Long Fuse Notes

“Truth and the Historian” Main argument This is both an introduction to the book and an essay about the causes of World War I, as seen by other historical writers and Lafore himself. He states that “World War I has become a fashion and a fad,” and, while there is nothing wrong with the topic being widely discussed, historians should be careful in using research and analyzing historical topics. The introduction outlines the sources of the conflict that later was known as the Great War. All of the events: hostilities between the great powers, competition for the sea, and expansionism: were what has led to that conflict.

But Lafore also argues that no cause can be singled out as the most important, because they all contributed to the relations between European countries before 1914. Main People Luigi Albertini: an Italian journalist and politician, who studied the causes of World WarI Fritz Fischer: a German historian who published a history of German policy before and during the war Helmuth von Moltke: the German chief of staff who was afrain of a European war, but nevertheless “prepared to urge measures that he knew would bring a general war. ” Outline A.

World War I is among the most widely discussed topics in history 1. Myopia in history: historians see the past from the present (relativism) a. Not always the correct way of examining it b. This indicates some sense of bias 2. What happened after 1945 gives a new perspective on the events before 1914 and the war itself a. The relations of European powers led to the war b. No single country was to be blamed the most for the causes 3. Terms such as “revisionism” proved to have little significance to the evaluation of the causes of war a.

They have not been guilty of planning a world war b. Historians found all the countries to be guilty in some way B. Historians like Albertini and Fischer had opposing views on the war and its participants 1. Albertini did extensive research on Germany’s role before and in the war a. He found the Germans “unquestionable guilty” of urging Austrians to attack Serbia b. He was a supporter of revisionism, but his interpretation proved to be objective 2. Fischer published a book about Germany’s role after the war a. He agreed that Germany was partially responsible . He and Albertini both accused Germany of pressuring Austria to go to war with Serbia, although there was a danger of a world war 3. At present time, the “war guilt” could be viewed much more objectively, not necessarily with blaming Germany a. Some Germans, like Moltke, feared and did not support a “general war” Chapter 1: The Lost Utopia Main Argument Omnipresent European sovereignty was a flaw in the plan for ubiquitous peace: as the country was left to make its own decisions, there was no guarantee that there would be overuses of that power.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Long Fuse Notes
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

European stubborn adherence to the idea of independence caused great disputes as the international law could not deliberately enforce its rules of what an independent state could and could not do: the nations were sovereign, and thus they should be allowed to do what they believed was right. There were many different ethnic groups throughout Europe, specifically the eastern areas. With the creation of new modern states united by ethnicity, such as Germany, other ethnicities began to desire an independent state for themselves, putting Europe in a state of disagreement.

Main People Giuseppe Mazzini: An Italian liberator who, like many other Liberals and Napoleon III, profoundly believed in the veracity of the notion of freedom John Stuart Mill: an English liberal who felt that the recent advance in society gave too much power to the upper class Bismarck: The emperor of Germany. He believed that Europe was unified enough after the formation of Germany and Italy Gladstone: prime minister of great Britain. He felt that many groups, such as the Irish, the Poles, and the Italians, should have their own state Outline

Treaty of Vienna I. A. Nations realized that the international law should apply to all European countries as the omnipresent peace was a concern of all European nations 1. 1815 Treaty helped governments realize that additional laws to the international law should be added concerned about actions that could possibly threaten the peace and security of Europe Relationships of events to causes of WWI II. A. Most of the European countries were considered states as they were unified in language, culture, sense of nationalism etc. B.

Sovereignty could lead to abuses and wars among nations as the independence left a nation uncontrollable and possible to act in any way wanted. C. The international law created to ensure that there were no abuses of sovereignty turned out to have several drawbacks D. The establishment of Great Powers as guardians of the European peace increased hostility and jealousy among nations as some of the non-Great Power nations felt hurt by their exclusion of this prestigious title. 1. However, he also mentions that this was not true for all of the countries and that these differences in single states were to be a great cause of arising disputes. . Armies, for example, could be strengthened not only as a sign of attempt to be better protected, but also as a sign of getting ready for a war. 3. Even though the nations recognized and accepted its rules, some of them still did not find it important to act with these laws and broke them severely. 4. Placing the power of maintaining peace in hands of just few countries opened a way for abuses and further violations of the international law as no one could rebel, accordingly to the international law, against the rules of Great Powers. Characterization of varying national perspectives, shifting alliances etc.

III. A. During the mid-17th century, most of the European countries focused on maintaining the peace. B. As noted, the Great Powers were allied with each other by the international law that obliged them to cooperate to maintain the European peace. France, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, Austria and Italy had to work together, and as proven, quite successfully for a while. 1. Even though there were a few violations of the international laws, Germany was not one of them, which shows how through 18-19th centuries her focus was not just on defeating France and Russia. . the oncoming World War I between these nations shows what a great change in attitude they had to go through in order to get from friendly European-peace-protection into an immense war for territory. IV. Concert of Europe falling apart by 1820 A. from 1858 to 1871, only 4 wars in Europe 1. Piedmont and france attacks Austria 2. Prussia attacks Denmark, Austria, and France a. all wars were not sanctioned b. concert losing power B. Balance of power also prevented fighting 1. countries would not fight because other countries would get involved 2.

If one country was too strong, it would be a threat to other countries V. The anomalies of the European System A. Growing strength of conservatism 1. Many liberals converted, others turned to socialism 2. Growing conflict with the upper class 3. John Stuart Mill – advancements created by modernization create problems for many people B. Other problems recognized with the national system 1. Northwestern Europe set trends for other countries to follow 2. Ireland a. part of Britain b. threat to stability of Britain i. worked with French army during war with England in1793 – 1815 ii. rowing nationalism and threat of revolution 3. France and Alsace a. Alsace had german ancestry, but the inhabitants had assimilated with France i. Germany held grudge of losing land ii. reclaimed during unification in 1871 4. Loraine a. also formerly German, but all German influence was gone b. Germany wanted it for strategic regions i. City of Metz had a strong fort and would prevent French attack on Germany 5. loss of provinces hoped to be accepted by France but would not be a. france was the most powerful country in continental Europe b. would be threatened by a growing germany

C. German state generally accepted 1. Considered similar to full French or Spanish state 2. Most political lines followed nationality D. More problems in southeast regarding nationality and politics 1. Britain and france had different ethnic groups but all generally shared similar allegience a. Ethnicity was generally not an important thing 2. Bismark felt that enough of Europe had been unified 3. Gladstone felt that almost every ethnic group should gain independence excluding eastern Europe due to an incredibly large amount of ethnicities 4.

Creation of modern states creates idea of all ethnicities having their own state a. Inspires eastern nationalism E. Rumanians 1. Roman lineage 2. Contained literature, language, and culture but no political action a. controlled by Greece 3. Claimed land in Turkey in 1871 a. other provinces with Rumanians in Russia and Hungary F. Other ethnic groups in the east 1. Some, like Greeks and Serbs already had state 2. Some, like Slovenes had few requests for state 3. Other groups were so obscure that an independent state would be irrelevant G. Poland 1. Formerly a powerful state . Roman Catholic religion VI. Swallowed peoples A. The Rumanians and the Poles like many other people had been engulfed into other larger nations 1. Some like the Greeks and the Serbs had emancipated themselves into their own nations 2. Some like the Slovenes had never had their own nation and were barely stirred by a sense of nationalism 3. Still others like the Ghegs and Tosks were so small as to barely constitute a people much less a nation 4. Poland Swallowed B. Ceased to be a country after the third partition 1. Was the largest of the imprisoned nations 2.

Was a homogenous nation with one language, religion and a sense of national pride 3. The Polish national pride was seen as a threat as they had erupted in revolt in Russia three times by 1863 4. In Germany Poles remained a silent yet resentful minority C. In Austria the Poles received little change in their functioning lives and were allowed to keep the their cultural traditions and were therefore less resentful 1. Poland Unifies Nations 2. Though the Poles created problems singly for each of the empires that held them collectively the division of Poland acted as a unifying force among the three empires 3.

The common fear of Polish rebellion during and after the revolt of 1863 caused Bismarck and Germany to offer German Support 4. Because Germany supported Russia in the Revolt of 1863 Russia supported Germany in their attack on France in 1870 5. Poland though non-existent was one of the most important factors in national relations 6. Conservatives viewed freeing Poland as something that would cause war and also realized that the status quo in which there was no Poland was also a cause for war, where as the liberals sought determination of all peoples as an end above peace 7.

In 1870 the conservatives had the more practical point of view 8. Because of the diversity of the eastern European peoples and the conflicting interests of the major powers sorting them into nations would be a near impossible task 9. All the eastern European peoples were nicely divided into the powers Russia, Germany, Austria, and Turkey D. Weaknesses in the Conservative position 1. The empires in which many peoples were contained could not achieve internal accord 2. The empires containing many peoples could not act in harmony with each other as their interests usually in conflict 3.

Russia and Austria especially held distain for each other after the Russian Army aided the Austrian government in suppressing the 1848 revolt and the Austrian army did not return the favor in the Crimean war E. Turkey The Sick Man of Europe 1. The ridged structure of the Ottoman Empire did not allow for the government to progress with the times and it fell in to a weak and antiquated state 2. The increased sense of national pride spread like wild fire among the diverse peoples of the Ottoman Empire meaning the people became ever more difficult to control G. Nationalism: a means to an end 1.

Formerly Nationalism had been a liberal ideal 2. all peoples should have self determination and national pride was a means to that end 3. However when the power of nationalism was realized the conservatives of Europe adopted nationalism for their own end 4. with national pride strengthening an empire the people of the empire are more willing to fight to empower the empire H. Pan-Slavism 1. Nationalism on the basis of racial brotherhood: the Slavs were of the same racial descent and were divided in to many little subdivisions too small to justify nations therefore it seemed logical to combine them all in to one pan-Slavic state 2.

Initially Pan-Slavism was a liberal movement for the determination of many people into one nation however with Russian Pan-Slavism it would be reborn into a conservative goal I. Russian Pan-Slavism 1. Invented by Nicholas Danilevsky 2. Pan-Slavism with the entirety of the Slavic states under the rule of the Russian Empire 3. Turned a Liberal ideal into a Conservative end in that it empowered an already great empire rather than called for self determination of Slav peoples Chapter 2: The Austria Anomaly Main Argument

Lafore goes on to discuss the things that make up the ‘Austrian Anomaly’; basically, why Austria was so different than the other Great Powers of Europe. Lafore states that the other powers were constructed on a basis of nationality, whereas Austria was not, and major threats came in 1914 by the forces exercised by the minorities in nation states, and Austria consisted entirely of minorities. He then goes on to discuss the dual- monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and how that change in the division of power further changed the world view of Austria.

The nationalities stated are accompanied by their qualities and affiliations and the amount in each section of A-H. The maps are significant because they attribute to the argument that nationalities in A-H wanted to be reunited with their home countries right over the border. Main People Austria Hungary: The nation was militarily strong and influential amongst the other European powers. However, unlike those countries, Austria Hungary was not united by a single cultural identity, but divided by cultural barriers.

Magyars: These were a distinct and powerful group of people who managed to preserve a seemingly immortal system of political tradition Germans: They were the most populous and according to history the most native to the land in both Austria and Hungary. They were typically landowners, townsmen, and civil servants. Czechs: They were the second most common minority, numbering a little less than 5 million. They had been endowed with Bohemian reign before, and under Habsburg rule, desired more recognition and respect of their ethnicity.

Ruthenes: Around 3 million, they lived in the eastern parts of the country and shared many similarities with Ukrainians in terms of culture and ancestry. Poles: There were about 2 and a half million Poles living in Austria, but they were absent in Hungary. Their extensive history and prominence provided them the foundation for national pride, like with other Eastern European ethnicities. Rumanians: There were about 3 million Rumanians who resided in Hungary. They were less active in controlling their own affairs, often under the rule of dominating Magyars.

Serbo-Croats: Half a million of them lived in Austria, where as more than 2 million lived in Hungary. While bound by common ancestry, the culture of the two factions was very different. The Serbs experienced brief independent success, but later on faced foreign rule by the Turkish and of course the Habsburg. They were generally oppressed and neglectful of modern ideals and lifestyles. Croats on the other hand had a more sophisticated reputation and level of independence. Though as Magyars began to abuse power, loyalty waned.

Habsburg Monarchy: It was the oldest dynasty in Europe, having a long history that was bound to the Romans and one that was against the Turks. It dealt with many domestic disputes that severely weakened its influence later on. What did preserve an otherwise antiquated and sometimes abusive source of power was its regal legacy and the emollient properties of the state. For the most part, it was prosperous and progressive. Austrian constitution: It disregarded the diversity of the nation and primarily functioned on political prompts that were intended for united countries.

Karl Lueger: He was a charismatic mayor of Vienna who integrated socialism, anti-Semitism, Catholicism, and controversial politics. Socialists and Catholics: These were popular political parties in the imperial parliament who objected to secession and partitioning. Both wanted extreme reforms in social order and economic agenda, and often criticized the aristocracy. Archduke Francis Ferdinand: He was very oppressive of the Hungarians and sympathetic towards southern Slavs. This sentiment would initiate an impending eruption of Slavic discontent. Outline

I. Main Facts and Events: A. 1860: The Hapsburg Monarchy was defeated by the combined armies of the French and the Piedmontese and had been obliged to abandon its richest province: Lombardy, in the Po Valley. B. 1866: Austria was attacked by the rival Prussian Army and decisively defeated. C. 1867: Austria ceased to be either a German or Italian power. D. After 1866: internal changes were necessary, and so, the dual-monarchy was created, by establishing a state within Austria, known as Hungary, and ruled by the Magyar people, done officially in 1867.

II. Relationship(s): A. Lafore makes the connection between the multi-nationality of Austria-Hungary, and the way in which this fueled the war. He says that because Austria was so diverse, and consisted wholly of minorities, the other nations didn’t view Austria as a nation, or take them seriously, and this lack of recognition influenced Austria’s dislike of the other powers and drove them into the arms of a German alliance whereupon Germany pushed them into war.

B. Lafore also brings up the fact that because of the dual-monarchy, decision making was extremely slow, and therefore affected how soon, or in actuality, how long it took for Austria- Hungary to decide to declare war. III. National Perspectives: A. The other Great Powers in Europe, because of Austria’s multi-nationality, didn’t view Austria as a nation, because it “consisted of the anomalies” that made the other powers uncomfortable. B.

In Austria, there wasn’t one single national view, or actual national pride, because of the wide diversity; each group within itself, however, was very nationalistic, basing political affiliation upon nationality. C. Although the Magyars rose up and were granted their own state, not every other nationality was like that; many were content to be included in Austria, and didn’t feel the need to push for their own state. IV. Main Facts and Events with Dates: 1870 the change of the Habsburg Monarchy to the Dual Monarchy of A-H. V. Relationship of events to causes of WWI as identified by Lafore: A.

Lafore contributed the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria-Hungary as the main cause of the outbreak of WWI. B. The declaration of war followed the declining of the ultimatum as a response to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. C. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated because his views on the unification of all Serbs into A-H and creating a Tri-Monarchy. D. This was such a problem because the Serbs in A-H were very discontent with their position because they were bullied and oppressed by the Magyars, and wished to be reunited with Serbia.

Which can all be traced from this section with the stating of nationalities and their relationships with the others. VI. Characterization of varying national perspectives, alliance shifts, etc. A. This section gives light to the nationalities and their problems in A-H 1. The majority of nationalities were subject to oppression by those of higher intelligence like the Magyars and the Germans. 2. The majority of nationalities were Catholic, and Rome was in A-H so they felt obliged to be loyal to A-H for that fact. 3.

The Magyars took control of the Dual Monarchy to make all their wishes true at the expense of all the other nationalities. VI. Strength of Austria Hungary A. Problems 1. Problems always existed in Southeastern Europe 2. Greeks and Serbs win independence 3. Clashing political ideaologies; liberals, Catholics B. Religious differences between Austria and Turkey 1. Balkans were more willing to be ruled by Christians; Turkey was Muslims 2. Identifies Austria as the defender of Christianity C. Prosperity 1. Development of light industry and trade a. creates wealth b. auses divisions between industrious west and agrarian east 2. Several problems with industry a. Hungary was agrarian; bread basket b. Austria was industrious i. strengthens the divide between Magyars and Germans c. New parties were created i. already bad implementation of democracy ii. 22 political parties iii. allows nationalism and religion to dominate the country Chapter 3 Main Argument 1. The unification of Germany in 1871 greatly altered the balance of power in Europe. Bismarckian diplomacy broke down soon after Bismarck’s dismissal in 1890, however it allowed for Germany’s strong alliance with Austria.

Two crises demonstrated the fragility of the Three Emperor’s League, first one in 1875 when Bismarck became alarmed by the revival of the French from the defeat five years earlier and seemed to be planning another war, and the second in 1876 during the revolution against the Turkish rule. Russians declared war on Turkey, but they were accused of illegal action and summoned before a court by the Powers. The Russians helped with the creation of Great Bulgaria, hoping that the Bulgars will later on be thankful to them and allow them access to Constantinopole and the Straits.

The Russians establishment at the gate of Constantinople, and on the shores of the Aegean was a threat to Austria. Bismarck believed that the Balkans could cause trouble to anyone who controlled them, and Germany’s interest should be in maintaining good relations with both Russia and Austria to make sure they stay in the majority of three great powers. Milan Obrenovich proposed to sell Serbia to the Habsburg Monarchy, if the transaction would’ve occurred, the Monarchy would have included the majority of the Southern Slavs and would be in position of dominance.

Because both Austria and Germany required peace and the maintenance of existing boundaries, and both had the achieve them through treaties to bind their friends and neutralize their enemies they were able to form a successful alliance based on their similar goals. Germany feared the attack by France, Austria feared all their neighbors and their alliance formed a diplomatic bloc, and a very impressive military unity. Addition of Italy to the Austro German Alliance was very significance, and Italy’s reasons for joining were based on domestic political concerns. 2.

The creation of the Bulgarian state upset the balance Europe had achieved in the 1880s. The German prince atop the Bulgarian throne lost popularity by attempting to control Bulgaria, annex Eastern Rumelia, and destroy Serbia. He was forced to abdicate and replaced by another German prince. Russia, angered, disrupted the Three Emperor’s League. France and Russia swore a secret alliance, at the time where Russia attempted to industrialize. Main People J Otto von Bismarck The Chancellor of Germany, he oversaw the unification in 1871 and dominated its affairs until his dismissal in 1890

J Milan Obrenovich The Prince of Serbia, had a suspicion that the Serbs wanted to assassinate him, he preferred to live in Vienna and offered to sell Serbia to the Habsburg Monarchy Outline 1. Bismarck dismissed, 1890 a. Bismarckian diplomacy broke down; system of alliances faltered b. Bismarck’s Europe had Germany surrounded by allies c. Bismarck says, “Don’t get involved in the Balkans” 2. Turkey was the Sick Man of Europe 3. Reinsurance Treaty, 1887 (Russia, Germany would remain neutral in wars involving one or the other), contradicted the Austrian Alliance 4.

Franco-Russian Alliance, 1894 B. Causes of WWI 1. Combination of Wilhelm’s inexperience, Russia’s greed caused them to clash over the Balkans 2. Bulgarian creation and monarchial maintenance; Russia angry at Germans, Bulgarians 3. Austro-Hungarian composition; its existence as not one nation state C. Characterization 1. After Bismarck’s dismissal, the “balance of power” set up by Bismarck’s careful alliances, fell apart 2. Britain did not see the need for Germany to get involved in the Balkans 3. Bismarck specifically said that Germany should not get involved in the Balkans 4.

Wilhelm’s inexperience caused Russia and France to become closer as allies Chapter 4 Main Argument 1. It was Germany’s principal interest to assure the isolation of France and in 1894 this objective was defeated by the Franco-Russian Alliance. Germany was a federal empire restricted in its powers. The King of Prussia was also German Emperor. Reichstag was authorized to approve or reject new taxes. The monarchy and a great many private citizens were making a proud connection between the imposing military reputation of Prussia and the welfare.

The chancellor, faced with the opposition of powerful opponents in the Reichstag, was given to invoking patriotism and the glory of the army in order to induce voters to vote for the right parties. The Daily Telegraph episode was a public scandal that shook German confidence in the throne. Germany, the greatest military power in Europe in 1871, was by 1914 the leading industrial power. The Navy League was influential, and the Pan-Germanists and the racists were not in any way peculiarly German phenomena.

France and Russia were regarded as Britain’s neutral enemies, Britain and Germany were traditionally friendly, and Prussia and Britain had fought together in the two greatest wars of British history- the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic War. Germany had supplied Britain’s dynasty and most of its rulers’ consorts, and the German Empress was a British princess. Germany’s potential enemies, the French and the Russians occupied Egypt in 1882. Germany but not Great Britain possessed a large army and if the British wanted an alliance, they were welcome to join the Triple Alliance.

The British had no interest in Germany’s Continental rivalries, the secret commitment of the Triple Alliance. 2. One of the main points that Lafore is making in this passage concerns the fact that the encirclement of Germany was caused due to the increasing closeness of British and French relations and to an extent the Russians, as well as Italy straying from the Triple Alliance. In order to break these relations, Germany created a crisis, the Moroccan Crisis, in order to try to force Britain to publicly abandon the French.

This only caused a strengthening in Anglo-French affairs since in the Algeciras conference that followed the crisis, the two countries banded together with Italy against Germany for oppressing Moroccan independence. The naval disputes between Germany and Britain also helped alienate the two since they posed alarm and threats to one another. The Triple Entente also came about when an Anglo-Russian Agreement was signed which also strengthened the encirclement around Germany, but was viewed lightly since they Germans did not believe it could last very long.

The geographical encirclement of Germany with these new diplomatic relations, did not cause the war but it did represent a breakdown of German relations with the British and Italians which left Germany with only one weaker potential ally. Main People 1. Friedrich von Bernhardi Wrote “Germany and the Next War” 2. William II An arrogant and foolish autocrat 3. Heinrich von Treitschke Historian with armed conquest and the military virtues. 4. HolsteinaGerman Foreign Office director was a Memphis-tophelean figure, who retired in 1909, left a mark on German policy. 5.

Protector of Islam Saved the British from defeat in South Africa. 6. Theophile Delcasse French foreign minister that was forced to resign. 7. Chancellor von Bulow German Chancellor who arranged the Moroccan crisis. 8. Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz Secretary of the German Navy- alarmed the British with his plan for German advance in navy. 9. Edward VII New successor to the English throne who disliked Germany and his German relatives and was fond of the Paris of the gilded age. He exerted strong influence to secure the appointment of pro-French and anti-German diplomats to important posts and in theForeign Office.

He represented the Francophilia arising in England. Main Events 1. Germany’s main goal was to isolate France –In 1894, this goal was shut down b/c of the Franco-Russian alliance 2. Devised by Bismarck in 1866 – intended to permit the Chancellor to neutralize his domestic enemies, facilitate Germany unification by bribing its opponents w/political favors 3. In 1871, Germany was the greatest military power. By 1914, Germany was the leading industrial power 4. 1894 – Germany was faced with the diplomatic combination of France and Russia. Franco Russian alliance would not be fatal in a war if GB remained neutral.

Russia were regarded as Britain’s natural enemies, Britain and traditionally friendly and Prussia and Britain had fought together greatest wars of British history 5. 1901-Queen Victoria dies. France and Germany were in the two 6. Edward VII takes over from Queen Victoria in 1901. When he took over, he exerted a strong influence so as to secure the appointment of pro-French and anti-German diplomats to important posts abroad and in the Foreign office. 7. Francophilia started spreading throughout the British cabinet, starting with Edward VII as a result of his changes to the cabinet. 8.

Franco-British relationships began improving after Edward took over, and a diplomatic agreement was reached in 1904 in which France recognized and accepted British occupation of Egypt and the British recognized the French interest in Morocco. 9. In 1900, the French allowed the Italians to take Libya, and the Italians allowed France to take Morocco. 10. When the triple entente was renewed in 1902, both Italy and France agreed to remain neutral if either side was attacked by another power. 11. Germany saw the potential for an alliance between Britain and France, and wanted to prevent this in order to preserve the Triple alliance. 2. Von Bulow forced the German emperor to meet with the Sultan while he was on a cruise in the Mediterranean, so as to test the alliance between Britain and France. The visit itself showed German indication to protect Morocco against Frenchdesigns. 13. A conference was called in Berlin to consider French violations in regulating its position of power in Morocco which met in Algeciras in January 1906. When the conference ended three months later, the result was France being recognized ashaving special rights, and therefore allowed to organize The Moroccan police and finances. 4. 1897: The first German navy bill was passed, which provided for the construction of 19 powerful German battleships to be built over a period of 5 years. This, along with Alfred von Tirpitz’s “risk theory” would create a threat against the British which showed the German defiance of Britain. 15. The British building of the Dreadnought was further cause for the naval rivalry forming between the two nations. 16. The defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war subtracted it from the ranks of the Great powers in 1905. 17.

The Anglo-Russian agreement was signed in August, 1907. B. Causes of WWI 1. If the Germans had chosen Russia as an alliance, instead of Austria, then French and Austria would have formed an alliance and the encirclement would have been more real 2. Strengthened Franco-British relations in the early 20th century would spurn alliances and turn Germany into a common threat for both nations. 3. The Anglo-German maritime rivalries that began to arise in the early 20th century would serve to raise British alarm against Germany and deteriorate Anglo-German relations. 4.

The defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war would give way for the Anglo-Russian agreement, which would seal the fate of encirclement for Germany in the upcoming war. With three of the great powers allied, little actions which would spurn Germany to go to war, would essentially cause the other three nations to go to war as well. C. Characterization 1. Politicians in Russia, France, and Great Britain stressed the intentions and legitimate interests of their own countries, friends, and allies. 2. No clear line btwn the spheres of the executive authority and the parliament 3.

Germany’s potential enemies, the French and the Russians a most impotent = the French 4. Edward VII was a powerful Francophile as well as anti-German who made it his duty to spread his ideals in the British office when he took over to appoint diplomatswhich shared his views as well. This would come to alter to decisions and nationalistic views in the decade before the outbreak of war. With the new changes in perspective of Britain, a French alliance did not seem too far off, as it did say a decade before. 5. Both Britain and France began seeing Germany more and more as a threat, and this strengthened the alliance between the two. 6.

Germany wanted to prevent a Franco-British alliance at any cause, and tried to do so by provoking the Moroccan crisis. The Purpose of the crisis was to get the British to publicly abandon the French, as well as to show an awesome display of German power and prestige in world affairs. 7. With the German failure in the First Moroccan crisis, Germany became more encircled than before, with France and Britain now standing together against German interests as well as the breakdown of Anglo-German relations. 8. The naval rivalry that was forming between Britain and Germany would give rise to alarm within both nations, which was seen through the reation of alarmist pamphlets and schools in both nations which somewhat demonized the other. This would only serve for Anglo-German relations to deteriorate further. 9. With the defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, Germany became more threatening to Britain as it now no longer had to fear an eastern enemy, and this gave rise for a revolution in Anglo-Russian relations. 10. Because Germany could no longer count on the neutrality of the Great powers in the event of war, Germany sought to reach an understanding with Turkey. Chapter 5 Main Argument

From pages 141-151, Lafore examines Serbians role leading up to war and how it impacted other nations. Lafore argues that Serbian involvement, beginning with the assassination of their King is what eventually kick started the string of events followed by Austrian involvement and then German actions leading to the outbreak of World War I. Some Serbian events that Lafore argues impacted the war are the assassination of their king, Austro Russian affairs in Serbian government, European involvement in Macedonia, The Pig War, Montenegro, and the Yugoslav Club.

All of these events made up the beginnings of the downward spiral in the order of Europe eventually leading to war. From P. 152-161: The Bosnian crisis brought Europe closer to the brink of war. Russia and Austria became enemies because each had competing claims for territory and influence in the Balkans. Austria wanted to stop its slow decline and preserve its status as a great power by taking more belligerent action in the Balkans. On the other hand, the Russians wanted to show they were still powerful, after their defeat by Japan, by trying to gain more influence in the Balkans.

Russia and Austria almost went to war and the resulting peace confrence exacerbated the tensions and divides between the Central powers and the Triple Entente. From P. 165-179: The Turkish Revolution of 1908 is an attempt to once again revive the Ottoman empire, overthrowing the tyrannical Sultan Abdul Hamid in order to eliminate corruption in gov’t but has failed. The Great Powers still continue to weigh in affairs and corruption remains. The Balkan states seize opportunity to liberate the minorities under Turkish rule.

Russia is the main supporter for these minorities and wants to take an offensive battle against Turkey so that it can gain warm water ports in Black Sea, wanting to elevating its dominance in Europe and increasing trade. Rebellions take place in 1912 (further degrading the Ottoman empire) which poses an opportunity for the Balkan states to attack. These events start the first Balkan war and the now independent countries take hold of the majority Turkish territory besides Constantinople. The Bulgarians are given very little compensation and Serbs expand which the Hagsburg empire detests.

From 179-187: The Bosnian Crisis was a crisis with critical effects that set into motion events that would have an immediate effect on the coming of World War One. Lafore argues that the Bosnian Crisis begins military planning between Austria-Hungary and Germany in which Germany becomes more supportive of Austria-Hungary because of the rise of Slavdom and the encirclement of Germany. Germany was looking to solidify its alliances as its military position became direr. Also nationalist groups in Serbia begin to form such as the Black Hand and The People’s Union.

These groups will be responsible for mounting tensions between the Serbians and the Austro-Hungarians. Main People Young Turks: secular revolutionaries who wanted to revive the Ottoman empire by reform in gov’t New Russian Foreign Minister: want Russia to a protector again. Encourages the Serbs to nationalize and provide offensive against Turkey. Archduke Francis Ferdinand: wanted to unite the Slavs together against the dislike of the Magyars. Poincare: He is the PM and Foreign Minister of France in 1912. He wanted a general war with Germany in order to gain Alsace Lorraine back.

Conservative and nationalist figure. His policies are urged by revenge. Outline I. The Bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier a. June 1903= Serbian officers assassinated their king and queen i. Lafore uses language to suggest that the assassination was very messy and in turn upset the entire balance of events in Europe ii. Assassination ending up effecting the Austrian state which in turn effected the German army which in turn effected what mattered to mankind b. Serbia i. Serbia very rural population; capital=Belgrade ii. House of Karageorgevich=Prince Peter scion in 1903 ii. Prince Peter=elderly intelligent man who lived in exile iv. Other house was House of Obrenovich=occupied the throne through King Alexander II=young man of indifferent talents, doubtful morals, and bad political judgement v. His wife caused much hatred from the population 1. Lafore uses sharp language to describe the disposition of her in the public eye vi. Kings throne not secure=dependent upon Austrian support and friendship with the Russians Group Outline—Pages 141-204: 18“The Long Fuse” Group Outlines Ms. Johnson 2010-2011 ii. Alexander attempted to please both the liberal and radical party=led to contradictions of himself in governmental opinions; Liberals eventually turned against him viii. Russians supported radical and Austrians supported Liberals c. Austro-Russian affairs i. Austria attempted to persuade Russia that neither of them should meddle in Serbian affairs that put them at a disadvantage ii. Austrian Foreign Minister Agenor von Goluchowski suggested that Austria could eventually annex smaller nations and Russia could do the same iii.

Russia declined this proposal but signed an agreement to maintain the exsisting order of things d. Russian Foreign Minister Count Lamsdorf assured Austria that they were too busy with eastern affairs to be involved in Serbian relations i. At the same time, Russia remained quietly involved in Serbia and supporting the Radicals e. The quiet Austro-Russian affairs benefited the new Serbian government i. The new Serbian government was very much hostile, radical, and revolutionary ii. Peter Karageorgevich was brought in and installed as the new ing=promised to maintain a good relationship with his neighbors as long as he was supported iii. Government needed to be nationalistic if it was to stay in power=started to depend on Russia and created Austrophobia f. Macedonia was in great need of reform i. Serbia too control and hoped for Russian support ii. Russians to busy in the East to give proper support g. Mursteg Punctation i. Accepted by Ottoman government; allowed for policing of Macedonia by major powers h. Russia was defeated in the far east i. They hurt themselves even more by continuing to meddle in Serbian affairs and eing unwilling to cooperate with Austria ii. Supported Rusphile Nikola Pashitch as Prime Minister iii. Relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia in declining spiral i. The Pig War and the Rise of Pan-Serbism i. Serbia tied commercially to the Austro Hungarian empire=not economically good for Serbia ii. Serbia attempted to end this dependence=first major sep was signing of customs treaty with Bulgaria in 1905 iii. Austrian responded in 1906 by stopping all Serbian livestock imports iv. Led to struggle called the Pig War which lasted five years with short interruptions; he Austrians were determined to show the Serbs they had more power and Serbia was determined to be economically free j. Serbia took their markets elsewhere i. They succeeded and actually gained more revenue than before the Pig War making them extremely confident ii. Serbian success greatly surprised and angered the Austrians iii. It create a divide in their monarchy and made them upset because they believed tat a greater Serbia would be harmful iv. Austria in turn made the Serbs excessively sensitive to trade routes v. Serbia wanted a railroad straight to the Adriatic sea as a direct ommercial outlet but Austria opposed it Montenegro became a Serbian enemy i. After once being an ally of Serbia, Montenegro became an enemy=Serbia attempted to murder their Prince ii. Prince Nicholas had made himself unpopular with his own people iii. Montenegro suspected Serbia and informant from the Serbian Ministry of War gave them information that confirmed these suspicions iv. Incident showed extremes Serbs were willing to go to push for South Slav Liberation Yugoslav Club i. One of many nationalist societies beginning to flourish in Serbia ii.

The only reason these groups effected Austro-Serb relations was the Pig War and pan-Serb impact on the monarchy iii. Two meetings of Slav politicians at Fiume and Zara demanding full rights of self- government for Austrian Slavs and to end the dual system that enabled Magyars to oppress them iv. Vienna government began to contemplate extreme measures v. Extreme measures were about to be taken and the lesson was learned that there was no point wasting time in economic affairs vi. The long Bosnian crisis began in the autumn of 1908=illuminated the existing tensions and realities and produced new ones

Custom writing services


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out