Responding to these posts will be voluntary. Every student that makes at least one comment that adds to the post's discussion and meets the criteria detailed below will earn +2 points extra credit (kind of like an extra credit on a test or "tiz."). I will accept comments up until 11:59pm on Tuesday December 21.
This first post is about the start of World War I. As we have discussed, the spark that started World War I was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. On my website, in the Unit 5 World War I folder toward the bottom of the World History Handouts page, are two articles:
- "Gavrilo's Princip's Deli Sandwich" from History's Worst Decisions by Stephen Weir
- "I Started World War I" from Weird History 101 by John Richard Stephens
-
- Compare and/or contrast the two articles. Include details from both readings.
- Discuss the most interesting thing you read/saw. Say why it was so interesting. Include specific details from both readings.
- Build upon something said in a previous comment (Although "Yeah, what he/she said" comments don't count -- add some original thought). You must include specific details from both readings, but you can also provide evidence from your head/anywhere else if you want. Give any outside source credit by citing him/her.
- Disagree with any previous comment and explain why. Keep it civil. You must include evidence from both articles to support your thinking, but you can additionally provide evidence from your head/anywhere else if you want. Give any outside source credit by citing him/her.
How To Post A Comment
In order to comment, you must first click where it says how many comments have been made at the bottom of the post. The comment field then should be at the end of all the existing comments. Do not use your full name or the full name of any other student that has posted a comment. Your post will be rejected if it includes a full name. First name, last initial works well. If you have a Google Mail account you can obviously use that profile. Just make sure you put your first name and last initial at the end of your post if you have some kind of funky user name. You can also comment as "Anonymous", but again provide your first name and last initial at the end of your post. I can't give you credit if I don't know who you are!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
In order to comment, you must first click where it says how many comments have been made at the bottom of the post. The comment field then should be at the end of all the existing comments. Do not use your full name or the full name of any other student that has posted a comment. Your post will be rejected if it includes a full name. First name, last initial works well. If you have a Google Mail account you can obviously use that profile. Just make sure you put your first name and last initial at the end of your post if you have some kind of funky user name. You can also comment as "Anonymous", but again provide your first name and last initial at the end of your post. I can't give you credit if I don't know who you are!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
I believe that world war one was inevitable. The powers were to angry with each other and there was too much tension between them for any more long term peace. I think that the assassination of Ferdinand was just one of the many possible causes that would have led to the war. As the Berlin government made it clear to the Viennese government: "The world will remain at peace only so long as no one does anything foolish." Archduke Ferdinand Choosing June 28 as his day to visit was just that foolish act. Like the conspirator in I Started World War 1 said "Though the war probably would have started without his assassination, history certainly would be very different today if the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had chosen any other day except June 28 to visit Sarajevo."
ReplyDelete-Nathan Brownstein
I think that World War I was inevitable; the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was just used as a pretext for European nations to fight each other for their own personal gain. For example, in Gavrilo Princips Deli Sandwich, It is mentioned that Germany has had war plans ready for the domination of Europe since 1905 and that diplomacy between nations was becoming less and less effective way of resolving issues. The world was so close to conflict that it is said that “The world would remain at peace only as long as no one tried anything foolish. On June 28, 1914, someone did.” Although Serbia had no link to the assassination besides being the home of Gavrilo Princip, the killer, Austria used the assassination as an excuse for declaring war. [Weird History 101]. Because of the ties between countries in Europe and in colonies around the world WWI was really a ‘global conflict’. The two articles take very different views on the assassination because they are from different sides. The reading from Weird History 101 was from the point of view of one of the members of the Black Hand that was involved in the planning of the assassination. For example, the man describes how the date June 28 was important for history and it was insulting for him to come on that day. He also describes how Princip had wanted to do it while Gavrilo Princips Deli Sandwich tells that the decision was made because he was going to die soon because of a disease anyway. Although the articles are different from the points of view, they both have the same idea: the assassins of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had no idea of the global conflict that they would start. I think that it was interesting to see the differences between a historian’s view and the view of an actual participant in history. One of the most interesting lines to me was in Weird History 101: “Our decision was taken almost immediately. Death to the Tyrant!”
ReplyDeleteScott G.
Period 1
Two great comments to start us off. Good job guys! Now everyone has something they can react too. Feel free to disagree (or agree) with Nathan and/or Scott. Just make sure you bring some original thought to the table as well.
ReplyDeleteWar was inevitable at that time. Hate, loathing, jealously,anger, and a multitude of negative feelings had built up inside nations throughout Europe. It blow up any single event and turn that into a massive conflict. In "I started World War I", the apparent writer of the note said, "the war would probably without this assassination" of Franz Ferdinand. That was simply the spark that lit the powder keg. "Diplomacy was wearing thin as a means of resolving issues." (Gavrilo's Princip's Deli Sandwich) All these tensions that had built up would let themselves loose at any controversial occasion, and by this time, there was virtually nothing anyone could do to stop it. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand simply unlocked this flood of fury that plagued the entire continent of Europe for the next four years, taking millions of lives as a war broke out.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with all the previous posts when they say that war was inevitable... for it is inevitably inevitable that nothing can be inevitable... What I'm saying is that I don't think that a discussion of whether or not the war could have been stopped is relevant... because the war already happened. What I do believe is worthy of discussion is how the war WAS started. I believe that all here can agree when I say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the the igniter that initiated the war. However, these two articles reveal a great deal about both the events that they depict, and the truth of history itself. Within “I Started World War I,” Gavrilo Princip is depicted as a hero. He takes his “last stand” in order to create a “united nation free of Austrian domination.” You can tell immediately that this article was written by the hand of one of Princip’s allies, and a follower of his cause. The article reveals that they were working towards a nationalistic cause, rather than trying to start a World War. In “Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich,” the conspirators are portrayed as incompetent and the entire ordeal was a “fiasco.” The actual assassination was a thing made possible only by a series of chances, starting with Ferdinand’s car getting lost, as well as the fact that Princip picked that particular deli to have lunch. Ferdinand’s assassination is described as being a “pathetic incident,” yet its consequences would be enormous. And while the articles do clash a little with how it came about, they are synonymous when it comes to the consequences of Princip’s actions. Yet, this clash acts to reveal a larger truth about history. As Scott G. mentioned, it was interesting to see the two different views. This is why the article “I Started World War I” intrigued me so greatly. Without it, we would never have learnt about Princip’s actual nationalistic views. Without it, we would never have known that Princip and his fellows were not a national terrorist group… rather they were only angry that a foreign oppressor should come visit their country on their independence day. This reveals the flaws of history, where many times details are erased where people are embarrassed to reveal them. Of course the European leaders wouldn’t want to admit that they started a World War on the quirks of a small group of nationalistic men. They’d prefer the story of a national terrorist group who wanted a war. I believe that history should be a depiction of truth, rather than convenience. Too many times the shortcomings of man are covered up. History should always work towards the story of truth. And when the truth is unclear, both sides of the story should be made known. It is an injustice to our human race to sway the truth. For history is our past, present, and future. Every instance we live is an instance in history. It is undeniably one of the greatest things man should be proud of. These articles helped to show that we cannot always be proud of our history, but we should always live by it.
ReplyDelete- Michael Y
I agree with all the comments posted so far. War was ineviteble at that time. The asasination of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of WW 1. It was the tension between the nations that erupted. Franz Ferdinand's death was simply an excuse. According to "Gavrilo Princip's Deli Sandwich: The Assasination of Franz Ferdinands", "within a mere two decades the grand masters of Europe were ready to go at it all over again". The reason being, as the article would later state, is that many countries were advancing technologically and rapidly gaining power. As we have learned before,this created an arm's race. Everyone expected everyone else of planning to do something "foolish". Germany was already creating a plan for future war! In "History's Worst Decision", it said "The warmongers in Berlin and Vienna couldn't care less about Franz Ferdinand and jumped at the opportunity". This was a conflict that was building for years.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing was definitly how quickly the countries around Europe got involved. It was this rapidly moving chain reaction that soon engulfed a huge portion of the world. It astounded me how sometimes countries would be sucked in because they had a completely irrelevant alliance with an opposong nation. For example, "because of France's alliance with Russia, Germany declared war on them as well"(I Started World War 1). In my opinion, countries attacked any other country they wanted to now because they had an excuse to do it. This is why they didn't do it before the war They were afraid of being quicky shot down. I think many officials were even satisfied that somebody started the war because they could then do what they wanted to do.
-Izabela B.
The fact that the Archduke Francis Ferdinand visited Sarajevo on an important day in their history makes me question whether World War I was ever necessary or ever would have taken place. If he had simply went in another day, the world war may never have occurred. However, it is evident that European states were hardly coping with many other issues along with their neighbors: the Ottoman empire was beginning to fall apart, “Russians were supporting uprisings in Turkish regions throughout the Balkans”, Britain and France “fought to hold back Russian expansionism”, and the Serbians and the Bulgarians claimed more land than they had been given (Gavrilo Pricips Deli Sandwich). To add to that, the Russians formally abandoned their close relations with Austria and Germany and many other relations were altered. In addition, Germany felt it was not receiving enough credit for being such a successful nation. Europe was in a state of absolute chaos. It was only a matter of time before the war began. Austria simply “used the assassination to declare war on Serbia” (I Started World War I), which would trigger the complete uproar. It appears that war “was by no means inevitable in 1914.” (Gavrilo Princip)
ReplyDeleteRebecca L.
The diplomacy of the early the century made the First World War inevitable. By having a series of overlapping treaties it is clear that the nations of Europe were setting up this Great War for years. As John Richard Stephens points out in Weird History 101, once war was declared by Austria-Hungary against Bosnia, all the other nations of Europe were quick to join the party. The war had obviously been a long time in the making. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife were just a good excuse to start the war. The lesson that Steven Weir in his book “History’s Worst Decisions”, reminds us of is how devastating war can be. In World War I over 8 million people died.
ReplyDeleteDan H
Awesome stuff so far people. Keep it coming!
ReplyDeleteScott G. and Michael Y. picked up on the fact that the two articles discuss the same historical event from opposite points of view. That's true, and I selected these two specific articles for that reason :) There is a saying -- "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Next year you will learn about the American Revolution in depth. Guess what the British thought of George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? Whether or not you thought of them as freedom fighters or terrorists depended on your point of view.
This makes me think about one of the quotes we talked about at the beginning of the year -- "History is written by the victors." How do you think history would have treated Washington and Jefferson if the British put down our rebellion and they were executed as traitors? Today we would probably think they were evil nut jobs. While their actions and motivations would remain the same, our interpretation of those actions and motivations would be different. We would have a different perspective.
Finally, Michael Y. talked about finding the truth in history. That's what historians strive to do, and that's why they pour over volumes of primary source material to overcome the spin "the victors" put on history and come closer to the truth. Note I say "come closer to the truth" because new information inevitably surfaces from time to time, providing new perspective. Therefore, the narrative of history is really never finished. This is one of the reasons why I find the study of history so captivating.
The most interesting thing that i saw in the articles was about if Archduke Franz Ferdinand just went even a day later to Sarajevo, that this war would have been a lot different, or not even have happened. It says, "History certainly would be very different today if the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had chosen a different day to visit Sarajevo." So basically, you have to be careful on what days that you chose to visit places. If Archduke didn't go on that day, then maybe 10 million people would not have died. Maybe no one would have died. This was probably one of "History's Worst Decisions." Ferdinand should have just waited another day to go and visit Sarajevo, then probably there would have been no assassination. I thought that was the most interesting part of the articles cause it makes you think.
ReplyDeleteNick C.
After reading both of these articles on World War One, I think “Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich” was the better of the two and it was more interesting to read. The article “I Started World War One” was from the point of view of one of the people who participated in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Personally, I thought that this article didn’t go into enough detail for somebody to understand exactly why the Serbian people wanted to kill Franz Ferdinand. “Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich,” on the other hand, gave full background information on the condition of Europe during that time period and what was going on with Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to cause nationalist feelings to arise with the Serbian people which ended up leading to the killing of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Also this article gave background information on the lives of the group aiming to assassinate Franz Ferdinand, which helped me understand more about the nationalist feelings Serbian people had. From my point of view I thought “Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich” was a lot more interesting and entertaining than “I Started World War One.”
ReplyDeleteJosh S.
I believe World War I was inevitable. I think this because there were ongoing tensions throughout the nations, and although the death of Franz Ferdinand may have had an effect on nation's opinions, there were still feelings of hate between them. There was not one specific reason for this war to begin, it was the disagreements and issues that weren't going away between the nations. In the article I Started World War I, it states that Austria used the death of Ferdinand to declare war, which may be true. This shows that there were smaller issues between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and this death was just a greater reason for war. In the article Gavrilo Princip's Deli Sandwich: The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand it says that Princip shot Ferdinand and his wife after buying a sandwich, and when he walked outside he noticed their car and shot them both. In the other article it says that a man named Gabrinovic shot the couple, which shows that it is unclear as to what really happened on this day. I believe that even though the death of Ferdinand angered many people, there were tensions going on way before that to spark the war.
ReplyDeleteA part of the article I Started World War I that I believe was interesting was how Princip denied knowing any of the revolutionaries shown to him, even though they all claimed to knowing him as their leader. He was badly hurt, and either way he was going to have a harsh punishment. I am curious as to why he did not just admit to knowing these people. This is what I believe is an interesting part of the reading.
-Noele B.
After reading both of these articles it changed my mind on whether or not I believed World War I was inevitable. The fact that the war started after Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated does not mean that the war would never have happened if that event did not occur. Germany really wanted war. In our book we read that they even had a plan, Von Schlieffen’s plan, to win the war. They wanted power and used war to reach that goal. The assassination only sparked the fight which later triggered war. I also agree with Scott, each article came from a different point of view though they both were on the same topic. It was interesting to see how the Weird History 101 article explained in great detail what happened that night of June 28 for example, “As the car came abreast he stepped forward from the curb, drew his automatic pistol from his coat and fired two shots.” The detail allows you to believe that this was written by someone close to Princip, someone who believed he was valiant for his actions. The other article described the assassination as “chaos” and a “pathetic incident.” As you can see one follows the cause while the other frankly goes against it. The most interesting part about the two articles was that though they backed there reasons up very differently the two articles got me thinking about which side to take on the event.
ReplyDeleteCassie M.
My opinion is that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was, for a lack of a better word, compulsive. To be honest, it just seemed like a violent way for the unhappy citizens to cool off a little. Although both articles give different perspectives, there is still information that helps is better explain the situation and the time and how it might not have been necessary to assassinate the archduke. If we take a further look at the events that set up the scene, we will see that people wanted to have a better situation in their country and the only way they saw they could get this is to kill the evil man behind it. I believe that the people behind it are not the only ones to blame for this. One thing to blame is that the Archduke chose June 28 to visit Sarajevo. One of the biggest flaws, Ferdinand did not take the time to realize that it is the independence day for Serbia, so much so that it was to the likes of our 4th of July. Not being aware of this created a lot of distrust for the leader, and made him look like he was ignorant and did not care for the Serbs. Another flaw would be that assassination was becoming a trend. One article states that since many presidents and important leaders were being murdered, they were rewarded with fame and even revered. However, they do not address the other side where although the assassins get fame, they have not thoroughly planned and reviewed all the options. Another point that is very important is that not only is the leader dead, there are also many other people who got injured or died. Princip even says that he regretted firing another shot and killing the archduke's pregnant wife, Sophia. After reviewing these two articles, it is not the assassination of the Archduke that set of World War I, it was the bad energy and lack of patience within the European countries at that time.
ReplyDeleteJennifer E.
World War was most definitely inevitable. Franz Ferdinand was killed in Bosnia and that started a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. That may have sparked the revolution, but “the war probably would have started this assassination.” (“I started WWI”) Germany was a large part in the start of the war, and they could care less about Franz Ferdinand. Germany encouraged Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Germany wanted war; the country was just waiting for an excuse to start the war. Years before the whole conflict started Germany, General Alfred con Schlieffen in particular, made the Schlieffen Plan, which was a plan of attack against France. In addition, new technology was being developed at that time, including the machine gun and the submarine, which certain countries were itching to try out with their armies against their enemies. (“Gavrilo Princips Deli Sandwich: Assassination of Franz Ferdinand”) “I Started WW1” was mostly went into detail about the specifics of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The author of that article admittedly said, “I was one of the members of the terrorist groups in Belgrade.” The “Gavrilo Princips Deli Sandwich: Assassination of Franz Ferdinand” article went into depth about what was going on before the war. Many other events occurred to lead to the war including, “Austrian-Hungary and the Ottoman Empires were creaking and failing, and the power vacuum was apparent to emerging nationalists.” The most interesting part of the sandwich article was that I learned the actual attempt to kill Franz was a disaster. The first conspirator saw a policeman next to him; the second changed his mind about killing because he did not know there was a woman (Franz’s wife) in the car with Franz in it; the third threw a bomb at the car, but it missed the interior. The bomb bounced of the car and hit the crowd. In the “I started WWI” article, I found it interesting how there were so many countries that you would not except to be involved in the war that were including Rumania, Montenegro, Liberia, San Mario, Siam, China, Japan, Cuba, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Haiti. It truly was a world war. I agree with a blogger that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand sparked WWI, but I disagree with saying that WWI would have not started without the assassination.
ReplyDelete-Tricia T
In my opinion, this war was inevitable, it was bound to happen sometime. However, the causes of it could have been prevented. If such events hadn't occurred than the war may not have been needed. I'm contradicting myself. Tensions between these European countries were wound so tight at the beginning of the war that nothing, at that point, would have stopped it. Although no one could have seen these events coming, without them a war could have been avoided. As Michael and Scott both brought up, the two articles were written by two different views. From this, we can understand that neither side felt they were wrong. Each country wanted the best for itself. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand would not have occurred if he took the time to understand how his presence would effect the people of Serbia. This event could have been prevented. From the point of view of "I started World War 1, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand started the war. This assassination was not the cause of the war, instead, I believe it was caused by two sides inability to understand the other. Neither side wanted to settle things nicely, they wanted to win and conquer for themselves. Instead of being humanitarian, which Europe claimed they were during the Age of Imperialism, they were brutal and selfish. In my opinion, there is no right side to take. Looking back on this war I can't really determine which side was right. Was it the side that was brought into it because they were attacked or the side that attacked first just to get advantage? -- Amanda V.
ReplyDeleteNote: This will be my second time writing this, thank you blogspot.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion world war 1 was inevitable. However, without the events that led to it, it may not have been. The tension at the beginning of the war was so tightly wound that nothing was going to be able to prevent war, at that time. However, if the events that caused the tension were stopped, then it could have been solved an easier way. As Scott and Mike brought up, the articles were written by different points of view. From this, we can determine that neither side truly understood the other. If they did, then many things may have been prevented. For example, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand may not have happened if he had taken the time to realize the effects his visit would have on the people of Serbia. Both sides felt they were right in what they were doing. Both sides were also selfish. During the Age of Imperialism, Europe claimed to have humanitarian reasons that they spread around the world to help. If these people really wanted to help then they could have began to understand each other and work with each other. Instead, each country wanted to conquer and win for itself. After reading these articles it shows how you really can't choose the right side to take. Neither side was completely right or wrong. Also, with what Mr. Bourdeau brought up about "History is written by the victors", well if both sides have articles then who won? Was there a winner? No, this war was not needed and no one benefited. War can be extremely devistating and can ruin economies, lives, and much more. Preventing events that led to tension that led to war would have been the best thing. I admit that no one could have seen this coming, however, if people, at that time,understood each other, then maybe WWI could have been prevented. -- Amanda V.
Good point about that quote I mentioned, Amanda. "History is written by the victors" might be better expressed as "The victors put their spin on history." The evidence is out there -- bias can also manifest itself when historians choose to evaluate some evidence but not other evidence. "I Started World War I" was in a book called "Weird History 101" -- that tells me that it goes against what many people (like you this year) learn about this event when they study it in school.
ReplyDeleteI also think that World War I was inevitable aswell. Since there were tensions between almost every country in Europe, the world new a war was going to break out sometime, except noone expected it to be as bad as it was. I agree with Amanda about how she said that the war was written by the winning side, and how they showed bias, however there are documents from both countries about the war and there are simmilarities and differences. I do agree that if Franz Ferdinand actually looked at the risks he was taking in parading down the streets of Serbia in an open car, the war would not have happened at the time, but the other tensions in Europe could have bursted and the cause of the war could have been different than what happened in history. Overall, I think that the tensions in Europe were flaring and that the war was going to happen one way or another.
ReplyDelete-Sebby
World War I was inevitable. The articles, “Gavrilo’s Princip’s Deli Sandwich” and “I Started World War I”, described two events that made this war happen faster than it would have normally. At this time, conspirators were already beginning to resent the leaders of other countries and were making plans to get rid of them. People like Princip were very determined on getting what they wanted and getting rid of who they wanted. The conspirators in the second article wanted Ferdinand gone so bad that they planned his route and where they should position themselves. They knew exactly when to shoot and who was going to shoot. If World War 1 was never going to happen, then these people would have never had the plans that they did.
ReplyDelete- Taylor Gowisnock
I believe that the war was not inevitable. I think this because both of the articles state “war in no means was inevitable.” Also in the second article it says that even if the archduke was not killed on June 28, 1914, the war would have still started. Another reason why I think that World War 1 was not inevitable is because in 1905 Germany had already started making war plans. I think that if the archduke had not been killed the Germans would have thought of another crazy way to have start the war like they did in WW2. This is why I think that World War 1 was not at all inevitable. –Adam Sp
ReplyDeleteI believe that World War 1 was inevitable. Countries in Europe were disputing over numerous issues and war was bound to happen. The assassination of Arch duke Franz Ferdinand just added to the tension and on July 28, 1914 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. This is one example of how World War 1 was inevitable. In the article Gavrilo’s Princip’s Deli Sandwich, Steve Weir, said that “the Germans had a war plan in place since at least 1905.” This statement shows that war could have broken out at any time. World War 1 was inevitable.
ReplyDelete-Yani L.
These two articles provided insight for me of the two sides fighting during the war. What I found interesting was how this war was not beneficial and especially how lame the excuse put up for it was. In “Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich: The assassination of Franz Ferdinand”, Franz is said to have been in “no mood for a trip to Sarajevo”, but still decides to go because he believed that he wouldn’t get “booed and rioted against”, despite his previous visit. In my mind, I find this as an interesting lie, since; Franz Ferdinand knows he is not liked, so why would he even bother to make a trip to Sarajevo, especially on a day of their celebration from victory against the Turks? I believe the best way to make people support you is not to be offensive to them. I suppose this did intrigue me, but what further sparked my curiosity is in the article, “I started World War I”. This article is narrated in first person, rather than the other article, which was narrated in third person. I found this more realistic, and it seemed to be visual as well, which made me pay more attention. I noted that towards the end of the article, the narrator takes on a sort of accusing voice, saying that “history certainly would have been very different today if the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had chosen any other day except June 28th to visit Sarajevo.” I believe that this statement is very wrong. Franz Ferdinand was not a person of so much importance that he had to have “10 million people die” for him in the process of his avenge. Some countries wanted war, and they used his assassination as an excuse. In the end, I still believe that World War One was a big, stupid, mistake.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer Z.
I believe that World War I was inevitable. Tensions between countries in Europe as well as many other causes such as nationalism, rivalries, and alliances foreshadowed the war to come. The war was bound to happen sometime, it was just a matter of when it would break out. In the article "I started World War I," it says that Austria used the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as an excuse to declare war on Serbia. This shows that this spark that ignited the war didn't actually cause the war. It was an excuse for Austria to let out the tensions that had been building for years. I also agree with some statements above saying how both sides were wrong. If Franz Ferdinand understood what was going on in Serbia at the time, the assassination would not have happened. Also, if Ferdinand wasn't killed, the "spark" that led to the outbreak of war wouldn't have happened. However, this doesn't mean that World War I wouldn't have taken place, because the stress between the countries would have caused it sooner or later.
ReplyDelete-Ashley W
I agree with Michael Y. that discussing the inevitability of World War I is futile because it has already occurred and has impacted every historical event since. However, I do not agree with Michael in saying that “nothing can be inevitable”: World War I was. Up until Princip’s notorious assassination, Europe was deteriorating under the severe pressures of decaying empires, fervent nationalist sentiments, and raging egos: “…the giant Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were creaking and falling, and the power vacuum was apparent to emergent nationalists. The still young and expansionist German regime stood ready to take any advantage that might accrue from this power failure…” (Weir, 111). Moreover, Britain and Germany had started one of the fiercest arms races in history, while Britain, Germany, and France bitterly argued over colonies. The French, mortified by their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, sat in a “hotbed of nationalism” that was just begging to be provoked by the cocky Germans (Weir, 111). This type of frightening nationalism is also exemplified in Borijove Jevtic’s narrative when he proclaims, “Princip is destined to go down in Serbian history as one of her greatest heroes [for killing Archduke Ferdinand, thus protecting Serbia’s historical and national pride against her Austro-Hungarian oppressors.]” (Stephens, 238). This Molotov cocktail of political and emotional conditions only needed a small flame to explode into total war. Though the bullets from Princip’s gun were the historical detonators, any other action could have had similar results in starting the War, thus making World War I inevitable.
ReplyDelete-Ana G
The war was inevitable because with ideas like the arms race it was sure to set off with a spark. That spark was the assassination of Ferdinand. Once Germany had a chance after constantly planning attacks to start war they jump for it. The new theme of war was an anxious thing for countries to get too. Once one of these developed countries had the chance they were included. The war would than grow rapidly with the idea to fight for there land. But the real reason that I grew also were the alliances between others. Once one was involved the other help setting of something like a chain of reactions. I think that even without the assassination though the four reasons of war would have soon sparked a war regardless of a purpose or not. The war was dumb and came to be just because of the anxiousness to use all of the new technology. As in both of the articles the war was useless and killed millions with no reward or victory.
ReplyDelete-Pasquale C
I think that war was inevitable. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not the root cause of the war; it just ignited the flame, which would have eventually been lit anyway. I don’t think people cared for Franz Ferdinand as much as they were already angered, and were pushed over the edge by any event that showed hatred toward their nation. In my opinion, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just an excuse to start the war early. "Gavrilo Princip’s Deli Sandwich" enforces this idea, stating “The Germans had a war plan in place since at least 1905.” This plan, however, described a short battle. No one knew that this war would turn into a stalemate. The article "I Started WWI" is being told by part of the terrorist group who killed Franz Ferdinand. The writer says “Austria used the assassination as an excuse to declare war on Serbia,” which shows that both sides (both for and against) think it is most likely war would have started without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. – Melissa C
ReplyDeleteI also think that World War 1 was inevitable. The tension between European countries kept everyone on edge and ready to attack so by the time that something occurred that gave them the opportunity to attack rival countries, they were as ready as they’d ever be to seek revenge and over throw their foes. I agree with Amanda about what Michael and Scott pointed out. Both sides put the blame on the other and neither side thought they had done anything wrong. Each country wanted to be superior to the next. As illustrated in “I Started World War 1”, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand didn’t cause the war, it just gave a reason to start one. As a result of the previous insecurities of many European countries, many alliances were formed that bound certain countries together in an “I help you, you help me” sort of relationship. This was another major component in the start of World War 1 because once two countries declared war on each other, all of the countries allied to the warring nations would be fighting each other which lead to the domino effect that pushed Europe into a full out war.
ReplyDelete-Kira W.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what most, if not all, of what the past bloggers (credit to bloggers "Nathan B." all the way to blogger "Taylor G.") have said, and I believe that World War I was, indeed, inevitable, because there was too much tension built up between the European countries, which was sparked by Ferdinand's assassination. This is based on passages from "I Started World War I," which say, "Austria used the assassination as an excuse to declare war on Serbia," and, "Though the war probably would have started without the assassination," and the passages from "Gavrilo Princip's Deli Sandwhich," which says, "The warmongers in Berlin and Vienna, who couldn't care less about Franz Ferdinand, jumped at the opportunity."
ReplyDeleteAlso, in an effort to be original, I found both articles very interesting because, as mentioned from previous bloggers, including Mr. Bourdeau, both articles included a bias of some sort, whether it was pro-Princip "I Started World War I" with passages from Princip's naturally biased co-conspirator Borijove Jevtic, or anti-Princip passages from "Gavrilo Princip's Deli Sandwhich" with passages from a naturally biased author (after all, his book is named "History's Worst Decisions"), both the articles have a universal bias/agreement that WWI was a bad war, with high cost and fatalities. This is shown in "I Started World War I" where they mention, "World War I was the most bloody and costly war in modern history," and in "Gavrilo Princip's Deli Sandwhich" where they mention, "World War I wins almost every conceivable award for idiocy that one can imagine." While one opinion is stronger than the other, it is clear that both authors do agree that WWI was a very deadly war. -- Dan S.
Dan's comment is the last one. He sent it at 11:45pm, but I had to clean out the last names he mentioned before I could post it.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone who participated! You all got a lot out of this