MAIN TOPIC: CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: THE ASSASSINATION AT SARAJEVO

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Trace the events that led to the assassination of the archduke, Franz Ferdinand?
 Name the principal areas and the principal actors in the assassination of the archduke?
 Give reasons why the archduke was assassinated?

General Oskar Potiorek, Governor of the Austrian provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina, invited

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Inspector of the Austro-Hungarian Army, and his wife, Sophie von
Chotkovato, to watch his troops on maneuvers in June, 1914.

Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, knew that the visit would be dangerous. A
large number of people living in Bosnia-Herzegovina were unhappy with Austrian rule and
favoured union with Serbia. Ferdinand was aware that in 1910 a Serb, Bogdan Zerajic, had
attempted to assassinate General Varesanin, the Austrian governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, when
he was opening parliament in Sarajevo.

Zerajic was a member of the Black Hand (Unity or Death) group who wanted Bosnia-
Herzegovina to leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The leader of the group was Colonel
Dragutin Dimitrijevic, the chief of the Intelligence Department of the Serbian General Staff.
Dimitrijevic considered Franz Ferdinand a serious threat to a union between Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Serbia. He was worried that Ferdinand's plans to grant concessions to the South Slavs would
make an independent Serbian state more difficult to achieve. When it was announced that Franz
Ferdinand was going to visit Bosnia in June 1914, Dimitrijevic began to make plans to
assassinate him.

Dragutin Dimitrijevic, and his fellow conspirators, Milan Ciganovic and Major Voja Tankosic,
sent three members of the Black Hand group based in Belgrade, Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko
Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez, to carry out the deed. Each man was given a revolver, two bombs
and small vial of cyanide. The three men were instructed to commit suicide after Archduke Franz
Ferdinand had been killed as it was important to Dimitrijevic that the men did not have the
opportunity to confess that members of the Serbian Army were involved in the assassination.
Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabez were all suffering from tuberculosis and knew they would not
live long. They all agreed they were willing to give their life for what they believed was a great
cause: Bosnia-Herzegovina achieving independence from Austro-Hungary.

Unknown to Dragutin Dimitrijevic, Major Voja Tankosic, was informing Nikola Pasic, the prime
minister of Serbia about the plot. Although Pasic supported the main objectives of the Black
Hand group, he did not want the assassination to take place as he feared it would lead to a war
with Austro-Hungaria. He therefore gave instructions for Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic
and Trifko Grabez to be arrested when they attempted to leave the country. However, his orders
were not implemented and the three man arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they joined
forces with fellow conspirators, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, Danilo Ilic, Vaso Cubrilovic, Cvijetko
Popovic, Misko Jovanovic and Veljko Cubrilovic.

Just before 10 o'clock on Sunday, 28th June, 1914, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie von Chotkovato
arrived in Sarajevo by train. General Oskar Potiorek, Governor of the Austrian provinces of
Bosnia-Herzegovina, was waiting to take the royal party to the City Hall for the official
reception.

In the front car was Fehim Curcic, the Mayor of Sarajevo and Dr. Gerde, the city's
Commissioner of Police. Franz Ferdinand and Sophie von Chotkovato were in the second car
with Oskar Potiorek and Count von Harrach. The car's top was rolled back in order to allow the
crowds a good view of its occupants.

The local police force were in charge of the security arrangements for the royal visit. Before the
arrival of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, thirty-five potential troublemakers were arrested and
taken into custody. A hundred and twenty policemen were placed along the route that the royal
party was to take on its way to the City Hall but it was decided that the 70,000 Austro-Hungarian
soldiers in Sarajevo were to be kept in their barracks.
Unknown to the Sarajevo police force, seven members of the Black Hand group also lined the
route. They were spaced out along the Appel Quay, each one had been instructed to try and kill
Franz Ferdinand when the royal car reached his position. The first conspirator on the route to see
the royal car was Muhamed Mehmedbasic. Standing by the Austro-Hungarian Bank,
Mehmedbasic lost his nerve and allowed the car pass without taking action. Mehmedbasic later
said that a policeman was standing behind him and feared he would be arrested before he had a
chance to throw his bomb.

The next man on the route was Nedjelko Cabrinovic. At 10.15. Cabrinovic stepped forward and
hurled his bomb at the archduke's car. The driver accelerated when he saw the object flying
towards him and the bomb exploded under the wheel of the next car. Two of the occupants, Eric
von Merizzi and Count Boos-Waldeck were seriously wounded. About a dozen spectators was
also hit by bomb splinters.

After throwing his bomb, Nedjelko Cabrinovic swallowed the cyanide he was carrying and
jumped into the River Miljacka. Four men, including two detectives, followed him in and
managed to arrest him. The poison failed to kill him and he was taken to the local police station.

Franz Ferdinand's driver, Franz Urban, drove on extremely fast and other members of the Black
Hand group on the route, Cvijetko Popovic, Gavrilo Princip, Danilo Ilic and Trifko Grabez,
decided that it was useless to try and kill the archduke when the car was going at this speed.

After attending the official reception at the City Hall, Franz Ferdinand asked about the members
of his party that had been wounded by the bomb. When the archduke was told they were badly
injured in hospital, he insisted on being taken to see them. A member of the archduke's staff,
Baron Morsey, suggested this might be dangerous, but Oskar Potiorek, who was responsible for
the safety of the royal party, replied, "Do you think Sarajevo is full of assassins?" However,
Potiorek did accept it would be better if Duchess Sophie remained behind in the City Hall. When
Baron Morsey told Sophie about the revised plans, she refused to stay arguing: "As long as the
Archduke shows himself in public today I will not leave him."

In order to avoid the city centre, General Oskar Potiorek decided that the royal car should travel
straight along the Appel Quay to the Sarajevo Hospital. However, Potiorek forgot to tell the
driver, Franz Urban, about this decision. On the way to the hospital, Urban took a right turn into
Franz Joseph Street. One of the conspirators, Gavrilo Princip, happened to be was standing on
the corner at the time. Oskar Potiorek immediately realised the driver had taken the wrong route
and shouted "What is this? This is the wrong way! We're supposed to take the Appel Quay!".

The driver put his foot on the brake, and began to back up. In doing so he moved slowly past the
waiting Gavrilo Princip. The assassin stepped forward, drew his gun, and at a distance of about
five feet, fired several times into the car. Franz Ferdinand was hit in the neck and Sophie von
Chotkovato in the abdomen. Princip's bullet had pierced the archduke's jugular vein but before
losing consciousness, he pleaded "Sophie dear! Sophie dear! Don't die! Stay alive for our
children!" Franz Urban drove the royal couple to Konak, the governor's residence, but although
both were still alive when they arrived, they died from their wounds soon afterwards.

As instructed, after shooting Franz Ferdinand and Sophie von Chotkovato, Gavrilo Princip
turned his gun on himself. Ante Velic, who was standing behind him, saw what he was doing and
seized Princip's right arm. Another man, Danilo Pusic, also grabbed Princip and within seconds
the police arrived and he was arrested.

Nedjelko Cabrinovi and Gavrilo Princip were both interrogated by the police. They eventually
gave the names of their fellow conspirators. Trifko Grabez, Danilo Ilic, Vaso Cubrilovic,
Cvijetko Popovic, Misko Jovanovic and Veljko Cubrilovic were arrested but Muhamed
Mehmedbasic managed to escape to Serbia.

Several members of the Black Hand group interrogated by the Austrian authorities claimed that
three men from Serbia, Milan Ciganovic, Dragutin Dimitrijevic and Major Voja Tankosic, had
organised the plot. 0n 23rd July, 1914, the Austro-Hungarian government demanded that the
Serbian government arrested these three men and send them to face trial in Vienna.

On 25th July, 1914, Nikola Pasic, the prime minister of Serbia, told the Austro-Hungarian
government that he was unable to hand over these three men as it "would be a violation of
Serbia's Constitution and criminal in law". Three days later Austro-Hungarian declared war on
Serbia.
Eight of the men charged with treason and the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand were found
guilty. Under Austro-Hungarian law, capital punishment could not be imposed on someone who
was under the age of twenty when they had committed the crime. Nedjelko Cabrinovic, Gavrilo
Princip and Trifko Grabez therefore received the maximum penalty of twenty years. Vaso
Cubrilovic got 16 years and Cvijetko Popovic 13 years. Misko Jovanovic, Danilo Ilic and Veljko
Cubrilovic, who helped the assassins kill the royal couple, were executed on 3rd February, 1915.

All three men sent by to Sarajevo from Serbia by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, died in prison
from tuberculosis: Nedjelko Cabrinovic (January, 1916), Trifko Grabez (February 1916) and
Gavrilo Princip (April, 1918).

During the first two years of the First World War the Serbian Army suffered a series of military
defeats. Nikola Pasic, the prime minister of Serbia, angry about the way the war was destroying
his country, disbanded the Black Hand organisation and Dragutin Dimitrijevic was arrested.
Dimitrijevic was found guilty of treason and executed on 11th June, 1917.

Five Key Points

1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was an Austrian royal, a nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and the
heir to his throne.
2. The archduke was intelligent, worldly and liberal-minded, which set him at odds with his
conservative family.
3. In June 1914 Ferdinand was touring Sarajevo, Bosnia, when he fell victim to a terrorist gang
of Serbian nationalists.
4. The assassins were young, nervous and clumsy but one, Princip, stumbled across the duke’s
car.
5. Both Ferdinand and his wife were shot in their open-topped car and died within an hour, while
Princip and his collaborators were soon arrested. The murder caused outrage around the world.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Identify: (a) Sarajevo (b) Franz Ferdinand (c) Wilhem II.

2. What factors led to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?
 3. Do you think World War I would have occurred if the archduke had not been
assassinated? Explain your answer.

LESSON 2 & 3

MAIN TOPIC: CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: FOUR STEPS TO WAR

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the two main alliances?

 List the countries in these alliances?
 Make a description of the background to this web of alliances?
 Show how militarism and nationalism were factors that led to the outbreak of WWI?
THE ALLIANCE SYSTEM

An alliance is an agreement made between two or more countries to give each other help if it is
needed. When an alliance is signed, those countries become known as Allies. In 1914, the six
most powerful countries in Europe were divided into two opposing alliances: the Central Powers
or Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy), formed in 1882, and the Triple Entente
(Britain, France and Russia), formed in 1907. Each country was heavily armed, and each one had
reasons for distrusting other countries in Europe.

The Central Powers or the Triple Alliance

Germany

Before 1870, Germany was a collection of small independent states of which Prussia was the
most powerful. In 1870, the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck won a war against France,
after which he united the many German states into a new and powerful German Empire.
Germany took from France the important industrial area of Alsace-Lorraine and, to guard against
a revenge attack from the French, formed an alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy.

The new Germany was especially successful in industry. By 1914, German industry had
overtaken Britain’s and was second in the world only to that of the United States of America.
However, Germany’s leaders had greater ambitions, as well as concerns:

 The German Kaiser felt that Germany should be a world power and should have overseas
colonies and an empire like France and Britain had. The Germans had established two
colonies in Africa, but they wanted more.
 In the 1890s the Kaiser ordered the building of a large navy, which soon became the
world’s second most powerful fleet. Britain’s was the largest and most powerful.
 German leaders were very worried by what they called encirclement. Friendship between
Russia to the east and France to the west was seen as an attempt to surround and threaten
Germany.
 Germany was also concerned by the huge build-up of arms, especially in Russia, and was
itself building up a vast army.
Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary was a sprawling empire in central Europe. It was made up of people of different
ethnic groups: German, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Italians, Hungarians, Poles, Romanians, Croats
and many others. Each group had its own customs and language. Many of these groups wanted
independence from Austria-Hungary.

 In the north the Czech people wanted to rule themselves.

  The Slav people in the south-west (especially the Croats) wanted to their own state.
 The Serbs living in the south wanted to be joined to the neighbouring state of Serbia.
By 1914, the main concern of the Emperor of Austria-Hungary was how to keep this fragmented
empire together. Austria-Hungary also faced problems from neighbouring states:

 Its newly independent neighbour Serbia was becoming a powerful force in the Balkans.
Austria was very anxious that it should not become any stronger.
 Another neighbour, Russia, supported the Serbs, and had a very strong army.

Italy

Like Germany, Italy was formed from a collection of smaller states. At first, its main concern
was to get its government established, but by 1914 the country was settled and was looking to
play a major role in international affairs.

Like some of the other European powers, Italy wanted to set up colonies and build-up an
overseas empire. With this aim in mind, Italy joined Germany and Austria in the Triple Alliance.
However, there is some evidence that Germany and Austria-Hungary did not entirely trust their
ally. In any case, Italy was not a strong industrial or military power.

The Triple Entente

Britain

In the nineteenth century, Britain had tried not to get involved in European politics. Its attitude
became known as ‘splendid isolation’ as it concentrated on its huge overseas empire. For most of
the nineteenth century, Britain had regarded France and Russia as its two most dangerous rivals.
However, by the early 1900s the picture had begun to change.

The three main reasons were that:

  France and Britain had reached a number of agreements about colonies in North Africa in
1904.
 Russia was defeated in a war against Japan in 1904. This weakened Russia so that Britain
was less concerned about it.
 Above all, Britain was very worried about Germany. The German Kaiser had made it
clear that he wanted Germany to have an empire and strong navy, which Britain saw as a
serious threat to its own empire and navy.
Britain began to cooperate more with France and signed an agreement with it in 1904. Britain
signed another agreement with Russia in 1907.

France

France had been defeated by Germany in a short war in 1870. Since then, Germany had built up
a powerful army and strong industries. It had an ambitious leader in Kaiser Wilhem. France was
worried about the growing power of Germany, so the French had also built up their industries
and armies. France had also developed a strong and close Friendship with Russia. The main
concern of France were:

 to protect itself against attack by Germany

 to get back the rich industrial region of Alsace-Lorraine which Germany had taken from
it in 1970.
Russia

Russia was by far the largest of all the six powers but was also the most backward. The country
was almost entirely agricultural, although loans from France had helped Russia to develop some
industries.

Russia shared Frances worries about the growing power of Germany. It also had a long history of
rivalry Austria-Hungary. This was one reason why Russia was so friendly with Serbia. Another
reason was that both Russians and Serbs were Slavs. Many other Slavs lived in Austria-
Hungary’s empire. Russia felt it should have influence over them.

Russia lost a war with Japan in 1905. There was then a revolution against the ruler, Tsar
Nicholas II. He survived, but he knew Russia could not afford to lose in any other conflict. The
Russians began to build up a large army in case of emergencies in the future.
The Balance of Power

Politicians at the time called this system of alliances the ‘Balance of Power’. They believed that
the size and power of the two alliances would prevent either side from starting a war.

A number of alliances had been signed by countries between the years 1879 and 1914. These
were important because they meant that some countries had no option but to declare war if one
of their allies declared war first (the table below reads clockwise from the top left picture).

1879
1882
TheDualAlliance 1881
The Triple Alliance
Austro-SerbianAlliance

Germany and Austria-

 Germany and Austria-
Hungary made an alliance to Austria-Hungary made an alliance
Hungary made an alliance
protect themselves from with Serbia to stop Russia gaining
with Italy to stop Italy from
Russia control of Serbia
taking sides with Russia

1914 1894
TripleEntente(no Franco-Russian Alliance
separatepeace)

 Russia formed an alliance

Britain, Russia and France with France to protect
agreed not to sign for herself against Germany and
peace separately. Austria-Hungary

1907 1907 1904

TripleEntente Anglo-RussianEntente EntenteCordiale
This was made between
This was an agreement, but
Russia, France and Britain This was an agreement between
not a formal alliance,
to counter the increasing Britain and Russia
between France and Britain.
threat from Germany.

IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is when a country takes over new lands or countries and makes them subject to their
rule. By 1900 the British Empire extended over five continents and France had control of large
areas of Africa. With the rise of industrialism countries needed new markets. The amount of
lands 'owned' by Britain and France increased the rivalry with Germany who had entered the
scramble to acquire colonies late and only had small areas of Africa. Note the contrast in the map
below.
MILITARISM

Militarism means that the army and military forces are given a high profile by the government.
The growing European divide had led to an arms race between the main countries. The armies of
both France and Germany had more than doubled between 1870 and 1914 and there was fierce
competition between Britain and Germany for mastery of the seas. The British had introduced
the 'Dreadnought', an effective battleship, in 1906. The Germans soon followed suit introducing
their own battleships. The German, Von Schlieffen also drew up a plan of action that involved
attacking France through Belgium if Russia made an attack on Germany. The map below shows
how the plan was to work.

NATIONALISM

Nationalism means being a strong supporter of the rights and interests of one's country. The
Congress of Vienna, held after Napoleon's exile to Elba, aimed to sort out problems in Europe.
Delegates from Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia (the winning allies) decided upon a new
Europe that left both Germany and Italy as divided states. Strong nationalist elements led to
the re-unification of Italy in 1861 and Germany in 1871. The settlement at the end of the Franco-
Prussian war left France angry at the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany and keen to regain their
lost territory. Large areas of both Austria-Hungary and Serbia were home to differing nationalist
groups, all of whom wanted freedom from the states in which they lived.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. How did Europe divide itself into two alliances before the war?
2. How and why did each country in Europe build up its armies and navies and made plans
for war?
3. How was the Triple Entente formed?

LESSON 4 & 5

MAIN TOPIC: CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: THE ROAD TO WAR

THE TENSION BUILDS, 1900 – 1914

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the other compelling factors that led to the outbreak of WWI?
  Draw a link among the issues that brought tension in Europe and eventually led to WWI?
 Make an assessment of the importance of these factors as causes of WWI?

Anglo-German Naval Rivalry

One of the most significant causes of tension in Europe was the rivalry which developed after
1900. Ever since the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Britain had ruled the seas without any
challenge. Its navy was the most powerful in the world. This situation began to change in 1898
when the new Kaiser, Wilhem, announced his intention to build a powerful German navy.

Britain felt very threatened by this. Germany’s navy was much smaller than Britain’s but the
British navy was spread all over the world, protecting the British Empire. Why did it need a
navy? What was Germany going to do with of the warships concentrated in the North Sea?

Not surprisingly, Germany did not see things the same way. The Kaiser and his admirals felt that
Germany needed a navy to protect its growing trade. They felt that the British were overreacting
to the German naval plans.

Britain was not convinced by what the Germans said. In fact, in 1906 britain raised the stakes in
the naval race by launching HMS Dreadnought, the first of a new class of warships. Germany
responded by building its own ‘Dreadnoughts’. The naval race was well and truly on and both
Britain and Germany spent millions on their new ships.

The Arms Race on Land

While britain and Germany built up their navies, the major powers on mainland Europe were
building up their armies. In Germany in particular, war and militarism were glorified. The
Kaiser surrounded himself with military advisors. He staged military rallies and processions. He
loved to be photographed in military uniforms. He involved himself closely in Germany’s
military planning.
Plans for War

Many countries felt so sure that war was ‘bound to come’ sooner or later that they began to make
very detailed plans for what to do when it did.

Germany

Germany’s army was not the biggest army in Europe but most people agreed that it was the best
trained and the most powerful. The problems facing the German commanders was that if a war
brike out they would probably have to fight against Russia and France at the same time.

The Germans came up with the Schliffen Plan. Under this plan, they would quickly attack and
defeat France, then turn their forces on Russia - the Germans were sure - would be slow to
mobilise its troops for war.

Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary knew it needed the help of Germany to hold back Russia. It too relied in the
success of the Schlieffen Plan so that Germany could help it to defeat Russia.

Russia

The Russian army was badly equipped, but it was huge. Given enough time, Russia could
eventually put millions of soldiers into the field. The Russian plan was to overwhelm Germany’s
and Austria’s armies by sheer weight of numbers.

France

France had a large and well-equipped army. Its main plan of attack was known as Plan 17.
French troops would charge across the frontier and attack deep into Germany, forcing surrender.

Britain
Britain’s military planners had been closely but secretly involved in collaboration with French
commanders. This led to Britain setting up the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), consisting of
150,000 highly trained and well-equipped professional soldiers. The BEF could also go to France
and fight alongside the French at short notice.

One thing that unites all of these plans was the assumption that war, if and when it came, would
be quik. These military plans were designed to achieve a quick victory. No one planned for what
to do if the war dragged on. It was almost universally agreed that none of the powers would be
able to keep up a long-drawn war. The sheer cost of a war would lead to economic collapse (of
the enemy only, of course) and so the war would be over in a matter of weeks or months. With so
much talk of war and plans for war, one might think, as many at the time did, that war was
inevitable.

MOROCCO, 1905 and 1911

In 1905 and 1911, two cities in Morocco raised the temperature of Europe.

In 1905, the Kaiser visited Morocco in North Africa. Germany was building up its own African
Empire and had colonies in central and souther Africa. The Kaiser was now keen to show that
Germany was an important power in North Africa as well. The French had plans to take control
of Morocco so the Kaiser gave a speech saying he supported independence for Morocco. The
French were furious at the Kaiser’s interference in French affairs.

An international conference was held at Algeciras in 1906. But the conference did not cool
things down. In fact, it did the opposite: at the conference, the Kaiser was humiliated. He had
wanted to be seen as a major power in Africa. Instead, his views were rejected. He was treated as
if he had no right to speak on such matters. This made him bitter. He was also alarmed by the
way that Britain and France stuck together at the Conference to oppose him. These old rivals
now seemed very close.

In 1907, in the wake of the Moroccan crisis, Britain and France formed an alliance with Russia,
the Triple Entente. The Entente powers saw their alliance as security against German aggression.
The Kaiser and his people saw a threatening policy of encirclement, with hostile powers
surrounding Germany.

In 1911, Morocco saw another crisis. The French tried to take over Morocco again. They said
they were prepared to compensate Germany if Germantrade suffered as a result of the French
takeover of Morocco.however, the Kaiser’s response was to send a gunboat (the Panther) to
Agadir. The British feared that the Kaiser wanted to set up a naval base in Agadir, and they did
not want German ships in the mediterranean. Another conference was called. The British and
French again stood firm against Germany. France took control of Morocco, Germany was given
land in central Africa as compensation. Behind the scenes, Britain and France reached an
agreement that the French should patrol the Mediterranean and the Royal Navy should defend
France’s Atlantic and North Sea coast.

THE BALKANS: THE SPARK THAT LIT THE BONFIRE

 The Balkans were a very unstable region.

 Different nationalities were mixed together.
 The area had been ruled by Turkey for many centuries, but Turkish power was now in
decline.
 The new governments which had been set up in place of Turkish rule were regularly in
dispute with each other.
 Two great powers, Russia nad Austris, bordered the countries in this region. Both
wanted to control the area because it gave them access to the mediterranean.

The first Balkan crisis came in 1908. Austria took over the provinces of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.Russia and Serbia protested, but they backed down when Germany made it clear
that it supported Austria. Neither Russia nor Serbia was prepared to risk war with Germany over
this issue. However, there were some serious consequences. Austria now felt confident that
Germany would back it in future disputes. It is believed by some historians that this made
Austria too confident , and encouraged it to make trouble with Serbia and Russia. Russia
resented being faced down in 1909. Russia thus quickened its arm buil-up. It was determined not
to back down again.
From 1912 to 1913, there was a series of local wars. Serbia emerged from these as the most
powerful country in the Balkans. This was very serious for Austria. Serbia had a strong army and
it was a close ally of Russia. Austria decided that Sebia would have to be dealt with. By 1914,
Austria was looking for a good excuse to crush Serbia.

Austria’s opportunity came with the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in
Sarajevo. Although there was no hard evidence that Princip was acting under the orders from the
Serbian government, Austria blamed Serbia. Frantic diplomatic efforts gave Austria a guarantee
of German backing. With this support, austria now felt secyre enough to deal with the Serbian
problem once and for all. Austria gave Serbia a ten-point ultimatum that would effectively have
made Serbia part of the Austrian Empire. The Serbs could not possibly accept it. When the Serbs
asked for time to consider, Austria refused and declared war on July 28, 1914. The slide to all-
out war had begun.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. How did Austria and Russia become rivals in the Balkans?

2. Explain how the following contributed to tensions between the European powers:

(a) Colonies (b) people wanting independence (c) arms build-up.

3. How did each of the following encourage the drift toward war in 1914?

(a) political leaders (b) military leaders (c) public opinion.

LESSON 6

MAIN TOPIC: CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: WHAT CAUSED THE WAR, AND WHO WAS TO BLAME?

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Find out what caused the war?

 Identify who was to blame for causing WWI?
 Examine whether the war could have been avoided?
After the war, the victorious Allies forced the defeated Germany to sign the ‘war guilt’ clause
(Clause 231)’. Germany had to accept that it was responsible both for starting the war and for all
the damage caused by it. However, as the state ‘on trial’, Germany refused to accept the sole
blame. Historians have argued about this issue ever since. Some have continued to blame
Germany. Others have reached different verdicts.

It is difficult to analyze why the assassination in Sarajevo developed into a world war. Some
blame Austria for being the first aggressor by declaring war on Serbia; some blame the Russians
because they were the first to order full mobilization; some blame Germany for supporting
Austria, and others blame Britain for not making it clear that she would definitely support
France. The theory is that if the Germans had known this, they would not have declared war on
France, and the fighting could have been restricted to Eastern Europe.

The point which is beyond dispute is that the quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia
sparked off the outbreak of the war. The quarrel had become increasingly more explosive since
1908, and the Austrians seized on the assassination as the excuse for a preventive war with
Serbia. They genuinely felt that if Serb and Slav nationalist ambitions for a state of Yugoslavia
were achieved, it would cause the collapse of the Habsburg Empire; Serbia must thus be curbed.
In fairness, they probably hoped the war would remain localized like the Balkan Wars. The
Austro-Serb quarrel explains the outbreak of the war, but not why it became a world war. Here
are some of the reasons which have been suggested for the escalation of the war.

(a) The alliance system or ‘armed camps’ made war inevitable

American diplomat and historian George Kennan believed that once the 1894 alliance
had been signed between France and Russia, the fate of Europe was sealed. As suspicions
mounted between the two groups, Russia and Germany got themselves into situations
which they could not get out of without suffering further humiliation; war was the only
way out. However, many historians think this explanation is not convincing; there had
been many crises since 1904, and none of them had led to a major war. In fact, there was
nothing binding about these alliances. France had not supported Russia when she
protested the Austrian annexation of Bosnia; Austria took no interest in Germany’s
unsuccessful attempts to prevent France from taking over Morocco;

Germany had restrained Austria from attacking Serbia during the Second Balkan War.
Italy, though a member of the Triple Alliance, was on good terms with France and
Britain, and entered the war against in 1915. No power actually declared war because of
an alliance treaty.

(b) Colonial rivalry in Africa and the Far East

Again, this theory is not convincing: although there had certainly been disputes, they had
always been sorted out without war. In early July 1914 Anglo-German relations were
 good: an agreement favourable to Germany had been reached over a possible partition of
Portuguese colonies in Africa. However, there was one-sided effect of colonial rivalry
which did cause dangerous friction – this was the naval rivalry.

(c) The naval race between Britain and Germany

Starting with Admiral Tirpitz’s Navy Law of 1897, the growth of the German fleet
probably did not worry the British too much at first because they had an enormous lead.
The introduction of the powerful British ‘Dreadnought’ battleship in 1906 changed all
this because it made all other battle ships obsolete. This meant that the Germans could
begin building ‘Dreadnoughts’ on equal terms with Britain. The resulting naval race was
the main bone of contention between the two countries right up to 1914. According to
Winston Churchill though, in the spring and summer of 1914 naval rivalry had ceased to
be a cause of friction because ‘it was certain that we (Britain) could not be overtaken as
far as capital ships were concerned’.

(d) Economic rivalry

It has been argued that the desire for economic mastery of the world caused German
businessmen and capitalists to want war with Britain, who still owned about half of the
world’s tonnage of merchant ships in 1914. Marxist historians support this theory
because it puts the blame for the war on the capitalist system. Opponents of the theory
point out that Germany was already well on the way to economic victory; one leading
German industrialist remarked in 1913: ‘Give us three or four more years of peace and
Germany will be the unchallenged economic master of Europe’.

(e) Russia made war more likely by backing Serbia

This factor probably made Serbia more reckless in her anti-Austria policy than she might
otherwise have been. Russia was the first to order a general mobilization, which
provoked Germany to mobilize. The Russians were worried about the situation in the
Balkans, where both Bulgaria and Turkey were under German influence. This would
enable Germany and Austria to control the Dardanelles; the outlet from the Black Sea and
the main Russian trade route, and Russian trade could be strangled (this happened to
 some extent during the war). Thus, Russia felt threatened, and once Austria declared war
on Serbia, saw it as a struggle for survival. The Russians must also have felt that their
prestige as a leader of the Slavs would suffer if they failed to support Serbia. Possibly the
government saw the war as a good idea to divert attention away from domestic problems.
Perhaps the blame lies more with the Austrians: though they must have hoped for Russian
neutrality, they ought to have realized how difficult it would be for Russia to stay neutral
in the circumstances.

(f) German backing for Austria was crucially important

It is significant that in 1913 Germany restrained Austria from declaring war on Serbia,
but in 1914 urged them on; the Kaiser sent them a telegram urging them to attack Serbia
and promising German help without any conditions attached. This was like giving the
Austrians a blank cheque to do whatever they wanted. The important question is: why did
German policy towards Austria-Hungary change? This question has caused great
controversy among historians, and three different answers have been suggested:

1. After the war, when the Germans had been defeated, the Treaty of Versailles imposed
harsh peace settlement on Germany. The victorious powers felt the need to justify this by
putting all the blame on Germany. At the time, most non-German historians went along
with this, though German historians were naturally not happy. With this interpretation.
After a few years, opinion began to move away from blaming solely Germany and
accepted that other powers should take some of the blame. Then in 1961 a German
historian, Fritz Fischer, caused a sensation by suggesting that Germany should, after all,
take most of the blame, because they risked a major war by sending the ‘blank cheque’ to
Austria-Hungary. He claimed that Germany deliberately planned for, and provoked war
with Russia, Britain and France in order to make Germany the dominant power in the
world, both economically and politically, and also as a way of dealing with domestic
tensions. In the elections of 1912, the German Socialist Party won over a third of the
seats in the Reichstag (lower house of parliament), making it the largest single party.
Then in January 1914 the Reichstag passed a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor,
 Bethmann-Hollweg, but he remained in office because the Kaiser had the final say.
Obviously, a major clash was on the way between the Reichstag, which wanted more
power, and the Kaiser and Chancellor, who were determined to resist change. A
victorious was seemed a good way of keeping people’s minds off the political problems,
and keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser and the aristocracy.
Fischer based his theory partly on evidence from the diary of Admiral von Muller, who
wrote about a ‘war council’ held on 8 December 1912; at this meeting, Moltke (the
German Commander-in-Chief) said ‘war the sooner the better’. Another piece of
evidence was a note by von Jagow, who was German Foreign Minister in 1914. Fischer’s
claims made him unpopular with West German historians, and another German historian,
H.W. Koch, dismissed his theory, pointing out that nothing came of the ‘war council’.
However, historians in Communist East Germany supported Fischer because his theory
laid the blame on the capitalist system which they opposed.

2. Other historians argue that Germany wanted war because she felt encircled and
threatened by British naval power and by the massive Russian military expansion. The
German generals decided that a ‘preventive’ war, a war for survival, was necessary, and
that it must take place before the end of 1914. They believed that after 1914 Russia
would be too strong.
3. Some historians reject both answers 1 and 2 and suggest that Germany did not want a
major war at all; the Kaiser Wilhem II and the Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg believed a
strong line of support of Austria would frighten the Russians into remaining neutral – a
tragic miscalculation, if true.

(g) The mobilization plans of the great powers

These accelerated the tempo of events and reduced, almost to nil, the time available for
negotiation. The German Schlieffen Plan, first approved in 1905 and modified by Moltke
in 1911, assumed that France would automatically join Russia; the bulk of German forces
 were to be sent by train to the Belgian frontier, and through Belgium to attack France
which would be knocked out in six weeks. German forces would then be switched rapidly
across to face Russia, whose mobilization, was expected to be slow. Once Moltke knew
that Russia had ordered a general mobilization, he demanded immediate German
mobilization so that the plan could be put into operation as soon as possible. However,
Russian mobilization did not necessarily mean war – their troops could be halted at the
frontiers; unfortunately, the Schlieffen Plan which depended on the rapid capture of
Liege in Belgium, involved the first aggressive act outside the Balkans when German
troops entered Belgium on August 4. Almost at the last minute the Kaiser and Bethmann-
Hollweg tried to avoid war and urged the Austrians to negotiate with Serbia (30 July),
which perhaps supports point 3 above. Wilhem suggested a partial mobilization against
Russia only, instead of the full plan; he hoped that Britain would remain neutral if
Germany refrained from attacking France. But Moltke, scared of being left at the post by
the Russians and French, insisted on the full Schlieffen Plan; he said there was no time to
change all the railway timetables to send the troop trains to Russia instead of to Belgium.
It looks as though the generals had taken over control of affairs from the politicians. It
also suggests that a British announcement on 31 July of her intention to support France
would have made no difference to Germany: it was the Schlieffen Plan or nothing, even
though Germany at that point had no specific quarrel with France.

(h) A tragedy of miscalculations

Another interpretation was put forward by Australian historian L.C.F. Turner. Maybe the
Germans did not deliberately provoke war; it was caused by a ‘tragedy of
miscalculation’. Most of the leading rulers and politicians seemed to be incompetent and
made bad mistakes:
 The Austrians miscalculated by thinking that Russia would not support Serbia.
 Germany made a crucial mistake by promising to support Austria with no
conditions attached; therefore the Germans were certainly guilty, as were the
Austrians, because they risked a major war.
 Politicians in Russia and Germany miscalculated by assuming that mobilization
would not necessarily mean war.
  Generals, especially Moltke, miscalculated by sticking rigidly to their plans in the
belief that this would bring a quick and decisive victory.

No wonder Bethmann-Hollweg, when asked how it all began, raised his arms to heaven and
replied: ‘oh – if only I knew!’

In conclusion, it has to be said that at the present time, the majority of historians, including many
Germans, accept Fritz Fischer’s theory as the most convincing one: that the outbreak of war was
deliberately provoked by Germany’s leaders.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Was Germany to blame for the war? Explain your answer.

2. Apart from Germany, what part did the other European powers play to start the war?
3. Why do you think the Sarajevo murders ‘lit the fire’ when previous incidents such as the
Moroccan crisis in 1905 had not?
LESSON 7

MAIN TOPIC: THE FIRST WORLD WAR

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Identify the moods of the countries involved in the war?

 State the expectations of European leaders and war generals?
 Name the tactics used by the principal actors in the war?
 Trace the events that ultimately led to the outbreak of WWI?
INTRODUCTION

When war broke out across Europe, it was greeted with enthusiasm. Everyone agreed it would all
be over by Christmas (with a magnificent victory, of course). The populations of Europe were
gripped by war fever. Newspapers and magazines filled their minds with images of brave young
men charging on horseback or heroic soldiers putting the enemy to flight.

WORLD WAR I

World War I (WWI), also known as the First World War or the Great War, was a global war
centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. More than
9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died as a result of the war, a casualty rate
exacerbated by the belligerents' technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical
stalemate. It was one of the deadliest conflicts in history, paving the way for major political
changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.

The war drew in all the world's economic great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the
Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and
the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although Italy had also been a member of
the Triple Alliance alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, it did not join the Central Powers,
as Austria-Hungary had taken the offensive against the terms of the alliance. These alliances
were reorganized and expanded as more nations entered the war: Italy, Japan and the United
States joined the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. More than
70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilized in one of the
largest wars in history. The trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist
Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an
ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia, and entangled international alliances formed over the
previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict
soon spread around the world.

On 28 July, the Austro-Hungarians declared war on Serbia and subsequently invaded. As Russia
mobilised in support of Serbia, Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before
moving towards France, leading Britain to declare war on Germany. After the German march on
Paris was halted, what became known as the Western Front settled into a battle of attrition, with
a trench line that would change little until 1917. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Russian
army was successful against the Austro-Hungarians, but was stopped in its invasion of East
Prussia by the Germans. In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers,
opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Sinai. Italy joined the Allies in 1915 and
Bulgaria joined the Central Powers in the same year, while Romania joined the Allies in 1916,
and the United States joined the Allies in 1917.

The Russian government collapsed in March 1917, and a subsequent revolution in November
brought the Russians to terms with the Central Powers via the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, which
constituted a massive German victory until nullified by the 1918 victory of the Western allies.
After a stunning spring 1918 German offensive along the Western Front, the Allies rallied and
drove back the Germans in a series of successful offensives. On 4 November 1918, the Austro-
Hungarian empire agreed to an armistice, and Germany, which had its own trouble with
revolutionaries, agreed to an armistice on 11 November 1918, ending the war in victory for the
Allies.
By the end of the war, the German Empire, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the
Ottoman Empire had ceased to exist. National borders were redrawn, with several independent
nations restored or created, and Germany's colonies were parceled out among the winners.
During the Paris Peace conference of 1919, the Big Four (Britain, France, the United States and
Italy) imposed their terms in a series of treaties. The League of Nations was formed with the aim
of preventing any repetition of such a conflict. This, however, failed with weakened states,
economic depression, renewed European nationalism, and the German feeling of humiliation
contributing to the rise of Nazism. These conditions eventually contributed to World War II.

World War I Begins (1914)

Though tensions had been brewing in Europe–and especially in the troubled Balkan region–for
years before conflict actually broke out, the spark that ignited World War I was struck in
Sarajevo, Bosnia, where Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and heir to
the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death along with his wife by the Serbian nationalist
Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie set off a
rapid chain of events: Austria-Hungary, like many in countries around the world, blamed the
Serbian government for the attack and hoped to use the incident as justification for settling the
question of Slavic nationalism once and for all. As Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary
waited to declare war until its leaders received assurances from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II
that Germany would support their cause in the event of a Russian intervention, which would
likely involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well.

On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called
carte blanche or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual
Monarchy then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost
impossible to accept. Convinced that Vienna was readying for war, the Serbian government
ordered the Serbian army to mobilize, and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-
Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers
collapsed. Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against
Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Write short notes on the following: (a) Schlieffen Plan (b) Plan 17.
2. How the Germans and the French hope to employ the Schlieffen Plan and Plan 17
respectively?
3. Did WWI meet the expectations of the military generals involved? Explain your answer.

LESSON 8 & 9

MAIN TOPIC: THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: THE BATTLE FRONTS

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the various battle fronts?

 State how the war tactics were employed in the battles of WWI?
 State to what extent the tactics mentioned above were effective?
 Make a description of the fighting in the battles that were fought?
 Identify the victors and the vanquished in the battles?
 Identify the effect of victory or defeat on countries and on the morale of soldiers?
World War I’s Western Front (1914-17)

During The First World War of 1914-1918 the Allied Forces of Belgium, France, Great Britain,
the Dominion Forces of the British Empire (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand,
Newfoundland and South Africa), Portugal and the United States (from April 1918) made a stand
against the Imperial German Army's advance and occupation of Belgium from 4 th August 1914
and north-eastern France from 6th August 1914.

This page provides an overview of the major battles which took place in Belgium and France
from the autumn of 1914 to the 11 th November Armistice of 1918. The outcome of the battles
resulted in the formation of a battle front, which saw three years of attrition warfare in 1915,
1916 and 1917, with only a few months of mobile warfare at the start and at the end of four years
of fighting.

Origin of the Name

This battle front was known to the Germans as “die Westfront”, as Imperial Germany's “western
front” for those Imperial German Armies engaged in hostilities against France. The Imperial
German Armies engaged against Russia were in action on Germany's “eastern front”.

To the French Army the battle front, which stretched for several hundred miles within the
northern, north-eastern and eastern borders of the French nation, was translated into French. The
French word for “western” is “occidental”, and so the literal translation for this battle front in
France became “Le Front Occidental”.

The British Expeditionary Force, fighting on the battlefields in Belgium and France for four
years, also translated the German name of “die Westfront” into English, and named this battle
front in France as “The Western Front”.

According to an aggressive military strategy known as the Schlieffen Plan (named for its
mastermind, German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen), Germany began fighting World War
I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and confronting mighty
Russia in the east. On August 4, 1914, German troops under Erich Ludendorff crossed the border
into Belgium, in violation of that country’s neutrality. In the first battle of World War I, the
Germans assaulted the heavily fortified city of Liege, using the most powerful weapons in their
arsenal–enormous siege cannons–to capture the city by August 15. Leaving death and
destruction in their wake, including the shooting of civilians and the deliberate execution of
Belgian priest, whom they accused of inciting civilian resistance, the Germans advanced through
Belgium towards France.

In the First Battle of the Marne, fought from September 6-9, 1914, French and British forces
confronted the invading Germany army, which had by then penetrated deep into northeastern
France, within 30 miles of Paris. Under the French commander Joseph Joffre, the Allied troops
checked the German advance and mounted a successful counterattack, driving the Germans back
to north of the Aisne River. The defeat meant the end of German plans for a quick victory in
France. Both sides dug into trenches, and began the bloody war of attrition that would
characterize the next three years on World War I’s Western Front. Particularly long and costly
battles in this campaign were fought at Verdun (February-December 1916) and the Somme
(July-November 1916); German and French troops suffered close to a million casualties in the
Battle of Verdun alone.

Trench Warfare (December 1914 – August 1918)

By the end of 1914 the battles of movement in the first weeks of the war had been brought to a
halt. The fierce defence of strategic landmarks by the Allied forces resulted in a situation which
became one of deadlock. Carefully selecting the most favourable high ground the Imperial
German Army began the construction of a strong defensive line from early in 1915.

The consolidation of the Front Lines consisted of trenches, wire defences, mined dugouts and
deep bunkers, reinforced concrete emplacements and selected strongpoints, usually a reinforced
farm, in an Intermediate, Second and Third defensive line. Gradually the building and digging
was carried on both sides of the wire along a distance of approximately 450 miles, creating a
more or less continuous line of trenches separating the warring belligerents along the length of
The Western Front.
In 1915, 1916 and 1917 both sides made attempts to break the deadlock with major battle
offensives. The characteristics of siege warfare which developed on the Western Front in these
three years created conditions never witnessed before. Instead of expecting to achieve objectives
at a considerable distance from the start of an offensive, the type of trench warfare fighting
created a situation where attacks were carried out in phases with short distance objectives and
usually following a bombardment of enemy trench lines beforehand. This strategy led to
prolonged periods of fighting with success counted in gains hundreds of yards rather than miles.
The human cost of casualties and dead in such a grinding type of siege warfare would be
recorded in the thousands in the space of a single day. Over a period of these three years both
sides suffered heavy losses in human casualties and animals, expenditure in ammunition and
equipment. In spite of this the Front Lines stretching from the Swiss border to the Belgian coast
remained more or less in the same location with little ground gained by either side.

World War I’s Eastern Front and Revolution in Russia (1914-17)

On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian forces invaded East Prussia and German Poland,
but were stopped short by German and Austrian forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August
1914. Despite that victory, the Red Army assault had forced Germany to move two corps from
the Western Front to the Eastern, contributing to the German loss in the Battle of the Marne.
Combined with the fierce Allied resistance in France, the ability of Russia’s huge war machine to
mobilize relatively quickly in the east ensured a longer, more grueling conflict instead of the
quick victory Germany had hoped to win with the Schlieffen Plan.

Over the next two years, the Russian army mounted several offensives on the Eastern Front but
were unable to break through German lines. Defeat on the battlefield fed the growing discontent
among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants, and
its hostility towards the imperial regime. This discontent culminated in the Russian Revolution of
1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. One of Lenin’s first actions as leader
was to call a halt to Russian participation in World War I. Russia reached an armistice with the
Central Powers in early December 1917, freeing German troops to face the other Allies on the
Western Front.
Gallipoli Campaign (1915-16) and Battles of the Isonzo (1915-17)

With World War I having effectively settled into a stalemate in Europe, the Allies attempted to
score a victory against the Ottoman Empire, which had entered the conflict on the side of the
Central Powers in late 1914. After a failed attack on the Dardanelles (the strait linking the Sea of
Marmara with the Aegean Sea), Allied forces led by Britain launched a large-scale land invasion
of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion also proved a dismal failure, and in
January 1916 Allied forces were forced to stage a full retreat from the shores of the peninsula,
after suffering 250,000 casualties.

British-led forces also combated the Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia, while in northern Italy
Austrian and Italian troops faced off in a series of 12 battles along the Isonzo River, located at
the border between the two nations. The First Battle of the Isonzo took place in the late spring of
1915, soon after Italy’s entrance into the war on the Allied side; in the Twelfth Battle of the
Isonzo, or the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917), German reinforcements helped Austria-
Hungary win a decisive victory. After Caporetto, Italy’s allies jumped in to offer increased
assistance. British and French–and later American–troops arrived in the region, and the Allies
began to take back the initiative on the Italian Front.

World War I at Sea (1914-17)

After the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, the German navy chose not to confront
Britain’s mighty Royal Navy in a major battle for more than a year, preferring to rest the bulk of
its strategy at sea on its lethal U-boat submarines. The biggest naval engagement of World

War I, the Battle of Jutland (May 1916) left British naval superiority on the North Sea intact, and
Germany would make no further attempts to break the Allied naval blockade for the remainder
of the war.

It was Germany’s policy of unchecked submarine aggression against shipping interests headed to
Great Britain that helped bring the United States into World War I in 1917. Widespread protest
over the sinking by U-boat of the British ocean liner Lusitania in May 1915 helped turn the tide
of American public opinion steadfastly against Germany, and in February 1917 Congress passed
a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war.
Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships the following month and on April 2 President
Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against
Germany.

Toward an Armistice (1917-18)

With Germany able to build up its strength on the Western Front after the armistice with Russia,
Allied troops struggled to hold off another German offensive until promised reinforcements from
the United States were able to arrive. On July 15, 1918, German troops under Erich von
Ludendorff launched what would become the last German offensive of the war, attacking French
forces (joined by 85,000 American troops as well as some of the British Expeditionary Force) in
the Second Battle of the Marne. Thanks in part to the strategic leadership of the French
commander-in-chief, Philippe Petain, the Allies put back the German offensive, and launched
their own counteroffensive just three days later. After suffering massive casualties, Ludendorff
was forced to call off a planned German offensive further north, in the Flanders region stretching
between France and Belgium, which he had envisioned as Germany’s best hope of victory.

The Second Battle of the Marne turned the tide of war decisively towards the Allies, who were
able to regain much of France and Belgium in the months that followed. By the fall of 1918, the
Central Powers were unraveling on all fronts. Despite the Turkish victory at Gallipoli, later
defeats by invading forces and an Arab revolt had combined to destroy the Ottoman economy
and devastate its land, and the Turks signed a treaty with the Allies in late October 1918.
Austria-Hungary, dissolving from within due to growing nationalist movements among its
diverse population, reached an armistice on November 4. Facing dwindling resources on the
battlefield, discontent on the home front and the surrender of its allies, Germany was finally
forced to seek an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending World War I.
World War I’s Legacy

World War I took the life of more than 9 million soldiers; 21 million more were wounded.
Civilian casualties caused indirectly by the war numbered close to 10 million. The two nations
most affected were Germany and France, each of which sent some 80 percent of their male
populations between the ages of 15 and 49 into battle. The war also marked the fall of four
imperial dynasties–Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

At the peace conference in Paris in 1919, Allied leaders would state their desire to build a post-
war world that would safeguard itself against future conflicts of such devastating scale. The
Versailles Treaty, signed on June 28, 1919, would not achieve this objective. Saddled with war
guilt and heavy reparations and denied entrance into the League of Nations, Germany felt tricked
into signing the treaty, having believed any peace would be a “peace without victory” as put
forward by Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points speech of January 1918. As the years passed,
hatred of the Versailles treaty and its authors settled into a smoldering resentment in Germany
that would, two decades later, be counted among the causes of World War II.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Define: (a) no-man’s land (b) armistice (c) U-boat (d) total war.
2. What new weapons came into use in WWI?
3. Why is WWI called a total war?
4. How did the war progress on: (a) the Western Front (b) the Eastern Front?
5. What factors led to Germany’s defeat?
LESSON 10

MAIN TOPIC: THE FIRST WORLD WAR

SUB TOPIC: EFFECTS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Make a critical assessment of the effects of WWI?

 Attempt to examine whether WWI was worth fighting?
 Paint a picture on how WWI cast a shadow on future events?
Effects of World War One

Even after the official end of World War I, its far-reaching effects resounded in the world for
decades in the forms of changing politics, economics and public opinion. Many countries began
to adopt more liberal forms of government, and a hostile Germany was forced to pay for a large
deal of war reparations, which ultimately led to the start of World War II. As Europe fell in debt
from war costs, inflation plagued the continent. Additionally, the optimism of previous decades
was abandoned and a bleak, pessimistic outlook on life was adopted after people had
experienced the brutality of warfare.

Governmental changes
As a result of World War I, socialistic ideas experienced a boom as they spread not only in
Germany and the Austrian empire but also made advances in Britain (1923) and France (1924).

However, the most popular type of government to gain influence after World War I was the
republic. Before the war, Europe contained 19 monarchies and 3 republics, yet only a few years
afterward, had 13 monarchies, 14 republics and 2 regencies. Evidently, revolution was in the air
and people began to more ardently express their desires for a better way of life.

Effects of a harsh Peace

A second political effect of World War I centers solely on the treatment of Germany in the
Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The Germans were forced to sign a humiliating treaty accepting
responsibility for causing the war, as well as dole out large sums of money in order to
compensate for war costs. In addition, the size of the German state was reduced, while that of
Italy and France was enlarged. The Weimar government set up in Germany in 1918 was ill-liked
by most of the citizens and maintained little power in controlling the German state. Rising
hostilities toward the rest of Europe grew, and many German soldiers refused to give up fighting,
even though Germany's military was ordered to be drastically reduced. Given such orders,
numerous German ex-soldiers joined the Freikorps, an establishment of mercenaries available for
street-fighting. The open hostility and simmering feelings of revenge exhibited by Germany
foreshadowed the start of World War II.

Economic Change

Technology experienced a great boost after the war, as the production of automobiles, airplanes,
radios and even certain chemicals, skyrocketed. The advantages of mass production and the use
of machinery to perform former human labor tasks, along with the implementation of the eight
hour work day, proved to stimulate the economy, the United States' in particular. However, much
of Europe suffered devastating losses of physical property and landscape as well as finances. By
1914, Europe had won the respect of the world as a reliable money-lender, yet just four years
later was greatly in debt to her allies for their generous financial contributions toward the war
effort, owing them as much as $10 billion. In an effort to pay back their allies, the governments
of many European countries began to rapidly print more and more money, only to subject their
countries to a period of inflation. Members of the middle class who had been living reasonably
comfortably on investments began to experience a rocky financial period. Germany was hit the
hardest in terms of struggling with war reparations, and inflation drastically lowered the value of
the German mark. In a period of no more than three months in 1923, the German mark jumped
from 4.6 million marks to the dollar to 4.2 trillion marks to the dollar. It appeared that inflation
knew no bounds.

Disillusionment
Psychologically, World War I had effects similar to those of a revolution. A growing sense of
distrust of political leaders and government officials pervaded the minds of people who had
witnessed the horror and destruction that the war brought about. Many citizens were angered that
peacemakers had not expressed their ideals fervently enough, and people began to wonder why
the war was fought at all. A feeling of disillusionment spread across the world as people bitterly
decided that their governments in no way knew how to serve the best interests of the people. The
loss of loved ones on the battlefield was especially disturbing, for in some parts of Western
Europe, one of four young men had lost his life in battle. Altogether, the war killed 10 to 13
million people, with nearly a third of them civilians. The future certainly did not look bright for
the families of those killed in the war, and a grim acceptance of reality replaced the optimistic
dreams of those in decades past.

Summary
World War I did not completely end with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, for its political,
economic and psychological effects influenced the lives of people long after the last shot was
fired. Two main political changes rocked the world after the war: a greater number of countries
began to adopt more liberal forms of government, and an angered Germany tried to cope with the
punitions doled out to them by the victors, as its hostilities rose to the point where it provoked
the Second World War two decades later. Despite the advantages brought forth by developing
technologies, the war mainly had a damaging effect on the economies of European countries.
People's hopes and spirits also floundered, as they grew distrustful of the government and tried to
cope with the enormous death toll of the war. The turbulent period after World War I called for a
major readjustment of politics, economic policies, and views on the world.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. How did the war affect the role of women in society?

 2. What was the effect of the war on the following:
(a) Infrastructure
(b) Soldiers
(c) The economy of countries involved in the war
3. How did WWI change the phase of developments in Europe after 1919?

LESSON 11

MAIN TOPIC: THE 1919-20 PEACE SETTLEMENT AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE 1920s
SUB TOPIC: THE AIMS OF THE MAJOR PEACEMAKERS AT PARIS

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the major peacemakers and the countries they represented at the 1919-20 Paris
Peace Conference?
 Identify the aim of each leader towards Germany in particular?
  Identify the main aim of each leader?
 Make an evaluation of the points of disagreement among the aims of the major
peacemakers?

INTRODUCTION

The Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of the Allied victors, following the end of World
War I to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers following the armistices of 1918. It
took place in Paris during 1919 and involved diplomats from more than 32 countries and
nationalities. The major decisions were the creation of the League of Nations; the five peace
treaties with defeated enemies, including the Treaty of Versailles with Germany; the awarding of
German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates," chiefly to Britain and France;
reparations imposed on Germany, and the drawing of new national boundaries (sometimes with
plebiscites) to better reflect the forces of nationalism. The main result was the Treaty of
Versailles, with Germany, which in section 231 laid the guilt for the war on "the aggression of
Germany and her allies." This provision proved humiliating for Germany and set the stage for
very high reparations Germany was supposed to pay (it paid only a small portion before
reparations ended in 1931).

The "Big Four" were the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson; the Prime Minister of
Great Britain, David Lloyd George; the Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau; and the
Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando. They met together informally 145 times and
made all the major decisions, which in turn were ratified by the others.

What were the aims and motives of the Big Three at Versailles?
The Paris Peace Conference at Versailles was attended by 32 states representing more than two
thirds of the world's population. Exceptions were the defeated powers, who were excluded from
negotiations. Soviet Russia was also not invited as the Bolsheviks were in favour of communist
worker's revolutions, making them effectively enemies of the governments of the capitalist
powers.  The main players at the conference were the representatives of victorious powers that
had made the biggest contribution to defeating the central powers:

1. Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France

 2. President Woodrow Wilson of the USA
3. David Lloyd George of Great Britain

They each came to the conference with different aims, dictated by the extent to which their
nations had suffered in the war, the desires of their populations (these countries were all
democracies), their beliefs and personal ideologies.  

As soon as the Paris Peace Conference began, there was disagreement about what the
Conference was aiming to do.

 Some felt that the aim was to punish Germany.

 Others felt that the aim was to cripple Germany so that it could not start another war.
 Many felt that the point of the Conference was to reward the winning countries.
 Others believed that the aim of the Conference should be to establish a just and lasting
peace.
Georges Clemenceau (France)

France had suffered enormous damage to its land, industry, people – and self-confidence. Over
two-thirds of the men who had served in the French army had been killed or injured. The war
affected almost an entire generation. By comparison, Germany seemed to many French people as
powerful and threatening as ever.

Ever since 1870, France had felt threatened by its increasingly powerful neighbour, Germany.
The war increased this feeling. German land and industry had not been as badly damaged as
France’s. France’s population was in decline compared to Germany’s. Clemenceau and other
French leaders saw the treaty as an opportunity to cripple Germany so that it could not attack
France again. The French President (Poincare) even wanted Germany broken up into a collection
of smaller states, but Clemenceau knew that the British and Americans would not agree to this.
Clemenceau was a realist and knew he would probably be forced to compromise on some issues.
However, he had to show he was aware of public opinion in France. He demanded a treaty that
would weaken Germany as much as possible.

Woodrow Wilson (USA)

Wilson has often been seen as an idealist whose aim was to build a better and more peaceful
world from the ruins of the Great War. This is partially true, but Wilson did believe that
Germany should be punished. However, he also believed that the treaty with Germany should not
be too harsh. His view was that if Germany was treated harshly, some day it would recover and
want revenge. Wilson’s aim was to strengthen democracy in the defeated nation so that its people
would not let its leaders cause another war.

He believed that nations should cooperate to achieve world peace. In January 1918 he published
his Fourteen Points to help achieve this. The most important for Wilson was the fourteenth. In
this he proposed the setting up of an international body called the League of Nations.

He also believed in self-determination (the idea that nations should rule themselves rather than
be ruled by others). He wanted the different peoples of Eastern Europe (for example, Poles,
Czechs and Slovaks) to rule themselves rather than be part of Austria-Hungary’s empire.
Many people in France and Britain did not agree with the ideas contained in Wilson’s Fourteen
Points. They seemed impractical. Take self-determination, for example. It be very difficult to
give the peoples of Eastern Europe the chance to rule themselves because they were scattered
across many countries. For example, 25% of the population of the new state of Czechoslovakia
were neither Czechs nor Slovaks. Some people were bound to end up being ruled by people from
another group with different customs and a different language. Some historians have pointed out
that while Wilson talked a great deal about Eastern and Central Europe, he did not know very
much about the area.

David Lloyd George (Great Britain)

At the peace talks, Lloyd George was often in the middle ground between Clemenceau and
Wilson. He wanted Germany to be justly punished but not too harshly. He wanted Germany to
lose its navy and its colonies because Britain thought they threatened the British Empire.
However, like Wilson, he did not want Germany to seek revenge in the future and possibly start
another war. He was also keen for Britain and Germany to begin trading with each other again.
Before the war Germany had been Britain’s second largest trading partner. British people might
not like it, but the fact was that trade with Germany meant jobs for them.

Like Clemenceau, Lloyd George had real problems with public pressure at home for a harsh
treaty. Even his own MPs did not always agree with him and he had just won the 1918 elections
in Britain by promising to ‘make Germany pay’, even though he realized the dangers of this
course of action.

Disagreements and Compromises

As the talks at Versailles went on, it became clear that the very different objectives of the three
leaders could not all be met. Clemenceau clashed with Wilson over many issues. The USA had
not suffered nearly as badly as France in the war. Clemenceau resented Wilson’s more generous
attitude to Germany. They disagreed over what to do about Germany’s Rhineland and coal fields
in the Saar basin. In the end, Wilson had to give way on these issues. In return, Clemenceau and
Lloyd George did give Wilson what he wanted in Eastern Europe, despite their reservations
about his idea of self-determination. However, this mainly affected the other four treaties, not the
Treaty of Versailles.

Clemenceau also clashed with Lloyd George, particularly over Lloyd George’s desire not to treat
Germany too harshly. For example, Clemenceau said ‘…if the British people are so anxious to
appease Germany they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial
concessions.’ Clemenceau felt that the British were quite happy to treat Germany fairly in
Europe, where France rather than Britain was most under threat. However, they were less happy
to allow Germany to keep its navy and colonies, which would be more of a threat to Britain.

Wilson and Lloyd George did not always agree either. Lloyd George was particularly not happy
with point 2 of the Fourteen Points, allowing all nations access to the seas. Similarly, Wilson’s
views on people ruling themselves were somewhat threatening to the British government, for the
British Empire ruled millions of people all across the world from London.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Identify: (a) Woodrow Wilson (b) Georges Clemenceau (c) David Lloyd George (d)
Vittorio Orlando (e) Fourteen Points
2. What were the general goals of the Fourteen Points?
3. What attitudes did Britain, France, and Italy take at the peace conference?
LESSON 12 & 13

MAIN TOPIC: THE 1919-20 PEACE SETTLEMENT AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE 1920s
SUB TOPIC: THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Give an explanation of what the Treaty of Versailles was?

 Identify the main components of the Treaty of Versailles?
 Make an assessment of the German reaction to the treaty?
 Make an evaluation of the Treaty of Versailles?
None of the Big Three was happy with the eventual terms of the Treaty. After months of
negotiation, all of them had to compromise on some of their aims, otherwise there would never
have been a treaty.

The main terms can be divided into five areas.

War Guilt:

 This Clause was simple but was seen by the Germans as extremely harsh. Germany had
to accept blame for starting the war.

Territorial loses:
  The Saar administered by the League of Nations
 The creation of an independent Polish state
 West Prussia and Posen were given to Poland
 Alsace-Lorraine was given back to France
 Danzig was appointed as an international city
 Plebiscites in Upper Silesia, West Prussia and Schleswig
 Germany lost colonies and investments 

Military Restrictions on Germany:

 Was only allowed a regular army that was limited to 100,000 military personnel 
 Was not allowed an air force and only a very small fleet
 End of compulsory enlistment into the armed forces
 Rhineland to be occupied for 15 years by the allied military forces
 All commissions in Germany controlled by the allies until 1927

Reparations: 

 Germany to pay £6,600 million (132 billion gold marks)

 Reparations where to be paid in regular instalments, some in gold and some in goods
 The Allies struggled to get payments from Germany from 1921 to 1923
 Dawes Commission 1924
 France took over Ruhr in 1923

League of Nations: 

 The USA refused to join which weakened the league

 Collective security
 New mandate principles
 Germany and the defeated nations were at first left out

German Reactions to the Treaty of Versailles

The terms of the treaty were announced on 7 May to a horrified German nation. Germany was to
lose:

 10 per cent of its land

 All of its colonies
 12.5 per cent of its population
 16 per cent of its coalfields and almost half of its iron and steel industry

Its army was reduced to 100,000 men. It could have no air force, and only a tiny navy. Worst of
all, Germany had to accept the blame for starting the war and should therefore pay reparations.

The overall reaction of Germans was horror and outrage. They certainly did not feel they had
started the war. They did not even feel they had lost the war. In 1919, many Germans did not
really understand how bad Germany’s military situation had been at the end of the war. They
believed that the German government had simple agreed to a ceasefire, and that therefore
Germany should have been at the Paris Peace Conference to negotiate peace. It should not have
been treated as a defeated state. They were angry that their government was not represented at
the talks and that they were being forced to accept a harsh treaty without any choice or even a
comment.

At first, the new government refused to sign the Treaty and the German navy sank its own ships
in protest. At one point, it looked as though war might break out again. But what could the
German leader Ebert do? He consulted the army commander Hindenburg, who made it ckear that
Germany could not possibly win, but indicated that as a soldier he would prefer to die fighting.
Ebert was in an impossible situation. How could he inflict war and certain defeat on his people?
Reluctantly, he agreed to accept the terms of the Treaty and it was signed on 28 June 1919.

War Guilt and Reparations

The ‘war guilt’ clause was particularly hated. Germans felt at the very least that blame should be
shared. What made matters worse, however, was that because Germany was forced to accept
blame for the war, it was also expected to pay for all the damage caused by it. The German
economy was already in tatters. People had very little food. They feared that the reparations
payments would cripple them.

Disarmament

The disarmament terms upset Germans. An army of 100,000 was very small for a country of
Germany’s size and the army was a symbol of German pride. Despite Wison’s Fourteen Points
calling for disarmament, none of the Allies disarmed to the extent that Germany was disarmed in
the 1920s. It is no great surprise that Adolf Hitler received widespread approval for his actions
when he rebuilt Germany’s army in 1935.

German Territories

Germany lost a lot of territory. This was a major blow to German pride, and to its economy. Both
the Saar and Upper Silesia were important industral areas. Meanwhile as Germany was losing
land, the British and French were increasing their empires by taking control of German and
Turkish territories in Africa nad the Middle East.

The Fourteen Points and the League of Nations

To most Germans, the treatment of Germany was not in keeping with Wilson’s Fourteen Points.
For example, while self-determination was given to countries such as Estonis, Latvia and
Lituania, German-speaking peoples were being divided by the terms forbidding anschluss with
Austria or hived off into new countries such as Czechoslovakia to be ruled by non-Germans.
Germany felt further insulted by not being invited to join the League of Nations.

‘Double standards’?

German complaints about the Treaty fell on deaf ears. In particular, many people felt that the
Germans were by themselves operating a double standard. Their call for afirer treatment did not
score with the harsh way they had treated Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovst in 1918.
Versailles was much less harsh a treat than Brest-Litovsk.

There was also the fact that Germany’s economic problems, although real, were partly self-
inflicted. Other states had raised taxes to pay for the war. The Kaiser’s government planned to
pay war debts by extracting reparations from the defeated states.
SUMMARY

German Response

 Germany had hoped for a softer punishment as it had thought the treaty would have taken
in much more of Wilson's Fourteen Points
 Did not think it was fair to have to accept responsibility for the start of the First World
War
 Did not think it was fair that it had no say or that it was not part of the discussions 
 Did not like the fact that it was forced to sign the treaty without any negotiations of the
terms
 It disagreed with the reparations and especially the territorial losses
 It was also angered by the exclusion from the principle of self-determination
 The German population was angered by the treaty and wanted to see it revoked

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. (a) Whom did the Treaty of Versailles blame for the war?
(b) What role did the Central Powers play at the negotiations?
2. With reference to the Paris peace settlement of 1919-20, describe:
a. The military restrictions placed on Germany;
b. The frontier changes made to Germany;
c. The changes made to Austria-Hungary.
3. How far were Germany’s complaints of unfair treatment under the terms of this treaty
justified?
4. What was the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany?
5. Why did the United States reject the Treaty of Versailles?

LESSON 14
MAIN TOPIC: THE 1919-20 PEACE SETTLEMENT AND
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE 1920s
SUB TOPIC: THE OTHER TREATIES OF THE DEFEATED POWERS.

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the treaties that dealt with Germany’s wartime allies?

 Identify the components of the various treaties?
 Make an assessment of the fairness or otherwise of these treaties?
All the allies of Germany had to disarm and pay reparations. The four treaties that dealt with this
were not negotiated by the Big Three but by officers and diplomats working with the foreign
ministers of the Allied powers. The treaties were made in consultation with representatives of the
nationalities in eastern and central Europe (except those of the defeated countries). Because the
empire of Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918, the treaties made Eastern Europe a ‘patchwork’ of
new states.

The Treaty of St Germain

This treaty separated Austria from Hungary and confirmed that Austria was no longer a leading
power. Under the treaty, Austrian territories were divided as follows:

 Dalmatia, Slovenia and Bosnia were given to Yugoslavia 

 South Tyrol, Trentino, Trieste and Istria were given to Italy
 Bohemia and Moravia were given to Czechoslovakia
 Galicia was given to Poland
 Bukovina was given to Romania
 Austria was not allowed to unify with Germany

Austria suffered severe economic problems after the war, as of its industry had gone to
Czechoslovakia. Other areas also suffered, because they were suddenly part of foreign states.
Whereas once their markets had been in one empire, they were now in different countries.
The Treaty of Trianon
This treaty was not signed until 1920 but, like that of St Germain, its main terms involved the
transfer of territories.

 Hungary losses 2/3 of its territory

 Slovakia and Ruthenia were given to Czechoslovakia
 Transylvania was given to Romania
 Burgenland was given to Austria
 Slovenia and Croatia were given to Yugoslavia 

A number of territories went to Romania. Hungary lost a substantial amount of its territory and
its population. Three million Hungarians ended up in other states. Its industries suffered from the
loss of population and raw materials. It was due to pay reparations, but its economy was so weak
it never did.

The Treaty of Neuilly

Bulgaria did well compared with Germany, Austria and Hungary. However, it lost lands to
Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia and its access to the Mediterranean. It, too, had to limit its
armed forces to 20,000 and pay £100 million in reparations. Bulgaria had played a relatively
small part in the war and was treated less harshly than its allies. Nevertheless, many Bulgarians
were governed by foreign powers by 1920.

 Western Thrace was given to Greece

 Dobrudja was given to Romania
 Northern Macedonia was given to Yugoslavia

The Treaty of Sevres

The last of the treaties to be arranged was the Treaty of Sevres with Turkey. Turkey was
important because of its strategic position and the size of its empire. Its territorial losses are
shown below.

 The Straits of the Dardanelles to be controlled by the allies

 Saudi Arabia became independent
  Turkey lost the rights to Sudan and Libya
 Eastern Thrace and some Turkish Aegean Islands were given to Greece
 Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria became League of Nation mandates and were to be run
by France and Britain. 

Turkey also effectively lost control of the straits running into the Black Sea. The Turks had
formally to accept that many countries of their former empire, such as Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco,
were now independent or were under British or French protection. In practice, this was already
true, but under the treaty Turkey had to accept and agree to this.

It was not a successful treaty. The Turks were greatly outraged by it. Turkish nationalists led by
Mustafa Kemal challenged the terms of the treaty by force when they drove the Greeks out of
Smyrna. The result was the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) which returned Smyrna to Turkey.

There were other criticisms of the Treaty of Sevres. The motives of Britain and France in taking
control of former Turkish lands were suspect. The Arabs who had helped the British in the war
gained little. Palestine was also a controversial area and remains a troubled region to the present
day.

The Treaty of Lausanne

 1923
 Treaty of Sevres was altered at Lausanne
 The Greeks were expelled
 Constantinople was given back to Turkey

Paris peace settlement issues

 Germany, Russia and none of the other defeated countries were allowed to take part of
the discussions nor attended the Versailles conference
 All the big decisions were made by the Council of four (United States, France, United
Kingdom and Italy)
  The aims of the major powers were often contradictory and so compromises had to be
made within the treaties 
 Terms of the Treaty of Versailles were not soft enough to allow for reconciliation with
Germany but not harsh enough to weaken Germany's power

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Describe the treatment of Germany’s wartime allies under the terms of the following
treaties of 1919-20:
a. St Germain
b. Neuilly
c. Trianon
d. Sevres
2. To what extent was President Wilson’s Fourteen Points put into effect in these treaties?
3. What new countries were created in Eastern Europe from the lands lost by Austria-
Hungary and Russia?
LESSON 14 & 15

MAIN TOPIC: THE 1919-20 PEACE SETTLEMENT AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE 1920s
SUB TOPIC: THE IMPACT OF THE TREATIES

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Outline the impact of the treaties signed at the 1919-20 peace settlement of the countries
concerned?
 Make an evaluation of its impact on international relations?
 Ascertain the impact of the treaties on future developments in Europe in particular?
The Impact of the Treaty on Germany
In 1919, Ebert’s government was very fragile. When he agreed to the Treaty, it tipped Germany
into chaos. Ebert’s right-wing opponents could not bear the Treaty and they attempted a
revolution against him.

This revolution, called the Kapp Putsch, was defeated by a general strike by Berlin workers. The
strike paralyzed essential services like power and transport. It saved Ebert’s government but
added to the chaos in Germany – and the bitterness of the Germans towards the treaty.

Worse was yet to come. Germany fell behind on its reparations payment in 1922, so in 1923
French and Belgian troops entered the Ruhr region and simply took what was owed them in the
form of raw materials and goods. This was quite legal under the Treaty of Versailles.

The German government ordered the workers to go on strike so that they were not producing
anything for the French to take. The French reacted harshly, killing over 100 workers and
expelling over 100,000 protesters from the region. More importantly, the strike meant that
Germany had no goods to trade, and no money to buy things with.

The government solved this problem by simple printing extra money, but this caused a new
problem – hyperinflation. The money was virtually worthless so prices shot up. The price of
goods could rise between joining the back of a queue in a shop and reaching the front. Workers
needed wheelbarrows to carry home their wages – billions of worthless marks. Wages began to
be paid daily instead of weekly.

The Germans naturally blamed these problems on the Treaty. But the truth is more complex.
Some say the French acted too harshly (even if the Treaty gave them the right). Others say that
the Germans brought the problems on themselves by failing to pay reparations.

Verdicts on the Treaty of Versailles

In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was criticized not only by the Germans. Clemenceau’s problem
was that it was not harsh enough, and in 1920 he was voted out in a French election. Lloyd
George received a hero’s welcome when he returned to Britain. However, at a later date, he
described the treaty as ‘a great pity’ and indicated that he believed another war would happen
because of it. Wilson was very disappointed with the Treaty. He said that if he were a German,
he would not have signed it. The American Congress refused to approve the Treaty.
History has shown how the Treaty helped to create a cruel regime in Germany and eventually a
second world war. This will always affect modern attitudes to the Treaty. It has certainly affected
historians’ judgements. They have tended to side with critics of the Treaty. At the time, however,
the majority pf people outside Germany thought it was fair. Some indeed thought it was not
harsh enough. A more generous treaty would have been totally unacceptable to public opinion in
Britain or France. Today Historians are more likely to point out how hard a task it was to agree
the peace settlement. They suggested that the Treaty was the best that could be hoped for in the
circumstances.

The impact of the Treaties on Eastern and Central Europe

The treaties had a major impact on the maps of eastern and central Europe. The most important
consequence of the treaties was the creation or recreation of three countries: Czechoslovakia,
Poland and Yugoslavia. The aim was to create states that were economically and politically
stable, in an area of Europe that needed stability.

Czechoslvakia

Czechoslovakia was possibly the key country in the plans of the Western Allies for the future
security of Europe.

 Czechoslovakia was mostly carved out of the old Austrian Empire, with the addition of
land taken from Germany.
 The Allies wanted it to become economically and politically strong, so they made sure
that it included industrial areas from the former empire.
 It included a wide range of nationalities.
Poland

Poland had been an important state in the 1660s, but it had been swallowed up by Russia,
Germany and Austria in the late 1700s. the Western Allies were very keen on recreating the state
of Poland. They wanted it to act as a potential watchdog on Germany in the years to come. They
also hoped that Poland could form a barrier against any future threat from the new Communist
government in Russia.
The treaties put it together again as an independent country. Poland’s western frontiers were
settled with Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Poland’s eastern frontiers were rather more
difficult to agree on. Poland was a good example of the problems that arise when sit down with a
map and create new states that were not there before. Poland had no natural frontiers (rivers,
mountains etc.), and this made it vulnerable to attack. Also, around 30% of the population of
Poland were not ethnically Polish – it included Russians, Germans, Jews and many others.

Almost from its first day, the new state was involved in fighting with Russia over the line of its
eastern borders – this was eventually settled in 1921 with the help of the British diplomat Lord
Curzon. The border was temporarily settled at the Curzon Line. In order to have access to the
sea, Poland was given a strip of German land around the city of Danzig. This became known as
the ‘Polish Corridor’ and its loss was bitterly resented by Germany.

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was by far the most complicated of all the new states created at the Paris Peace
Conference. It was formed by merging Serbia with a number of its neighbours, most of whom
had been part of the old Austria-Hungary Empire before the war.

It began life as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but in 1929 it changed its name
to Yugoslavia, which means ‘land of the South Slavs’. In a sense, Yugoslavia shows Wilson’s
idea of self-determination in action. It was partly the desire of the South Slav people to become
independent from Austria-Hungary that had sparked off the First World War in the summer of
1914. The Allies also hoped that a relatively large and powerful state could be a stabilizing
influence in the turbulent Balkans.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Were the new countries created by the 1919-20 peace conference strong enough
to exist on their own? Explain your answer.
2. To what extent were Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points put into effect in the
peace treaties?
3. How did the peace treaties of the 1919-20 peace conference make another war in
Europe more likely?
LESSON 16 & 17

MAIN TOPIC: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF THE 1920s

LESSON OBJECTIVES:

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to ask, can I:

 Name the international treaties that were signed during the 1920s?
 Tell the viability of these treaties?
 Identify the aims and importance of these treaties on the countries concerned and also on
international relations?
THE TREATY OF RAPALLO

April 16, 1922 during the Genoa Conference, Russia and the Weimar Republic signed an
agreement in Rapallo (Italy), which meant the political recognition of Soviet Russia by
Germany, the establishment of diplomatic relations between them and expansive economic
cooperation.

In 1921, the Allied countries offered the Soviet government to take part in an international
conference to resolve disputes related to the economic claims of the West to Russia. If adopted,
the European countries promised to officially recognize Soviet Russia. The Genoa Conference,
opened in April 1922, was attended by 29 countries - Russia, Britain, France, Germany, etc.

During the conference, the Soviet government managed to conclude the Treaty of Rapallo of
1922 with Germany. On behalf of Russia (RSFSR), the agreement was signed by Georgi
Chicherin; on behalf of Germany (Weimar Republic) – by Walther Rathenau.

The Treaty of Rapallo provided for an immediate and complete resumption of diplomatic
relations between the RSFSR and Germany. The parties mutually renounced claims to
compensation for military costs and nonmilitary losses, and agreed on how to resolve differences
between them. Germany recognized the nationalization of the German public and private
property in the RSFSR, and refused claims arising from "the activities of the RSFSR, or its
agencies with respect to German nationals or in their private rights, provided that the
Government of the RSFSR would not satisfy similar claims of other states."

Both sides recognized the principle of most favored as the basis of their legal and economic
relations and pledged to promote trade and economic relations. The German government stated
its willingness to provide assistance to German companies in developing business relations with
the Soviet organizations.

The treaty was concluded without a time limit. Under the agreement, signed November 5, 1922
in Berlin, it was extended to other Soviet republics.

The Treaty of Rapallo marked the end of the international diplomatic isolation of the RSFSR.
For Russia, it was the first full-fledged treaty and de jure recognition as a state, while for
Germany it was the first one enjoying equal rights after the Treaty of Versailles.

THE DAWES, AND YOUNG PLAN

In the years following the First World War, issues of debt repayment and reparations troubled
relations between the Allies and the now defeated Germany. The U.S.-sponsored Dawes and
Young Plans offered a possible solution to these challenges.

At the end of the First World War, the victorious European powers demanded that Germany
compensate them for the devastation wrought by the four-year conflict, for which they held
Germany and its allies responsible. Unable to agree upon the amount that Germany should pay at
the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the
other Allies established a Reparation Commission to settle the question. In the spring of 1921,
the Commission set the final bill at 132 billion gold marks, approximately $31.5 billion. When
Germany defaulted on a payment in January 1923, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr in an
effort to force payment. Instead, they met a government-backed campaign of passive resistance.
Inflation in Germany, which had begun to accelerate in 1922, spiraled into hyperinflation. The
value of the German currency collapsed; the battle over reparations had reached an impasse.

U.S. Loans to Allied Powers

Meanwhile, a second wartime financial issue was causing tension among the former co-
belligerents. While the United States had little interest in collecting reparations from Germany, it
was determined to secure repayment of the more than $10 billion it had loaned to the Allies over
the course of the war. Time and again, Washington rejected calls to cancel these debts in the
name of the common wartime cause; it also resisted efforts to link reparations to inter-allied war
debts. In 1922, London made this link explicit in the Balfour Note, which stated that it would
seek reparations and wartime debt repayments from its European allies equal to its debt to the
United States. That same year, Congress created the United States War Debt Commission to
negotiate repayment plans, on concessionary terms, with the 17 countries that had borrowed
money from the United States.

The Dawes Plan (1924)

The Dawes Plan of 1924 was formulated to take Weimar Germany out of hyperinflationand to
return Weimar’s economy to some form of stability. The Dawes Plan got its name as the man
who headed the committee was an American called Charles Dawes.

The Treaty of Versailles had imposed huge reparation payments on Weimar Germany to pay for
the damage caused by World War One. It soon became clear that Weimar Germany was simply
incapable of paying out the instalments required by Versailles. This ended in 1923 with French
and Belgian troops occupying the Ruhr – Germany’s most productive industrial area. The
workers there went on strike which simply exacerbated Weimar Germany’s economic standing.
By 1924, the country was in dire financial straits.

This left the victorious powers with a major problem. Did they let Weimar Germany
economically implode on itself? Many in the UK and France would have got some sort of
satisfaction out of this but it was not as simple as this. After 1918, Germany was no longer the
enemy. The Russian Revolution and the subsequent murder of the ruling Romanov family in
1918 had pushed Russia to hold the title ‘Public Enemy Number One’. There was a very real fear
that the ‘plague in the east’ would spread west. It was believed that if Germany was reduced to
total impoverishment it might just provoke a German revolution that put a communist
government in place. While Russia was in every sense on the periphery of Europe, Weimar
Germany was at the very heart of Europe. So while many citizens of France, Belgium and the
UK would have endorsed a policy of real punishment – letting Weimar Germany fall into rack
and ruin – this was not a view shared by many politicians. Hence the desire to do what was
possible to support Germany – even if World War One had been over for just six years.  

The five nations represented on the Dawes Committee were USA, UK, Italy, Belgium and
France. Each nation forwarded two experts in finance. There was an ulterior motive for finding
some way to restructure Weimar’s economy. While it was obviously clear that Weimar could not
hope to pay off her reparation payments in 1923/24, if the Dawes Committee could find some
way to boost Germany’s economy, then in future years Weimar Germany should have been in a
position when she could have started to make full payment.

The main points of the Dawes Plan were simple in their effort to re-float Weimar Germany’s
economy.

The first major decision was that the Ruhr was to be returned to the full control of the Germans
and that French and Belgian troops would pull out of the region as soon as was possible. The
whole industrial zone had been wracked by passive resistance, which had led to Germany’s most
important economic zone simply not working and producing the money it should have been
producing. By removing French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr, the Dawes Plan had at a
stroke removed the most grievous issue in the area.

Secondly, reparation payments were restructured to make them more ‘German friendly’. In the
first year of repayment after the Dawes Plan, the maximum expected to be paid by the Allies was
1 billion marks. During this time, it was hoped and expected that Germany’s economy would
pick up. Therefore it was decided that subsequent payments after the first year would be 2.5
billion marks.

A third decision to come out of the Dawes Plan was the restructuring of Weimar’s national bank,
the Reichsbank, which would be supervised by the Allies. While this may have been interpreted
as direct interference by outside powers, it was not an issue and the Weimar government
accepted the terms of the Dawes Plan in September 1924.  
Separate to the Dawes Plan, but vital in reinvigorating Weimar’s economy, the Americans
agreed to loan Weimar Germany large sums of money that would be invested into the economy. 

How important was the Dawes Plan? There is no doubt that Germany was in a very parlous
financial situation in 1923. The Allies could have played the card of ‘you deserve everything you
get’ but it would have served little purpose except public popularity. It could be argued that those
governments involved played a risky game as the public was barely in a forgiving mood – after
all, the largest Commonwealth War Graves cemetery at Tyne Cot had only been finished in
1922. But those involved had to look at the bigger picture –especially the worry that those who
had nothing might look to communism to see them through. The involvement of USA also
calmed a lot of frayed nerves – the world’s most prosperous and powerful nation being willing to
invest in Weimar Germany must have been reassuring. But the main weakness of the Dawes Plan
was simple – it was short term; hence the 1929 Young Plan. Its success also relied on Weimar
Germany economically rallying, which was not guaranteed in 1924. Any economic disaster that
occurred in the USA would have a dire knock-on effect on Weimar – as was seen in October
1929 with the Wall Street Crash.

The Young Plan

In the autumn of 1928, another committee of experts was formed, this one to devise a final
settlement of the German reparations problem. In 1929, the committee, under the chairmanship
of Owen D. Young, the head of General Electric and a member of the Dawes committee,
proposed a plan that reduced the total amount of reparations demanded of Germany to 121
billion gold marks, almost $29 billion, payable over 58 years. Another loan would be floated in
foreign markets, this one totaling $300 million. Foreign supervision of German finances would
cease and the last of the occupying troops would leave German soil. The Young Plan also called
for the establishment of a Bank for International Settlements, designed to facilitate the payment
of reparations.

The advent of the Great Depression doomed the Young Plan from the start. Loans from U.S.
banks had helped prop up the German economy until 1928; when these loans dried up,
Germany’s economy floundered. In 1931, as the world sunk ever deeper into depression, a one-
year moratorium on all debt and reparation payments was declared at the behest of President
Herbert Hoover; an effort to renew the moratorium the following year failed. At the Lausanne
Conference in 1932, European nations agreed to cancel their reparation claims against Germany,
save for a final payment. After the November 1932 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, France and
the United Kingdom resurrected the link between reparations and war debts, tying their Lausanne
Conference pledge to cancel their claims against Germany to the cancellation of their debts to the
United States. The United States would not accept the proposal. By mid-1933, all European
debtor nations except Finland had defaulted on their loans from the United States.

Nevertheless, the Dawes and Young Plans were important U.S. efforts that had lasting
consequences. Coming so soon after the U.S. rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League
of Nations, the Dawes and Young Plans were significant instances of U.S. reengagement with
European affairs. The Young Plan also had a more lasting effect: the Bank for International
Settlements, or BIS, continues to operate to this day as a forum for central bank consultation and
cooperation. The United States’ experience with inter-allied war debts continued to influence its
foreign policy for years to come; this influence is evident in the Johnson Act in 1934, the
Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, and the Lend-Lease program in the Second World War.

THE LOCARNO PACT (1925)

This was a series of agreements whereby Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy
mutually guaranteed peace in Western Europe. The treaties were initialed at Locarno, Switz., on
October 16 and signed in London on December 1.

The agreements consisted of (1) a treaty of mutual guarantee between Germany, Belgium,
France, Great Britain, and Italy; (2) arbitration treaties between Germany and Belgium and
between Germany and France; (3) a note from the former Allies to Germany explaining the use
of sanctions against a covenant-breaking state as outlined in article 16 of the League of Nations
Covenant; (4) arbitration treaties between Germany and Czechoslovakia and between Germany
and Poland; and (5) treaties of guarantee between France and Poland and between France and
Czechoslovakia.

The treaty of mutual guarantee provided that the German-Belgian and Franco-German frontiers
as fixed by the Treaty of Versailles were inviolable; that Germany, Belgium, and France would
never attack each other except in “legitimate defense” or in consequence of a League of Nations
obligation; that they would settle their disputes by pacific means; and that in case of an alleged
breach of these undertakings, the signatories would come to the defense of the party adjudged by
the League to be the party attacked and also in case of a “flagrant violation.” The treaties of
guarantee between France and Poland or Czechoslovakia provided for mutual support against
unprovoked attack. A further consequence of the pact was the evacuation of Allied troops from
the Rhineland in 1930, five years ahead of schedule.

The clear meaning of Locarno was that Germany renounced the use of force to change its
western frontiers but agreed only to arbitration as regards its eastern frontiers, and that Great
Britain promised to defend Belgium and France but not Poland and Czechoslovakia.

In March 1936 Germany sent troops into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the
Treaty of Versailles, declaring that the situation envisaged at Locarno had been changed by the
Franco-Soviet alliance of 1935. France regarded the German move as a “flagrant violation” of
Locarno, but Great Britain declined to do so, and no action was taken. Germany made no effort
to arbitrate its dispute with Czechoslovakia in 1938 or with Poland in 1939.

THE KELLOG-BRIAND PACT

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an agreement to outlaw war signed on August 27, 1928.
Sometimes called the Pact of Paris for the city in which it was signed, the pact was one of many
international efforts to prevent another World War, but it had little effect in stopping the rising
militarism of the 1930s or preventing World War II.

U.S. Peace Advocates

In the wake of World War I, U.S. officials and private citizens made significant efforts to
guarantee that the nation would not be drawn into another war. Some focused on disarmament,
such as the series of naval conferences that began in Washington in 1921, and some focused on
cooperation with the League of Nations and the newly formed World Court. Others initiated a
movement to try to outlaw war outright. Peace advocates Nicholas Murray Butler and James T.
Shotwell were part of this movement. Both men were affiliated with the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, an organization dedicated to promoting internationalism that was
established in 1910 by leading American industrialist Andrew Carnegie.

French Involvement

With the influence and assistance of Shotwell and Butler, French Minister of Foreign Affairs
Aristide Briand proposed a peace pact as a bilateral agreement between the United States and
France to outlaw war between them. Particularly hard hit by World War I, France faced
continuing insecurity from its German neighbor and sought alliances to shore up its defenses.
Briand published an open letter in April of 1927 containing the proposal. Though the suggestion
had the enthusiastic support of some members of the American peace movement, U.S. President
Calvin Coolidge and Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg were less eager than Briand to enter
into a bilateral arrangement. They worried that the agreement against war could be interpreted as
a bilateral alliance and require the United States to intervene if France was ever threatened. To
avoid this, they suggested that the two nations take the lead in inviting all nations to join them in
outlawing war.

The extension of the pact to include other nations was well-received internationally. After the
severe losses of the First World War, the idea of declaring war to be illegal was immensely
popular in international public opinion. Because the language of the pact established the
important point that only wars of aggression – not military acts of self-defense – would be
covered under the pact, many nations had no objections to signing it. If the pact served to limit
conflicts, then everyone would benefit; if it did not, there were no legal consequences. In early
1928, negotiations over the agreement expanded to include all of the initial signatories. In the
final version of the pact, they agreed upon two clauses: the first outlawed war as an instrument of
national policy and the second called upon signatories to settle their disputes by peaceful means.
On August 27, 1928, fifteen nations signed the pact at Paris. Signatories included France, the
United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Japan. Later, an additional forty-
seven nations followed suit, so the pact was eventually signed by most of the established nations
in the world. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement by a vote of 85–1, though it did so only after
making reservations to note that U.S. participation did not limit its right to self-defense or require
it to act against signatories breaking the agreement.

Mukden Incident

The first major test of the pact came just a few years later in 1931, when the Mukden Incident led
to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Though Japan had signed the pact, the combination of the
worldwide depression and a limited desire to go to war to preserve China prevented the League
of Nations or the United States from taking any action to enforce it. Further threats to the Peace
Agreement also came from fellow signatories Germany, Austria and Italy. It soon became clear
that there was no way to enforce the pact or sanction those who broke it; it also never fully
defined what constituted “self-defense,” so there were many ways around its terms. In the end,
the Kellogg-Briand Pact did little to prevent World War II or any of the conflicts that followed.
Its legacy remains as a statement of the idealism expressed by advocates for peace in the interwar
period. Frank Kellogg earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 for his work on the Peace Pact.

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. With reference to two international agreements in the 1920s, what were the main
aims of countries that signed agreements?
2. How did the international agreements of the 1919-20s violate the principle of ‘no
secret treaties’ agreed upon at the Paris peace conference of 1919-20?
3. Were the international agreements in the 1920s a mere charade? Explain your
answer.