The role of Serbia that led to the First World War - Coursework Example

Introduction 1914 is an important historical year to be remembered by many as the year that marked the beginning of an international conflict; the First World War, which lasted for 4 years (Gilbert, 1994). This is a war which contributed to the death of a significantly high number of approximately 9 million soldiers as well as multitudes of innocent civilians and destruction of high valued property, as a result of revenge, nationalism and egocentric ideologies evident in the leadership of that time (Gilbert, 1994). Various reasons have been brought forward to explain the cause of the war but Serbia is credited as being the immediate cause. This essay is a critical evaluation of Serbia’s role in the events that led to the World War 1. Serbia’s Contributions to the Events that Led to World War 1 The major superpowers in the time before the occurrence of World War 1 were living in fear, suspicion and hatred for each other such that they were only waiting for a simple reason to go to war (Gilbert, 1994). This can be supported by the numerous treaties that these countries had signed, which later became the foundation for a 4 years war. European countries such as Germany, Britain, France, and others such as Japan, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Italy among others had developed two major competitive groups i.e. the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. The triple entente comprised of three major countries which involved Britain, France and Russia, though they were on the same side with Portugal, Japan, US and Spain. The triple alliance on the other hand comprised of Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary (Tylor, 1971). The importance of these alliances was to protect each other in case a country from the rival camp descended on one of its own for one reason or the other. However, the countries in these alliances had more individual and direct agreements, with other countries, of the same magnitude such as that which existed between Russia and Serbia, Germany and Austria-Hungary, France and Russia, Japan and Britain, Britain-France and Belgium. This means for example that Russia was more likely to intervene if Serbia or France was under attack than Britain would, which was more likely to do so for the sake of its personal alliances with Japan and Belgium. Over the years, prior to the outbreak of the war, there were competitions between these countries, to prove their dominance in their military equipment and personnel skills, which was referred to as the arms race. Germany and Britain were competing for Maritime supremacy, by acquiring fleets of heavily equipped and automated war ships. However, there was not a good reason to trigger war and that which existed for example the Balkan conflict was resolved at a much lower level (Tylor, 1971). The Sarajevo murder however created an opportunity for these alliances to go for each other’s necks. A young Bosnian man named Gavrilo Princip together with his accomplices took the initiative to plot the murder of an Austrian-Hungary’s heir to the throne together with his wife, which according to the assassin, was a way of proving that he was capable of achieving greater things (Dedijer, 1996). Apparently, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was in Sarajevo in June 28, 1914 together with his wife to take part in military exercises, which was going on, in preparation for an expedition in Bosnia. Princip was arrested immediately and later sentenced to 20 years imprisonment from where he died of cancer (Dedijer, 1966). At this point, it is important to note that this was not the first assassination to be committed in the Balkan region and therefore, one would not have expected this one case to trigger a world war. To begin with, it is necessary to examine the main reason why the assassination took place. Austria-Hungary franked by Germany had for a long time continued to command a lot of influence in the Balkan region, where it had seized areas belonging to people of the Slavic nationality (Williamson, 1991). This influence had consequently become unbearable to Slavic youths and senior political and military personnel, who showed a lot of love for their fellow Slavic communities, who were forced to pay tributes to the Austrian crown. In general, these people wanted freedom in their region, just like that of the independent Serbia. As a result, several youths across the region, out of nationality, created movements such as the Black Hand secret society, which was highly associated with the Sarajevo murder (Watson, 2009). It was therefore established later that, the murder of the archduke was done not out of personal hatred towards him, but it was supposed to act as a warning to the Austria-Hungary’s leadership, that their stay in the region was unwelcome. In fact, the plot to murder him came as a second thought after the initial plan, which targeted Oskar Potiorek, who was the then Bosnian governor, got scrapped (Caplan, 2010). Serbia played a major role in the plotting of this murder. According to reports, it was later established that high ranking officers in the Serbian military supplied the assassins with ammunition (Dedijer, 1996). However, this assertion is debatable based on the fact that it was not the whole leadership in Serbia that planned the assassination. The plan was made by individuals in the military such as the then chief of military intelligence, Rade Malobabić and a top ranking officer in the military; Major Voja Tankosić. It is said that these men were opposed to the way the Serbian government was handling its relations with Austria-Hungary, which was too slow and diplomatic (Dedijer, 1996). They wanted vigilance and the use of force and that is why they joined hands with the Black Hand society to subdue their enemies. On the other hand, it is believed that the Serbian government, led by prime minister Pasic, had warned Austria-Hungary before hand of possible assassination attempt on their designated heir to the throne but the same continue to say that despite this, Serbia was not willing to honor the request by the former to investigate the matter, claiming it was not in their interest (Caplan, 2010). Interestingly, these officials were later released and posted back to their stations without facing trial. This shows that the country was not in any way going to prosecute its own people due to a crime, which was in some way a great favor to it. It is important to note that Serbia was very much interested in seizing Bosnia and Herzegovina from Austria-Hungary and therefore, the assassination would have favored it if the expected results had been achieved. The events which unfolded after the assassination created a renewed hostility between the two rival countries. Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination and as a result, Serbia was sent a letter containing several demands, which it was supposed to fulfill. However, one of the demands was to allow police officers from Austria-Hungary to come to Serbia in order to carry out independent investigations into the murder, which is a demand that Serbia refused to comply with (Williamson, 1991). Being a sovereign nation, Serbia had the authority and the right to refuse to comply, based on the fact that this would have possibly resulted to internal conflicts, as it would have been interpreted to mean disrespect and betrayal of Serbia’s freedom. In addition, accepting it would have meant loosing grip of the hard earned influence that the country had in the region. More dissidents would have emerged and the local public, which showed a high level of nationalism, would not have forgiven the government managers for tolerating that. The leaders would have suffered the same plight as that of the Arch Duke and that was not a chance that any person would have wanted to take. On the other hand, critics observe that the inclusion of offending demands and the short deadline of 48 hrs to comply, by Austria was a deliberate move to ensure that Serbia would not comply thereby necessitating military action (Williamson, 1991). True to their expectations, Serbia refused to comply with the demands and as a result, Austria-Hungary withdrew its ambassador to the country and declared war on Serbia. However, it is believed that the then Serbian Prime Minister, Pasic, had earlier indicated his willingness to comply to all the demands as he knew what the consequences were but due to motivation by Russia, which indicated that it would stand by him in the event of military attack, the prime minister disregarded his efforts to maintain peace through diplomacy and even before he could reply to the letter sent to him, his military was already mobilizing its resources, preparing for the war (Jelavich, 2004). From this perspective, it is evident that the country had the capacity and the chance to prevent the occurrence of the war but as it would happen afterwards, this was not the case. On the other hand, the blame cannot be directed only to Serbia. Austria-Hungary had an equal share of blame as sources inside its administration indicated that the council of ministers were all of the same opinion; that going to war with Serbia was the only way to avenge their loss (Williamson, 1991). In addition, Austria-Hungary was quick to reprimand Serbia as a nation whereas no evidence had yet been brought forward to implicate the government. In fact, the cases were still in the courts and if they were just people, they would have at least waited for the outcomes before making their decision. Furthermore, the fact that Austria-Hungary took the initiative to consult its German ally on its willingness to assist in the war, after which the German sent back what came to be known as blank check, is a clear indication that the leadership was not considering any other method of solving the dispute apart from going to war with Serbia (Tylor, 1971). After war was declared on Serbia by Austria-Hungary, Russia as it had promised intervened by also declaring war on Austria Hungary. Germany on the other hand came in, declaring war on Russia and indirectly on Serbia. This led to a chain of declarations, with members of the different alliances declaring war on each other and extensively, on Serbia and Austria-Hungary (Gilbert, 1994). Conclusion The First World War came to be as a result of highly polarized relations between the various alliances between the major superpowers. However, Serbia is arguably the one country which triggered the historical war after a student, Gavrilo Princip, of Serbian nationality assassinated the heir to the Austrian-Hungary’s empire. By doing so, he gave the allies an immediate reason to go to war, which had been long due in their view. Serbian refusal to accept the demands of Austrian-Hungary, i.e. the July Ultimatum, as a result of fear of losing pride gained after the Balkan wars is also considered to be a major contributing effect to the war. In addition, Serbia also involved itself in covering up the activities of the Black Hand secret society and therefore gave Austria-Hungary little or no option other than to declare war. On the other hand, it is relatively true to say that Serbia was just an excuse, which was used by the triple alliance and the triple entente to go to war, since Germany and Russia could have left or helped the two states to resolve their conflicts, which would have kept other forces in the alliances at bay. In general, all these mentioned states were equally responsible for the events that led to the World War 1. Bibliography Caplan, J. (2010). Causes of World War I: Balkan Wars, Gavrilo Princip, Black Hand, July Crisis, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, University of Washington Press Dedijer, V. (1966). The Road to Sarajevo, New York: Simon and Schuster. Gilbert, M. (1994). The First World War, Weidenfeld & Nicolson Jelavich, B. (2004). Russias Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914, Cambridge University Press Tylor, A. (1971).The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918, Oxford University Press Watson, R. (2009). The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans, BiblioBazaar Williamson, S. (1991). Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, Bedford/St Martins Read More