On June 28, 1914, a Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg. The assassinations are what is said to have ignited World War I. Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was a powerful symbol of the entity preventing the nationalist ambitions of the Serbs, and Princip was part of a secret Serbian nationalist organization called Union or Death that was popularly known as the Black Hand.But did this single even cause World War I? The answer is no, it did not. It may have been a symptom, but it was not the cause.If we take a look at the socio-political terrain of Europe prior to 1914, we see an extremely volatile situation.
Nationalism was the trend in Europe and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a multi-ethnic conglomeration dominated by Germans and Hungarians, was strongly opposed to satisfying the nationalist ambitions of the empire’s many minority groups (Czechs, Slavs, Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs) because doing to would likely mean the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.If we look at Europe beyond the borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, we see another potentially dangerous situation in the system of alliances that had built up in Europe in the decades dating back to Franco-Prussian War and the 1871 unification of Germany. Germany quickly became a threat to the balance of power in Europe. We have already looked at how extreme German nationalism became, and after a very brief period, Germany was geared up to compete with, if not dominate, the rest of Europe. French nationalists longed for a rematch against Germany, and British nationalists were concerned that their empire might be overshadowed.To prevent a war between Russia and Austro-Hungary, Bismarck forged the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Russia. The Triple Alliance would also serve to protect Germany from aggression by either France or Russia.When Bismarck resigned from leadership of Germany in 1890, Germany’s new leaders let the alliance with Russia lapse and Germany threw its weight behind Austro-Hungary. Germany also supported Austro-Hungary in its efforts to quell minority disturbances. Seizing an opportunity, France quickly allied with Russia and not long after forged an alliance with Great Britain known as the Triple Entente, thereby completing the formation of an alliance hostile to Germany’s Alliance.
The upshot of all of this is that there were two large and very dangerous alliances in Europe that could, and did, face off against each other shortly following the assassinations. More details can be found in your textbook. As you will glean from this week’s primary document by Germany’s Von Treitschke, there were many people in Europe who were not opposed at all to what would become known as the Great War. For many, its onset was a cause for celebration.
Many had become tired of the drab and decadent European bourgeois society and longed for the opportunity for spiritual renewal and exciting heroism that the war might bring. As you will see, however, that would not be the case as the war quickly became a numbing stalemate of trench warfare between the two sides. The stalemate continued for four years until U.S. troops entered the war in 1918 on the side of the Triple Entente and an armistice was finally called on November 11, 1918.The war saw what is estimated to be between 15 to 22 million deaths, many caused by the 1918 pandemic. It ranks among the deadliest conflicts in human history. It also saw the emergence of the United States as a world power and prompted a redrawing of the map of Europe.
The war also resulted in the famous Treaty of Versailles, which solely blamed Germany for the war and is known to have played a role in creating conditions in Europe that led to World War II. Part One Discuss the settlement of Versailles. What were its benefits to Europe and what were its drawbacks?
How might it have been improved? Was the settlement too harsh toward Germany? Could it have secured a lasting peace in Europe? Must be 250 words or more.Part Two In the excerpt from “Civilization and Its Discontents,” Sigmund Freud, writing in 1930, discusses the aggressiveness of humanity, describing man “as a savage beast to whom consideration towards his own kind is something alien.” According to the Freud, the evidence is obvious, and one only has to look at “the horrors of the recent World War , to bow humbly before the truth of this view.”In reading the document, do you agree that Freud’s depiction of man’s “inclination to aggression” is an integral part of what we call Western Civilzation?
How much of his thought, if any, do you think was influenced by his living through “The Great War?”Finally, how are Freud’s thoughts and conclusions about humanity rubbing against the grain of ideals The Enlightenment, which presumably has guided Western Civilization since the 18th century? References:Western Civilization A Brief History, vol. II Since 1600. Eleventh Editionhttp://www.historyguide.org/europe/freud_disconten…https://help.kanopy.com/hc/en-us/articles/36002634… Watch “The Great War: part 3
Requirements: 2 pages
