war for a few days, and then there would be a peace treaty an the world could go back to what it was.
And finally - while you won't want to slag off your ally Germany - I would point out that it was Germany that pushed the Austro-Serbian War into a WORLD war when they pre-emptly attacked France through Belgium.

The world war was nothing to do with you, and the key proving fact, surely, is that most of the fighting took place on the Western Front.

In the debate i have to ask questions and answer with a rebuttle. Do you have any advice on how to make the other team look bad in a sense. Also, Did Serbia assasinate anyone else besides Francis Ferdinand and if so who and why? Thank you so much for you help! You are a life saver or I should say grade saver.

Ask Britain what proportion of thw rold's surface they own (one fifth), and how many wars they have fought in te last hundred years (40+) - and then ask them how they DARE tut-tut you for retaliating when FF was assassinated.
Ask Germany if they have had a Naval 'War Cabinet' meeting when the words: 'war the sooner the better' were spoken (yes 1912)
Ask France if a number of their Cabinbet ministers have not openly said that they want revenge for Alsace Lorraine.
And ask Russia if there is any strategic reason why they have to mobilise, or is this just because they let Serbia down in 1908 when Austria annexed Bosia.

Hmmm, the Black Hand tried to assassinate Emperor Franz Josef and Potiorek, governor of Bosnia, but I donlt know the names of anybody they actually assassinated.
You need to read this - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWblackhand.htm - it gives clear details how Serbia was deeply involved in the assassinated of FF.

i was reading the info about serbia and i was kind of confused about the part of who provided the weapons. i also am doing a debate where i have to make serbia look giulty of stating the war by using questions and rebuttles, and i was interested on using that information to come up with a question. do you think this would be a calid question, and if it is not, do you have any suggestions about this info that i could use to come up with a better question to make serbia(gov't if you can) look guilty?
thanks so much for your time.

Do you why Serbia moblized before Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia?

HI!! umm i'm new to this forum but i was wondering if anyone would be soo kind to help me on my World War I debate. My assignment for my Contemporary World History class is to defend Austria-Hungary against Serbia in a debate this Friday---in conjunction with portraying Serbia as the most culpable for causing WWI.

I'm familar with historical background of both Serbia & A-H---everything from their Balkan ambitions to Pan-Slavism, Bosnian Crisis of '08, the Balkan Wars, their alliances with the greater euro powers (Russia & Germany)....and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. But questions i can't seem to find a clear answer to are:

whether or not the Serbian Gov't knew of the assassination plan?

i know the assassins were all Bosnian by nationality but still...wasn't 60% of Bosnia serbs anyway? and wasn't the assassins assisted by Serbs military officials--which explains, in part, why the Serbian Minister Gruic didn't want to investigate the murder matter...because that would have implicated many high-ranking serbian officials. Thus, putting Serbia in a highly humiliating stance?? is my rationale logic to you?

and what's the problem between the Serbian Military and the Serbian Gov't. I've just read an ambiguous article that those two were two completely separate entities. That the Serb Gov't couldn't control its military. Does anyone know if that has a ring of truth to it?

and lastly...what was the point in murdering Franz Ferdinand? What benefit did they see in murdering him? because to me (and obvioulsy the Prime Minister of Serbia), killing Ferdinand was an outright cry for war.


i'm soooooo sorry this was soo long, but it would mean a lot if someone could clarify this for me, please. Thank-you soooo much! =)

From what you say, you are clearly very knowledgeable about the issues and should have no difficulty with the debate.

As for your questions, as I understand it (which may be wrong, of course):

1. The Serbian government had little or no control over the Black Hand.
2. Members of the Serbian military were deeply implicated in the Black Hand.
3. The Serbian PM did warn Austria of a possible assassination attempt. However, as far as I am aware, he did nothing to try to stop it at his end.
4. The assassination of FF was a disaster, because FF was associated with elements in Austria which were more favourable towards Serb nationaliam; the assassins removed a friend, not a foe.
5. The assassination therefore had no sense - it was a mere assertion of Serbian nationalism by radical extremists.
6. Don't forget to stress that these 'boys' were not Austrian citizens - as many people try to represent them. Princip (and I think others) had trained as a terrorist with the Black Hand in Serbia.

Best of luck with the case!

omygosh!! thank-you sooo much but i just have a few last questions to ask/clarify.

Austria-Hungary gave Serbia an ultimatum listing 10 demands along with a preamble. Serbia accepted all BUT one of them--demand # 6---which stated that Serbia had to hold a judicial proceeding with A-H's delegates present during the proceedings. Serbia rejected that because, i believe, they argued it compromised their sovereignty/constitution in which the accused had to be tried by a jury of their peers....

in your opinion, do you think it would be legit if i argued that since the Serb Gov't could barely control their military and the Black Hand---how could A-H possibly believe that Serbia could adequately carry out the proceedings and punish the assassins accordingly for their crime?? That A-H did not intended to take away their sovereignty but in actuality, A-H just wanted to ensure their security and to make sure that the assassins were justly punished?

umm...also i was talking with my history teacher today and he gave me a hint to look into all of Serbia's actions and comments towards A-H in the past. i was looking over my notes and i found Serbia's March Declaration written after the Bosnian Crisis addressed to A-H. i'm not sure if i understood it correctly, but in that Declaration....Serbia did promise to rid the country of any anti-A/H sentiments and/or anti-A/H groups (such as the Black Hand) and that they promised to "be on good neighborly terms" with A-H, right? so by definition...the July Crisis would have violated that and so did the Black Hand---because the Black Hand began gaining momentum after the Bosnian Crisis.

also...just wondering if it's also legit that i partially point the finger at russia for encouraging Serbia for the starting the war. I was thinking that maybe i can argue that A-H had no intention of having a general war--but a local war with serbia ONLY

....and if serbia hadn't asked russia for support, in which russia responded with partial mobilization TOWARDS A-H because they thought that if war was directed towards Serbia, it would also be directed towards them.....

then Germany took Russia's mobilization in fear because they saw it as Russia's plan to attack them...and responded to that with full mobilization...and from there, the dice began to roll...

So maybe if Serbia dealt with the matter with A-H only and not ask for support from Russia...WWI might have been delayed? but then again...the Serbian team might bring up Germany's blank cheque to A-H--giving them morale and unconditional support......

once again...sorry!! i tend to write novels when i'm in my train of thought!! thanks soo much for the help, though! i really appreciate it!

That's how I thought it was too.

I am sure that that is exactly how the A-H government DID argue.

That would be a VERY clever twist - turn it back upon Serbia again!

Again, that's exactly what A-H DID want.

This is all fair enough stuff, but isn't it getting away rather from your Serbia's-to-blame argument?

But the 'blank cheque' would not have been necessary if Serbian-backed assassins hadn't murdered the heir to the throne of A-H!!!

All in all, it sound as though you've put together a GREAT argument - let us know how it goes.

it went GREAT!!! thanks for all your help!!!

...as to who won?? =) Austria-Hungary!!! lol--yeah!!!
still...The Serbian wasn't off much. They were realllllly smart in the fact that they used pity a lot in their closing statement LOL

THANKS A MILLION, though!!!!!!

Hoorah!!

And REALLY good, because think A-H is the HARDEST role of all to play - if we weren't biased, it would be very easy to make A-H look as guilty as (to quote Blackadder) a puppy by a pile of poo.
So well done you.

Algericas was the Conference where Britain and France confronted Germany over the 1st Moroccan Crisis - try http://www.johndclare.net/causes_WWI3.htm
What my page there doesn't tell you is that, at first, France was in a mood to let Germany get away with it - they were too scared to confront Germany. But the British promised to support them if they confronted Germany, and bullied France into causing a crisis.

The British were building their Empire long before Germany was even thought of as maybe being one day a nation (in 1870). The British wanted a navy equal to everybody else's put together, and the British had been stomping over the world thinking they were better than everybody else for decades - find out about Palmerston: Civis Britannicus Sum, Opium Wars and 'gunboat diplomacy'.

It's very easy to defend Germany. The murder of FF by a Bosnian Serb (pro-Russian) was the event which started the war, and the blatant Russian mobilisation (against all your warnings and threats) along your border was the event which forced Germany to implement the Schlieffen Plan. If Russia hadn't mobilised, there would have been no need for Germany to get involved because A-H was easily beating Serbia in the small localised war which (surely justifiably) followed FF's murder.

People may tell you that:
1. Germany gave A-H a 'blank cheque'. It is a phrase bandied about by anti-Germans to imply that the Germans somehow promised to support A-H whatever A-H did, and that they thereby encouraged A-H to 'go too far', because - again by implication - Germany was busting for a war and deep-down wanted A-H to provoke one.
NONSENSE! The Germans of the time never talked about a 'blank cheque' - that is just a phrase made up by historians.
First - READ the actual telegram from Bethmann Hollweg to the Austrian Emperor Joseph II:

Now when I read this, I don't see any blank cheque AT ALL! Instead, I see the Germans saying that they 'cannot interfere' with the Serbia problem - leaving it to A-H, and simply (should the Russians get involved) promising, not to stand by A-H whatever, but to stand by A-H as required by the terms of their alliance - ie a limited support.
2. German ministers were 'talking war'.
Again, NONSENSE! EVERYBODY was 'talking war' in those days - compare the British novels of the time imagining German invasions of Britain, and the British mob shouting 'We want eight and we won't wait'. What is amazing is, not that historians have been able to find a couple of statements by Germans saying: 'There's going to be a war and we can win it', but that historians have only been able to find a couple of examples of Germans talking war. It would be easy to find DOZENS of British examples.


Does that help?

That would be great
Try this link, page 2: http://www.hmswarrior.org/palmerston_and_politics.pdf.
I think the main thing to realise that this was in 1850 - 61 years before so-called German militarism and the Panther incident. The Kaiser was correct; all Germany wanted to do was what Britain had been doing for years...

This is a really good list. 1. You might mention that Serbia had been causing trouble for decades - mention the Pig War. and the Black Hand. Which other of the Great Powers lives next to a country which is continually trying to assassinate their leaders?
2. I would point out that FF was not just the heir to the throne. In an autocracy, he was heir to the government; killing him was akin to Al Quaeda murdering, not Prince Charles, but the Prime Minister as well.
3. Look what happened when Al Quaeda destroyed the two towers - Afrghanistan and Iraq. A world superpower cannot just stand by ad let things like the assassination of FF go unpunished. AH HAD to punish Serbia, or lose all international credibility.
4. Stress how careful you were - how you did not just rush in and eclare war - how you tried to talk. You tried all any nation could be expected in the circumstances to do to avoid war.
5. But in its rejection of point 6, Serbia showed that they were not prepared to address the issue of international terrorism. All this nonsense about 'the only point Serbia rejected', and 'against its sovereignthy' is nonsense. Point 6 was the only point that really mattered - the right of AH to go in pursuit of the terrorists and wipe them out; and Serbia would not agree ... to reect Point 6 was, in effect, ttamount to saying that they approved of the terrorists, and would continue to allow the terrorists to function on Serbian soil.

You are right about Russia as well.
1. the belief that they would get Russian support was what caused Serbia to be bellicose throughout - the younger brother bullying people because he knows that his big brother will get them if they protest.
2.Ulitmately, the thing that changed this from a small spat in the Balkans to a world war was Russian mobilisation.