The Start of World War I: The Background of the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand

In the formation of a black hole, a dying star collapses in on itself. Much can be said about the start of World War I, with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand being the presumed event horizon, or the point of no return. From our brief education on World War I, we are acquainted with the story of an Austrian Archduke being murdered by a Serb in Bosnia. But what is less known and understood is how this exploded into the first major modern war, kickstarting the developments of the 20th century.

We still observe the aftermath in the 21st century in international diplomacy, civil rights movements, technologies and types of rulership. This article will demonstrate how European alliances set themselves up for war. Afterall, without these alliances, paranoias and tensions, this could have just become known as the Austro-Serbia war of 1914. This essay will start by revisiting the events of June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, when Gavrilo Princip shot Franz Ferdinand. It will also establish the context of that fateful day, and the start of the war as historians tend to recognise it. We shall then examine the wider European atmosphere leading up to the 20th century, which was based in two camps: the Triple Alliance, composed of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy, and the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia. Finally, we will consider how local tensions came to involve the rest of Europe, and discuss how these events influenced this period of history.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not intended to become the start of an international crisis, but started off as a nationalist cause, undertaken by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. Austria continued to impose their dominance in the Baltic region even after Serbia declared independence. This was done through the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, then the founding of Albania in 1912. The former was perceived as an indirect threat to their independence, as it reminded Serbia that Austria was able to exercise authority in the Balkan area. However, the bigger threat was the latter source of tension. Although Serbia had doubled in size, and beat the Ottomans with the Baltic League, Austria still asserted its power by demanding that the Adriatic port be kept from Serbia. By doing so, Austria forced Serbia out of Albanian territory, ensuring the Empire still had greater dominium.

Therefore, the significance of this assassination, and why it is the starting point of World War I, rests on these past agitations. But the catalyst would come later. Perhaps, Princip and his fellow nationalists were overconfident in the victory in the Balkans. Perhaps, they thought they could take on the Austro-Hungarian Empire with the Balkan League, or their Slavic ally, and great European power, Russia. Perhaps, it was another demonstration of strength and resistance. Whatever the motives, Austria was determined not to be defeated by what they saw as an inferior and minor state.

Austria’s ultimatum, sent nearly a month after the Archduke was killed, accused Serbia of anarchy and demanded several things: the suppression of Austro-phobic activity; judicial steps taken towards the perpetrators of the assassination, and inclusion and deference to Austria in the proceedings. Serbia’s rather backhanded response demanded clarity from Austria, requiring proof of anti-Austrian activity and names of those they accused of aiding in the assassination. It is clear that Serbia took Austria to be over-suspicious and overdramatic about past events. As for including Austria in the proceedings, they refused, claiming it would be unconstitutional, but that they would collaborate and inform them on their independent decisions. Yet, this did not meet Austria’s demands, as it had a tone of reclaiming power over Serbia, or at least wanting to retain influence over the Baltic area.

The Serbia’s response and mobilisation of their army looked to Austria to be preparations for war, and thus, on July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war against Serbia. As we can see, there was a bigger issue than the shooting of an archduke: the murder of the Austria-Hungarian heir to the throne symbolised the withering of their dominance and strength, something they could not stand for because of national pride. This is considered the ‘event horizon’ for many historians, if we return to the black hole metaphor. It is the outer ring of the event horizon, certainly, but not the ‘point of no return’. This status should be credited to the events that followed the declaration of war; the mustering of the two alliance’s armies, a process that was propelled by the nation that would ultimately bear the blame for this war, Germany.  A common theme of each alliance is that they were made in anticipation of unexpected attacks and war breaking out. Adding onto the other blocks of tension that century’s diplomatic relations were built on, such as the arms race, competitive markets, naval rivalries, and obsessions with prestige, the fear of impending war meant the countries rushed to form alliances against their enemies, knowing that their enemy could be stronger. 

To understand why Germany played such a central role at the start of the war,  we should reminisce on the events of 1871 when the powerful principality Prussia united the German states in central Europe. As a great military power, and wealthy nation, the new German Kaisers demanded respect from their fellow nations, desiring to be viewed with as much prestige as Britain or Russia. There were preconceived tensions brewing, mostly due to the Kaisers’ paranoia about their fellow monarchs. Thus, Germany allied with Austria-Hungary in 1879, and Italy in 1882. Although Germany did sign a Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1887, the Kaiser sacrificed this for an attempt to gain an alliance with Britain, likely to protect its gains in Asia. With Britain’s refusal, however, the Triple Alliance was renewed and Russia chose to ally with France, agreeing to attack Germany if the nation attacked them, likely because Russia was already being weakened by a war in Japan and revolutionary activity. Thus, Germany was surrounded by enemies. Russia and France expanded their Entente to include Britain in 1907, specifying that this decision was made against Germany. The agreement proved that Germany’s expansionist, ambitious tendencies and paranoia were seen as a threat to Europe. 

In addition, Austria waited to give Serbia an ultimatum until they were assured of German backing. Due to common ethnic heritage, they knew that Russia would support Serbia. Involving Russia would also mean involving France and Great Britain if the situation escalated beyond control because of their Triple Entente. Given Serbia’s aforementioned history in the Balkan Wars, fighting Russia and Serbia was not a risk Austria-Hungary was willing to take alone. With their backing, they went ahead with the ultimatum and, as anticipated, Serbia appealed to their Slavic neighbour, who began to mobilise. What stands out here is how Austria would not act without Germany. This dependence made Germany the centre of the war, as it would be Kaiser Wilhelm II who would send two ultimatums: one to Russia, demanding demobilisation, and the other to France, giving them 18 hours to declare neutrality if war between Germany and Russia broke out. That final clause is of particular note, as Germany seemed to expect Russian involvement, even in spite of its domestic problems.

Nevertheless, the failure of the Reinsurance Treaty meant both had the chance to turn on each other. This left Germany vulnerable on its eastern and western borders, bringing us to the Schlieffen plan. This meant that effectively Germany wanted to knock France out of the war first before facing Russia. This made sense theoretically, as Germany knew Russia would take time to reach full mobilisation, meaning they didn’t have to worry about fighting a war on two fronts. The success of this plan, however, meant violating Belgian autonomy and neutrality that had been agreed on in the Treaty of London 1839, with Great Britain as their guarantor. Yet, Kaiser Wilhelm went ahead with the invasion, killing innocent civilians and exploiting their economy. When he refused Britain’s ultimatum, the Anglo-French Naval plans became operational and the army mobilised, as the UK officially entered the war. And thus, we have passed the so-called event horizon. With the European powers fighting each other, their empires in Asia and Africa as well as Britain’s allies in the Americas were also involved in the tensions. What could have remained the Austro-Serbian War exploded into an all out world war because of past alliances, and the actions of Germany tying Western Europe into the affairs of Eastern Europe. With this as the backdrop, it meant the shooting of an Austrian Archduke was a valid justification to actively utilise the alliances.  

But what should be considered as the event horizon, if not the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? I have argued that the ‘armed peace’, a term coined by historian Bernadotte Schmitt, formed by the two camps, set the stage for an inevitable war, and it would be the assassination of the Austrian Archduke that gave them the justification to test who is truly the dominant power in Europe. Thus, the increasing tensions and ambitions of Europe is the true event horizon. It cannot be pinned to a specific event, as Europe set its own descent. Ultimately, it is here we see the paradox of the origins of World War I; the rapid escalation to the point of world war within a month had been steadily rising for the past 100 years. This must be acknowledged in future historiography – World War One did not start because of one event, but instead because of a series of complex stories that converge into a pressure point, condensing the nations to be sucked into the Black Hole of War.

Written by Steph Pook.

Bibliography

Baumgart, Winifred. “The July Crisis of 1914 and the Outbreak of the First World War”. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 92, no.11 (2022):S1090-S1097.

Dickenson, Frederick R. “The View from Japan: War and Peace in Europe around 1914”. In An Improbable War: the Outbreak of World War I and European Political Culture before 1914. Edited by Holger Afflerback & David Stevenson. 303-319. New York: Berghahn Books, 2012.  

Hamilton, Richard F. “The European Wars: 1815-1914”. In The Origins of World War 1, edited by Richard F Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig. 45-92. Cambridge; NewYork: Cambridge University Press 2003. 

History.com Editors. “World War One” HISTORY. May 24, 2023. Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/world-war-i-history.

Nilesh, Preeta. “Belgian Neutrality and the First World War: Some Insights.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 45 (2014):1012-1017.

Rose, Andreas. “The Policy of Drift? Balance of Power, Concert of Europe, or Political Power Blocs?”. In Between Empire and Continent: British Foreign Policy before the First World War. Berghahn Books 2019,  translated by Rona Johnston.

Schmitt, Bernadotte E. “Triple Alliance and Triple Entente”. The American Historical Review 29, no.3 (1924): 449-473.

Showalter, D.E. and John Graham Royde-Smith. “World War I”. Encyclopedia Britannica. (acc 10/07/23).

Simmonds, Alan G.V. Britain and World War One. Abingdon; Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2012.

Williamson, Samuel R. “Influence, Power and the Polit Process: The Case of Franz Ferdinand 1906-1914.” The Historical Journal 17, no.2 (1974): 417-434.

Zagare, Frank C. “After Sarajevo: Explaining the Blank Check”. International Interactions 35, no.1 (2009): 106-127.

“Austria’s Ultimatum to Serbia”. Current History (1916-1940) 9, no.3 (1918): 554-558.

Royal Mob. Sky History. November 7, 2022 – November 28, 2022. Television Broadcast.

Images

Beltrame, Achille. Illustration of the assassination in the Italian Newspaper La Domenica del Corriere, 1914, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis.

European diplomatic alignments before the war. Germany and the Ottoman Empire allied after the outbreak of war, 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#.

Harding, Nelson. “A threatening SItuation”. 1912. From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I.