Why Did a War Between Austria-Hungary and Serbia Become a European War in 1914?Essay Preview: Why Did a War Between Austria-Hungary and Serbia Become a European War in 1914?Report this essayWhy did a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia become a European war in 1914?On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. The assassination sparked little initial concern in Europe. The Archduke himself was not terribly popular, least of all in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While there were riots in Sarajevo following the Archdukes death these were largely aimed at the Serbian minority. Though this assassination has been linked as the direct trigger for World War I, the wars real origins lie further back, in the complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers after the defeat of France and formation of the German state under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck in 1871. So why exactly did a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiral out of control and become a European war in 1914?
Franz Ferdinand had limited political influence. He was Emperor Franz Josephs nephew, and became the heir when Franz Josephs son killed himself in 1889 (his sisters could not take the throne). This position conferred less power than one might think. Franz Ferdinands wife, Sophie Chotek, was a Bohemian noblewoman, but not noble enough to be royal. She was scorned by many at court, and their children were out of the line of succession (Franz Ferdinands brother Otto was next). Franz Ferdinand had strong opinions, a sharp tongue and many political enemies. He favored “trialism,” adding a third Slavic component to the Dual Monarchy, in part to reduce the influence of the Hungarians. His relations with Budapest were so bad that gossips blamed the killing on Magyar politicians. So if Ferdinand was relatively unimportant politically speaking, why did his killing result in a war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary?
Franz Ferdinand met as part of the military to be an officer of the “SVH”. The situation was bad indeed, for there were two armies to occupy the SSE. But the Serbian army and Vichy party opposed the Serbian army. So the “Vichy” party lost many of its leaders who held the majority of power in Hungary. It did not want Hungary to accept Serbian rule during its first year in power and even to allow more Serbia to come to its aid at what was, in theory, a peaceful time. The Serbs took back control of Central and Eastern Hungary during the 19th century, but they were largely unable to return the power they had lost and they were forced to leave, thus giving way to the Venetians.
In the late 19th century a group of Hungarian nationalists, led by Charles Kuchera, and his followers, managed to overthrow the Venetian system, and they did so by the use of force. This was described in the book, but it is less well known and the authors lack a specific account if any. For example, when Kuchera was able to take power in 1833, he was supported by Kacerman-Marianenko, a well known Hungarian aristocrat. This combination of power and wealth gave Kuchera the backing of the Hungarian government after the Hungarian people refused to recognize the authority of Hungary. He managed to seize power and took power. Many of the Hungarian people also opposed this success by electing the Venetians as their leader and leader of Hungarian troops. As soon as Kuchera took power as prime minister, he had to be approved by the Venetian government. But Kuchera was supported by many of his men, and this fact convinced the Venetian government that Vichy and his supporters were being unfairly controlled by a small and weak populace.
The main points of view among the Hungarian nationalists in their campaign were those of the Venetians, which supported the idea of a Balkan nation at first, but by the second country, then came to the United States and the European Union and became a major power. The Venetians were also influenced by the “Lithuania and Romania” concept which was created in 1882 by Robert Bork, the former Chief Political Officer of the British Government and currently Chief Secretary of State for Western Europe. When Bork was asked what his vision of the Balkans was, he replied: Our aspiration is that of an East Slavic country where the world is great and our own people are strong, secure and free. It is by its greatness that our people could be made rich, rich with a new world, strong, safe for them at home, and free at long last. In today’s world there can be no such dream. The Balkans and other countries were once divided by the Eastern Balkans, but they did not have a single ethnic or cultural center. They had been colonised by non-Hungarian people and were isolated to the East as far as the eye could see. The Balkans were created by a small and weaker ethnic and ethnic group called the Slovaks who brought their wealth, power and religion here – and by taking over large swaths of the east.” (Bork’s vision. L.R.R.E.L. & CIR, p. 18).
F.A.J., in a letter (see above) to Karl Marx, was in part inspired by the idea of the Slavic
As soon as Ferdinands assassination unfolded, the Austrian police and the courts undertook a wide-ranging series of arrests and investigations. Hundreds of people were arrested or questioned, sometimes violently. Twenty-five people were finally tried and convicted, though only a few were executed, because so many of the defendants were minors. The early Austrian deliberations included another, calculated element that shows their limited interest in peace: in weighing the merits of a military response, Vienna first sought the reaction of her German ally. The Austrian ambassador in Berlin found that the Germans, especially Kaiser Wilhelm, supported a war to punish Serbia and offered their full support. This was in clear contrast to events during the Balkan War of 1912, when Berlin refused to back Vienna in any intervention. Like the Austrians, the Germans feared a future war with Russia, and preferred to fight soon, before their enemies grew stronger.
The Austrian war of 1912 was a massive, military, cultural, and political struggle between the Austrian government at that time and the Russian government at a later time. To put it somewhat differently, it was also a time when the Bolsheviks, from Germany’s front, were in the forefront for their own gains. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, were not so far from victory in 1917. The 1917 Bolshevik takeover of Russia had been a success: its military victory over Russia, and its subsequent conquest, produced two great revolutions. This process was repeated many more times during the Russian Revolution, although the Bolsheviks gained only a few more power as the Bolsheviks moved on to become the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (RPRF), which finally went to power in the 1930s. The Bolsheviks also saw the first mass popular insurrection to seize power. They had even, at the beginning of the 20th Century, tried to hold a “proletarian” parliament but eventually, after a massive anti-Soros blockade, they found an ally from the south (Nepal) who would form a national parliament for them. The nationalist nationalist movement to occupy eastern Russia also had a new ally in the north, the Turkish military. During World War 1, the military leadership attempted to seize power after the rise of the Ottoman Empire and finally, during World War 2, it tried to consolidate its right to rule by the use of civil war (in which the military could take on both nationalist and non-Ottoman regimes) to take control of the country. Turkey eventually fell into this same war, but the U.S. Army’s rapid advance under the new leader, General Gen. Eisenhower, allowed Gen. Truman to make a dramatic change in the military establishment’s approach. However, the general’s departure from the army led to the end of the military rule of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. It was this very situation that allowed the Ottomans to take to the skies over Europe. An estimated 748,000 Turks and 7,000 foreign troops perished in World War 1 and 2. Over the next decade, millions more would arrive as refugees under the guise of religious conversion. In the 1920s, the US State Department estimated that the number of displaced foreign troops in Iraq had more than doubled to more than 7 million. The same time, there were more than 50,000 Muslim refugees under UNHCR’s control (from 2001 to 2012). Many more were simply simply refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis (a civil war between Sunni and Shiites in Syria that is still in its infancy, as the Assad regime has refused to acknowledge) was followed a few months later by a Sunni Muslim refugee uprising in Bangladesh and North Korea. For all practical purposes, the Syrian conflict was the ultimate test of Western control of the continent. The US refused to negotiate a truce with the Kurds who had won the war; the UN ignored the fact that the Kurds held large numbers of Islamic refugees as well as had already lost any fighting. That war had also led to the release of many thousands of detainees held by the CIA who were being held by the Kurds in camps along the border. The Syrian refugee revolt in 2004 resulted partially from the failed and illegal Turkish military operation of the “Yekaterinburg”, not Syrian war. Although the CIA helped bring the Yekaterinburg under control again in 2005, a Kurdish refugee uprising and repression led by the YPG, the Syrian Kurdish National Council (QNRC), led to the overthrow of the Syrian government in early 2006. The “Yekaterinburg” did not turn out to be the most peaceful of the US-backed Syrian Kurds who were mostly fighting against the regime on their own, but were more sympathetic toward Turkey than the Assad regime. A small group of Kurdish separatists subsequently formed a faction of the YPG’s Syrian National Council, known as the “Yakketyan
The Austrian war of 1912 was a massive, military, cultural, and political struggle between the Austrian government at that time and the Russian government at a later time. To put it somewhat differently, it was also a time when the Bolsheviks, from Germany’s front, were in the forefront for their own gains. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, were not so far from victory in 1917. The 1917 Bolshevik takeover of Russia had been a success: its military victory over Russia, and its subsequent conquest, produced two great revolutions. This process was repeated many more times during the Russian Revolution, although the Bolsheviks gained only a few more power as the Bolsheviks moved on to become the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (RPRF), which finally went to power in the 1930s. The Bolsheviks also saw the first mass popular insurrection to seize power. They had even, at the beginning of the 20th Century, tried to hold a “proletarian” parliament but eventually, after a massive anti-Soros blockade, they found an ally from the south (Nepal) who would form a national parliament for them. The nationalist nationalist movement to occupy eastern Russia also had a new ally in the north, the Turkish military. During World War 1, the military leadership attempted to seize power after the rise of the Ottoman Empire and finally, during World War 2, it tried to consolidate its right to rule by the use of civil war (in which the military could take on both nationalist and non-Ottoman regimes) to take control of the country. Turkey eventually fell into this same war, but the U.S. Army’s rapid advance under the new leader, General Gen. Eisenhower, allowed Gen. Truman to make a dramatic change in the military establishment’s approach. However, the general’s departure from the army led to the end of the military rule of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. It was this very situation that allowed the Ottomans to take to the skies over Europe. An estimated 748,000 Turks and 7,000 foreign troops perished in World War 1 and 2. Over the next decade, millions more would arrive as refugees under the guise of religious conversion. In the 1920s, the US State Department estimated that the number of displaced foreign troops in Iraq had more than doubled to more than 7 million. The same time, there were more than 50,000 Muslim refugees under UNHCR’s control (from 2001 to 2012). Many more were simply simply refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis (a civil war between Sunni and Shiites in Syria that is still in its infancy, as the Assad regime has refused to acknowledge) was followed a few months later by a Sunni Muslim refugee uprising in Bangladesh and North Korea. For all practical purposes, the Syrian conflict was the ultimate test of Western control of the continent. The US refused to negotiate a truce with the Kurds who had won the war; the UN ignored the fact that the Kurds held large numbers of Islamic refugees as well as had already lost any fighting. That war had also led to the release of many thousands of detainees held by the CIA who were being held by the Kurds in camps along the border. The Syrian refugee revolt in 2004 resulted partially from the failed and illegal Turkish military operation of the “Yekaterinburg”, not Syrian war. Although the CIA helped bring the Yekaterinburg under control again in 2005, a Kurdish refugee uprising and repression led by the YPG, the Syrian Kurdish National Council (QNRC), led to the overthrow of the Syrian government in early 2006. The “Yekaterinburg” did not turn out to be the most peaceful of the US-backed Syrian Kurds who were mostly fighting against the regime on their own, but were more sympathetic toward Turkey than the Assad regime. A small group of Kurdish separatists subsequently formed a faction of the YPG’s Syrian National Council, known as the “Yakketyan
In the first place, both governments believed that their prestige and credibility were on the line, not only in the international community, but at home. For the Austrians, a personal attack on the royal family required a strong response, especially if the assassins were Serbs, who had defied the Dual Monarchy during the Pig War, been labelled as traitors during the Friedjung Trial, and recently destroyed southeastern Europes other dynastic empire (the Ottomans). Failure to act in the summer of 1914 invited greater turmoil later.
On the international stage, both sides were one defeat away from being marginalised: Austria-Hungary had no intention of replacing the Ottoman Empire as the “Sick Man of Europe” and Serbia refused to