Y WWI start?

Question

Why did WWI start in the first place?

Answer 1

Tony B. has given you a solid answer. History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914. This is the typical explanation.
From a Balkan perspective, it is crucial to look at the actors and decision-makers who were at work during the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the two states involved in the original Sarajevo crisis. Doing so highlights factors that are somewhat different from those at work among the Great Powers at large, or those cited in general explanations for the war.
General treatments of the European crisis of 1914 often blame Great Power statesmen for their shortsightedness, incompetence, or failure to act in a timely or effective way to keep the peace. A common theme is the passive nature of Great Power policy: leaders reacted to events instead of managing the crisis. With some justification, scholars conclude that French leaders had little choice: France was the object of a German invasion. England in turn entered the war because a successful German attack on France and Belgium would have made Germany too powerful. Both Germany and Russia mobilized their armies in haste, because each one feared defeat by powerful enemies if they delayed. Germany and Russia also rashly committed themselves to support Balkan clients -- Austria-Hungary and Serbia, respectively -- because Berlin and St. Petersburg feared that failure to do so would cost them the trust of important allies and leave them isolated.

Answer 2

Although it is fair to say that the assassination of the Austrian Archduke was the incident that led to the outbreak of shooting there were many reasons why it was so dangerous. The major powers of Europe were afraid of one-and-other, and each had been building up large scale military forces, at great expense, for the previous two decades. One alliance was between Germany and Austria. The other was France and Russia - both of whom had "understandings" with Britain. Germany and Austria had diplomatic quarrels with Russia and Britain over issues in South Eastern Europe, where the small country of Serbia was a trouble making nuisance. Serbia and Austria shared a border, and Serbia wanted some of the lands - and their populations - that were ruled by the Austrians, and allowed terrorist groups to operate against Austria from bases within Serbia proper. What made this so serious was that Serbia was under the "protection" of Russia, so any action by Austria against Serbia would start a war between Austria and Russia, which would bring in their allies Germany and France. The assassination of the Arch-Duke - the heir to the Austrian throne, provoked Austria into invading Serbia to try to stop such terrorist actions in future. The rest is history as the other major powers around the world joined in the ever-spreading conflict.
I also agree with John I's answer

Answer 3

Just studied it at school hehe

main reasons are

-some Serbians shoot Franz Ferdinand cos he carried on a trialistic view of the Austro-Hungarian Empire , which means he wanted to give the same kind of semi-independence to the Slavic population just as Hungary had some years before. Serbia wanted to gather all the Slavic people under it's rule , not under Austria's one.

-It was a hard period at that time, there was a lot of tension going on between several european countries:
--Austria wanted to rule the Balkans
--Serbia wanted the independence and wanted to form
"Great Serbia" with all the slavic populations under its rule.
--The Turkish Empire was on crisis
--Germany was carrying on an offensive politic :they defied
the UK on what concerned the sea power , they had a
long-term tension with France and they didn't get along with
Russia aswell.

-For economic reasons : the contemporary industries wanted to use the weapons they'd been producing for the past pacific 3 decades ,they even had new weapons to test.

-The Ideology of that time was pro-war . War was seen as a good thing to wash away what was bad ( see Hegel's philosophy for example) . At that time , then , some philosophies and ideologies introduced the idea of strong nationalisms , superiority of a population on another one and , last but not least, Darwin's ideas were misunderstood from some people and seen as a " the strongest survives" thing.


Sorry for my English hope u understand!

Answer 4

There was no one particular answer, it was a snowball effect of discontent & partisan politics spreading throughout Europe. The spark that ignited the war happened on June 28, 1914, when Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and his wife, in Sarajevo after purchasing a sandwich. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary (see also: the Black Hand). The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that escalated into a full-scale war.

Answer 5

One can assume from what is written about history, that the reasons for an action and the actual events leading up to an action, are for the most part supposition and hearsay.

We may know or believe that an ultimatum was given with regard to investigating an assasination, but there may well have been other underlying issues which were the true cause of the tension.

I see the reasons given as the excuse for war, rather than the explanation for the action taken.

In my interpretation, the Austrians and the Germans were in collusion to take over the French ski resorts because they had inferior altitude and snow records. Switzerland stayed neutral in this argument, as they speak French and German and so there was not misunderstandings from either side.

In conclusion, I would say the main reason for the outbreak of war in the summer was to do with who had the best summer skiing resort. The Austrians and the Germans did not have one, and so they decided to invade France via Belgium and Luxembourg.

They used this strange route to divert attention from the true goal, which was domination of the Alps. Also they wanted to irritate the British, as they kept losing at football.

Answer 6

No she asks why, not how. They are 2 different questions and the above replies answer HOW they started not WHY. Ok the basic reason of WWI was that imperialist major (i call them exploiters) states were trying to keep their colonies for themselves (UK, France) where more lately formed major states wanted their lot in exploiting since they didnt have any dependencies (Germany, Italy). Italy changed sides later and fought a couple of battles which they were unsuccessful against Ottomans but later managed to invade Libya thx to Turks fighting in numerous fronts. Turks (Ottomans) were on Germany's side to keep their dependencies for themselves (Turks did not exploit them since Ottoman Empire was not industrial at all) and allow Germans to be the industrializing power behind them. That failed tho. Russians were at UK-France's side so that they would be able to get down to warm seas. They failed as well thx to revolution in 1917 before the war ended. WWII started cuz German Nazis thought they were badly treated in WWI. And again dependency problem kicked in of course. Even if they didnt have any reason, they would have created one with all the "arming oneself contest" that they won.

Answer 7

The simplest answer is that Gavrillo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

The complicated answer is all the royal families of Europe had vested interests in sovereignty and treaties which wouldn't or couldn't stop them from taking the final step

Answer 8

Some guy got shot in former Yugoslavia. Serbs shot a prince I think.

Answer 9

Ive heard it was the shooting of Franz Ferdinand that sparked it, by that I mean the general not the rock band!

Answer 10

On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and his wife, in Sarajevo after purchasing a sandwich. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary (see also: the Black Hand). The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that escalated into a full-scale war. However, the ultimate causes of the conflict were multiple and complex.

Arms races
The naval arms race that developed between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary warship that rendered all previous battleships obsolete. (Britain maintained a large lead over Germany in all categories of warship.) Paul Kennedy has pointed out that both nations believed in Alfred Thayer Mahan's thesis that command of the sea was vital to a great nation.

David Stevenson described the armaments race as "a self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness", while David Herrman viewed the shipbuilding rivalry as part of a general movement towards war. However, Niall Ferguson argues that Britain’s ability to maintain an overall advantage signifies that change within this realm was insignificant and therefore not a factor in the movement towards war.

Plans, distrust and mobilization
Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the war plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer and his followers have emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia. Conflict on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other, relying on a strict timetable. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by preempting its mobilization.

After the attack, the German army would then rush to the eastern front by railroad and quickly destroy the more slowly mobilizing military of Russia.

In a greater context, France's own Plan XVII called for an offensive thrust into Germany’s industrial Ruhr Valley which would cripple Germany’s ability to wage war.

Russia’s revised Plan XIX implied a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.

All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs were anxious to take the initiative and seize decisive victories. Elaborate mobilization plans with precise timetables had been prepared. Once the mobilization orders were issued, it was understood by both generals and statesmen alike that there was little or no possibility of turning back or a key advantage would be sacrificed. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, which resulted in delays from hours to even days.

Militarism and autocracy
President of the United States Woodrow Wilson and other observers blamed the war on militarism.[2] The idea was that aristocrats and military elites had too much control over Germany, Russia and Austria, and the war was a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. This was a theme that figured prominently in anti-German propaganda, which cast Kaiser Wilhelm II and Prussian military tradition in a negative light. Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of such rulers, the end of the aristocratic system and the end of militarism — all of which justified American entry into the war once Czarist Russia dropped out of the Allied camp.

Wilson hoped the League of Nations and universal disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged variations of militarism that, in his opinion, existed within the British and French political systems.

Economic imperialism
Vladimir Lenin asserted that the worldwide system of imperialism was responsible for the war. In this, he drew upon the economic theories of Karl Marx and English economist John A. Hobson, who had earlier predicted the outcome of economic imperialism, or unlimited competition for expanding markets, would lead to a global military conflict.[3] This argument proved popular in the immediate wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Marxism and Communism. Lenin argued that large banking interests in the various capitalist-imperialist powers had pulled the strings in the various governments and led them into the war.[4]

Trade barriers
Cordell Hull believed that trade barriers were the root cause of both World War I and World War II, and designed the Bretton Woods Agreements to reduce trade barriers, and thus eliminate what he saw as the root cause of the two world wars.

International bond and financial markets entered severe crises in late July and early August; this reflected worry about the financial consequences of war.

Culmination of European history
A localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable due to Austria-Hungary’s deteriorating world position and the Pan-Slavic separatist movement in the Balkans. The expansion of such ethnic sentiments coincided with the growth of Serbia and the decline of the Ottoman Empire, as the latter had formerly held sway over much of the region. Imperial Russia also supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic loyalties, dissatisfaction with Austria (dating back to the Crimean War) and a century-old dream of a warm water port.[5] For Germany, their location in the center of Europe led to the decision for an active defense, culminating in the Schlieffen Plan.

You could get more information from the link below...