As Austria- Hungary began to develop (-not unlike Germany), she would have Imperialist ambitions of an empire. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire (into Balkan nations) perfectly coincided with this, and would give an excellent opportunity for Austria in one fell swoop, accumulate territories which lost its Ottoman control. However, despite the Imperialist opportunity for Austria- Hungary presenting itself, the growing power and the independence of the Balkan nations (especially, particularly Serbia) became a major concern for Austria- Hungary. The strong show of Balkan Independence, the Austrian- Hungarians feared, would precipitate a break- up of its multi- ethnic state, which comprised of seven Balkan nationalities, as the Austrian- Hungarian- Balkan (especially the Serbian) populace became disgruntled of the independence of their (now) sovereign nations elsewhere. (Serbia’s gains in the subsequent dividing out of previous Ottoman territories would provide a state to the Austrian- Hungarian Serbs to turn to. Serbia’s territorial gains would reach new heights again, after the successive repulsion of Bulgaria (in the Second Balkan War (who, after capturing territories, wanted more)), by increasing her land area by 80% and population by 50%.) So it became clear they wanted independence from Austria- Hungary, as was once wanted from the Ottomans, especially given Serbia’s emergence of a major Balkan power.
Should Austria successfully capture (and annexe these states) - the flame for independence would be doused and thoughts for revolt would be crushed. And thus emerged the example of how Austria- Hungary, theoretically (and metaphorically, of course) kill two birds with one stone- satisfying Imperialist desires and preserving sovereign integrity through the effective takeover of Serbia or other Balkan states.
Austria- Hungary annexing Bosnia (who wanted Serbian rule) (as an intermediary measure to sober Serbian intentions) (and to precipitate the slow decay of the Ottoman Empire, other an which would cause war) exacerbated tensions, to the extent that a Bosnian Serb assassinated Austrian throne heir presumptive Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg. One could justifiably assume revenge (, the Imperialist ambitions and the crushing of Balkan nationalism) as the three primary aims of Austria- Hungary, in context.
Austria- Hungary’s actions are crucial to the understanding and the judging of responsibility. Austria’s cluster of actions having the significant on the events prior to the war come in the form of the July Crisis, when Austria’s heir presumptive is assassinated. Firstly, Austria issues an Ultimatum- which, in short, demanded the relinquishment of Serbian sovereignty to the Austrian- Hungarian State. This was made clearer in the sixth demand (which Serbia rejected), which demanded for Austrian police to have jurisdiction within Serbian borders and to investigate themselves links to the terrorist group, the “Black Hand” (which the assassin belonged to). The issuance of the Ultimatum was aggressive- the demands impossible to agree to without compromising sovereign integrity, and the existence of the State of Serbia itself. After the war, it was made clear that the demands of the Ultimatum were in fact intentionally made impossible to agree to- precipitating some form of retaliation from Austria- Hungary (upon Serbia’s refusal), be that diplomatically or (quite certainly,) through military means. This shows Austrian- Hungarian aggression and want for war.
Admittedly, Austria- Hungary’s role in events prior to the war only dramatically increased in magnitude and aggression as time went on- it was in latter stages of relative peace that Austria- Hungary issued the Ultimatum. Considering past events, what is the extent of Austria- Hungary’s responsibility for causing the war?
Serbia’s actions are not much justified, I think. Colonialism was a fever that swept the few capable, European states. In addition, Austria- Hungary’s foreign policy on was not as aggressive as Germany’s Weltpolitik, which was the most aggressive nationalist- Imperialist policy. The possibility of Austria going to war on these terms is negligible and unlikely when considering other, perhaps more important factors (in comparison to the dwarfed, insignificant ambitions which no doubt would be swept aside). Whether it did, or not, going to war on Imperialist whims is not justified. Austria- Hungary’s actions of annexing Bosnia on the grounds sovereign integrity were perhaps cautious- and then excessive. While these halted Serbian territorial gains (and perhaps a revolt,) (and slowed down the Ottoman collapse), the tensions in Balkan regions skyrocketed as Serbia no doubt saw clearly that Austria- Hungary had no intentions of serving to Serbia’s interest. Despite this, however, I feel this action did not add to the pre- war tensions and were then, therefore, justified. Finally, the intention of revenge is perhaps the most significant and the other purely peripheral to this. Had the Serbian state sponsor the act of terrorism, the actions taken on the basis of retaliating to an act of state sponsored terrorism would be justified. Despite this, there was no evidence to support this, and so Austria’s subsequent Ultimatum and premature declaration of war may have been overly aggressive and excessive- only seeing to defeat Serbian forces, invade Serbia and only then doing as they saw fit with who they saw as the Archduke’s killer. This provokes one to wonder whether the assassination was a pretext for the accomplishment of the other two intentions.
When considering these three factors, the overly aggressive Ultimatum and the perhaps premature declaration of war, one may consider the responsibility of WWI heavy, despite having justification of sovereign integrity, annexing Bosnia. However, in summation, who is to say that a little more diplomacy and prudence could have prevented the destruction and the deaths of so many?
Serbia, in relation to Austria- Hungary, can be considered the flipside of the coin, with events and contextual factors shared or interlinked.
As the Austrian- Hungarians looked on warily, the fall of the Ottoman Empire provided for Serbian expansion within the Balkans. Serbia increased dramatically, both in land area and population. This alarmed Austria- Hungary. Serbia’s intentions did have undertones sour to Austrian- Hungarian interests- to grow from a major Balkan power to a major European power. And, from that platform, to expand in the Balkan area, capture Bosnia and reunite Serbs (which would include Austrian Serbs). In all fairness, Serbian intentions did not directly aim towards precipitating the breakup of Austria- Hungary, but despite this, there would be a shift in power, and Austria- Hungary, as a neighbour (and an obstacle to Serbian unity) had to retain a wary and cautious approach, perhaps considering how far Serbia would go to reuniting her people.
So what exactly did Serbia do in the events prior to the war? What effect did these have?
Serbia began territorial expansion after the Second Balkan War, which is hardly an act of aggression towards Austria- Serbia. Whatever aggressive strategy this is perceived as, it was lesser than that of Austria’s. Such action is justified- it needed to expand to meet the demands of the economy and the populace; to gain a foothold in the continent as a nation.
Though Serbia never did claim Bosnia as her own, the declaration even then, did not in any way threaten Austria- Hungary, with the exception of the fears it evoked, of which, were possible- theoretical, but not founded and quite unrealistic. In any case, the intention was to unite all Serbian people, which was justifiable.
The refusal of the Ultimatum is perhaps complex to argue whether or not it holds responsibility to start of the war. Whilst preserving sovereignty was vital, and influenced decision most- one may ask if Serbia accepted all the terms of the Ultimatum whether the war would have broken out. Austria- Hungary would be unlikely to declare war once the Austrian police had ingratiated it within Serbian circles, to slowly decay its independence. Despite these conflicts of sacrifice, I believe that the refusal was justified; despite the war that ensued (other factors and other nations would have played a part).
Assuming that Serbia did not sponsor the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, I believe their responsibility of causing the war to be minimal, much more so than Austria- Hungary’s. Serbia did not, for example, immediately press for war to settle the matter. Serbia acted solely in the interests of itself; uniting its people, expanding (to reasonable lengths,) territorially and rejecting the Ultimatum.
In conclusion, Serbia’s responsibility and role which lead to war in 1914 was that of a lesser one, if negligible in accordance to her virtually nonexistent expansionist or aggressive aims, acting solely for the interests for its people, whereas that of Austria- Hungary’s was greater with her aggressive strategies with unnecessary Balkan ambitions to fight a long, bloody war.
by
michaelyip (student)
