Part 1: Compare and Contrast question (instruction item #2) due Monday for "E" and Tuesday for "A" class.
Origins and Causes of World War 1 Final Assessment
Origins and Causes of World War 1 Final Assessment
1. Watch part one and two of the "Origins of World War 1" youtube video posted on the website or click on the link below.
Origins of World War One
Origins of World War One
2. Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
Respond to the document based question above using the Paper 1 template given to you in class.
3. Using one of the resources in the "useful links" section of the website locate 2 documents for analysis related to the economic, idealogical, political, or religious origins/casuses of the First World War.
This can be an:
- article
- picture
- cartoon
- short video
4. Post the documents, or links to the documents on the blog under the DBQ post that has been created with the question below:
With reference to their origin and purpose, discuss the value and limitations of Source 1 and Source 2 for Historians studying the "Origins and Causes" of the First World War.
I think this is the correct place to put it.
ReplyDeleteA History of the Modern World states that tensions, caused by every country wanting to be a leading country, was a long term cause on World War 1. This is important to understand this because it was important to see that the countries were very competitive with one another at the time. So this also goes on to explain that when Germany started gaining power, England became so intimidated that they formed an alliance with France and Russia, creating the web of alliances, in other words, a short term cause of World War 1. This source also states that the crisis surrounding Morocco as well as the Balkans were also long term causes of World War 1 much like the YouTube video, Origins of World War 1 Pt. 1 and 2, states. Although the YouTube video both state that the two crisis-es were long term causes on World War 1, only the book states a tension was also a cause.
Although the YouTube video is much shorter in length, and therefore less detailed, it seems to give the basic idea of what caused the World War to begin in the first place. Like the book, the YouTube video states that the forming of the Alliances just created more tensions, implying that every country though war was inevitable. Both sources also agree that the spark to the war, or the immediate cause of World War 1 was the assassination of Austria-Hungary's Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Both sources are very similar in the sense that they agree on what were the causes of World War 1, however the video is shorter with fewer details, while the book is more detailed, but over both A History of the Modern World an Origins of World War 1 Pt. 1 and 2 both agree on what caused the outbreak of World War 1.
In the video, is describes the long term causes of the First World War as lying in imperialist tensions over protectorates, and spheres of influence. As European countries had become so reliant upon foreign trade, to buy specific goods and secure a market to sell their own, maintaining and expanding these colonies was essential. However, the entire world had been divided up by the turn of the century. This meant that countries could only gain further dominance, at the expense of other powers. In the textbook, it describes this in a similar but slightly different way. That Europe’s imperialist expansion was a form of expression; which showed individual achievement and greatness in the main European Powers, although both go on to describe Germany’s rivalry and disruption to the previously dominant empires. They both put significance to Germany’s industrial advancements, as it caused them to act bolder and envious when competing for Imperialist territory. The video describes this imperialism as more essential to the further development, and sustaining of, each European economy. It also puts Germany at the forefront of tension with their new and unwanted aspirations.
ReplyDeleteThe mid-term consequences are described in the video as the arms race, and the two main alliances in Europe. However these are only mentioned briefly, as it is a shorter and less detailed source than the comprehensive, more researched information in the textbook. It does no specify to an extent that started the arms race, more that is was a succession of military gain and equilibrium of the countries. As one gained ground, the other caught up and so on. The book describes this as being predominantly caused in the first place by Germany’s decision to build a Navy. This angered Britain, and caused them to compete. Both countries spent a lot of money, which expresses their competition, another factor of imperialist tension. The alliances in the book are described in the same way. These alliances were Austria Hungary, Germany and earlier Italy; against Britain, France and Russia. However in the book, it describes in more detail about the weak and unreliable relationship and nature of the British agreement with France. These agreements are both described as a cause of tension, and led all of Europe into a war if only two major countries started to fight.
In both sources it describes the assignation of Francis Ferdinand as the major short term cause of the war. His death led to the succession of declarations, which bought all of Europe into battle. However, in the book it describes the pre-determined near absolution of war, stating this was not a cause but a catalyst to the inevitable. The long and short term consequences had caused enough tension to spark a war in the event of anything at this time, Meaning this had very little to do with the actual war itself, just acting as a catalyst to pre-existing bad relations.
>.<
http://www.worldology.com/Europe/europe_history_lg.htm
ReplyDeleteGerman aggressiveness and France (Franco Prussian war)
The German part describes the Germany political shift, with Wilhelm II taking power from his Father, and dispelling Bismarck. It is valuable as it describes how Germany’s leadership was a main factor in the war. However, it also describes Germany as a rising economic power. Leadership would not have averted the inevitable struggle for power in Europe, with the newly rising Germany and the British and French predominant power. This source comes from an online database of maps, which show the geographic representation of the world borders of this time. Furthermore, it gives a relatively detailed analysis not only on the individual countries, but various aspects of their interactions during this time. It is only limited to Europe, however, and cannot show the Geographic empirical and Imperial struggles which were going on around the world during this time. As a result of this, Germany usually got poorer or smaller imperialist lands to deal with. This describes their harsh treatment in these lands, and their aggressiveness towards the people and the rest of Europe. It is useful to study this as a source, as it gives a main reason on why tension developed between Germany, Britain and France; which in turn led to all the other European countries being condemned to war.
The Franco Prussian war was a main factor in the war. France held bitter resentment about the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. This was an important factor in the war, only being disputed after the Second World War. It added to the tension already created by imperialism and industrial/military competition. The limitation of this is that it does not give the reason for Germany’s annexation. This could be a major factor in why no other country helped France in the war, because it was a local conflict kept to only the two countries.
Jacob Lunden-Welden
ReplyDeleteIBH history, E
Mr. Hamm
20/10-10
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video
The effects of World War One were many and mostly were not good, and some of them were good, however, how do they compare and contrast to each other. One immediate cause was a depression about the war, this is because after the war many people had died, and many had lost their families, and almost all countries were in a big debts. This made the winning side; France and Britain, to force Germany pay for the war costs for both of them, which was signed in a treaty. The war costs were extremely high and was estimated to be higher than Belgium’s total capital. This said, Germany had to mortgage their future because otherwise, they would not agree to the treaty and that would have been bad. This is also a short-term effect because after the war, the world entered an era known as “the Great Depression”. The Great depression was during the 1930’s and, therefore, is a short-term effect because it followed quickly after the war ended. The Great Depression was present all over the world because the European countries had colonies all over the world. This meant that when the colonizer needed money and resources they took it from their colony, making the living conditions very harsh in the colony. This is also a long-term effect as the depression lead to Second World War. This is because of the depression, people wanted to show that they were better than people thought of them and therefore a new arms race started, which lead to the creation of a new army and a new military.
Another effect of World War 1 is that Germany was blamed for most of the war. This is a long-term effect, as it took awhile for the Germans to show the world that they are better than people depict them. Because of this the Germans started creating better things and inventing new ways to once again get the respect of the world. However, this caused the world to see new inventions that shook the world in World War 2. This is also a long-term effect because it was not until late 1930’s that the war broke out, meaning that the Germans had enough and now wanted to show that they once again are a great power. This is not a short-term effect because it was almost 20 years before war broke out which is a rather long time. Also, this is not a short-term effect because even though Germany was blamed right away, it took a long time before Germany ould afford to create an army because of the Great Depression. Because of this exactly the same reason this is not an immediate effect.
Lastly, the new way of writing alliances is an immediate and short-term effect, but not a long-term effect. The World War 1 is usually blamed on the alliance systems that existed that made all the countries to enter the war. After the war the alliance system was changed, making it into an immediate effect, and new alliances were written with these new guidelines. The short-term effect is that because of the new alliance system new alliances were created between countries. This was thought of as a good thing because it meant that the European countries stuck together and helped each other. However, within short the new alliance system was proven to be a bad thing because once again the whole world, especially Europe, was dragged into a war. The new alliance system is not a long-term effect because it failed to deliver stability, and instead brought a new war. Because of this, the alliance system was not kept, making it to not be a long-term effect
Both resources state a couple different reasons for the start of the First World War. They both state that the long-term reason for the war was the ongoing imperialism and the scramble for colonies around the world, mainly in Africa and Asia. Both sources also agreed that the will to become the country, which was strongest industrially, was a long-term cause of the war. All European nations were competing to become the most industrialized nation and have the best and strongest trade. The book states that people in Germany wanted “a place in the sun”; the Germans wanted to be viewed as a powerful country like Britain and France. The book states this as one of the possible long term causes of the war, which is not discussed in the video.
ReplyDeleteThe video stated that the short-term causes of world war one were German military development, the arms race that followed, and creation of alliances. The German empire began getting increasingly stronger and built up an enormous army. This worried the other European nations and the countries started in an arms race to gain the strongest, biggest, and most powerful army in Europe. When the Germans built up a huge navy the British were angered since they had always had the biggest navy and they were now competing for control over the sea. A crucial cause of the war was the creation of alliances. This meant that once of the alliances went to war, their alliances had to lend a hand. This was the main reason this conflict turned into a world war instead of a single was between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. The alliances included the Triple Entente: France, England, and Russia; and the Triple Alliance: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire.
The immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian terrorist. In the textbook they state that once Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Austria seized the opportunity to use this as an excuse to crush the south-Slav separatist movement. So, they gave an ultimatum to Serbia where they demanded that Austrian officials would take part in the investigation and punishment of the assassinators. When Serbia did not agree, Austria-Hungary declared war upon Serbia. Serbia, counted on Russia to back them up and Germany promised to come to Austria-Hungary’s aid. With Russia entering the conflict, it meant France and England joining until almost all of Europe was involved with the war.
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
ReplyDeleteThese two sources both agree on what the long term, short term, and immediate causes of WWI are, but they differ in the amount of detail and information they give.
Both of these sources describe the numerous causes of WWI. The long term cause that was explained by both of these sources was the rising tension between the European nations due to imperialism. The powerful industrial European nations, such as Britain, France, Russia, and Germany, fought over areas in Africa and Asia for their abundant resources. The sources both mention that Britain had the largest empire and was the envy of Europe, but it doesn’t mention the details, such as the Fashoda Crisis and the Boer War, that made Britain so unpopular with the rest of Europe. The YouTube video also focused a lot on Britain in this area, and didn’t give many details on other European powers. The video talked a lot about Britain’s colonization of India, while the textbook talked more about Britain’s influence in Africa and the Far East. The sources emphasized how the most lucrative trade was with China, and how the European powers scrambled for influence in China.
The short term cause that was emphasized by both sources was the formation of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance that divided Europe into two sides. Once again the video only briefly mentions and describes these two alliances, by stating how Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy formed one side while Britain, France and Russia formed the other. The video doesn’t talk about Germany’s fear losing its growing presence in Europe, and it doesn’t talk about how Britain and France settled their past differences to form this alliance. However both sources do talk about Britain’s former policy of “splendid isolationism”.
Once again the two sources agree that the immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. While the textbook talks extensively about the series of events leading up to the actual declaration of war, the video summarizes it into a few short comments and doesn’t mention the ultimatum that was given to Serbia before the war.
Midas Rhoda
ReplyDeleteIBH History Y1
Per. A
10/24/10
When studying and analyzing WWI it is important to note and understand the causes and effects that lead to the war and its influence the world today. The causes in particular play an important role in investigating the true meaning and purpose of the war (or lack thereof). Comparing and contrasting two sources’ viewpoints in the causes (long term, short term, and immediate) of WWI, help uncover the roots that began this devastating war.
Both sources (Palmer’s “A History of the Modern World” text and the “Origins of World War 1 part 1 and 2” video) agree that the long term causes of WWI were that of an extremely competitive and imperialistic Europe. The tensions, due to this competition are on the whole, what led to WWI. Because all of Europe was fighting to be the most industrial, or the most powerful nation, huge sums of money were used in weapons even before war had started. The video (Causes of WWI) strongly stresses the arms buildup that led people to believe that war was inevitable. This raises the question of whether the arms buildup led to the war, or the thought of future war led to the arms buildup. The movie specifically, notes the competition of Germany and Britain in gaining the strongest navy. Although the movie implies that this competition between navy was a long term cause, the book presents this rivalry as more of a short term cause.
The short term causes are also stressed in both the movie and the text, both having the similar idea that the complex tangle of alliances, in part, led to the conflicts (immediate causes) that resulted in the Great War. Both sources show how the formation of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria Hungary, and Italy) and the Triple Entente ( Britain, France, and Russia) were vital reasons the war involved almost all countries in Europe (“World” War I). Because these alliance were so strong and powers were so loyal to their allies, once one country fought with another from the opposing alliance, soon all six powers were involved, which in a way blew the war way out of proportion. The competition mentioned above (long term causes) along with the alliances made, really did make the war almost inevitable. The book specifically implies that if it weren’t for these alliances, it is possible that the war would have been much smaller only involving 2 countries. (Austria and Serbia)On the other hand, the movie suggests that the war was inevitable not because of the alliances per say, but countries’ overall dependency on other countries and colonies which formed a chain of dependencies which would have led to war either way.
It is obvious that both sources agree on the immediate cause of the war being the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand by the Serbian nationalist. This, although rather small event, led to the first declaration of war (Austria vs. Serbia), which in turn brought all other countries into the war as well. Another cause stressed more so in the book than in the movie was the Crises in Morocco in which Germany became involved in French and Moroccan affairs (a test of the Triple Entente). These two events played a major role in the eventual start of WWI. Although causes of America’s entry to WWI are mentioned in the book (Zimmerman note and Germany’s unrestricted sub warfare), these aren’t mentioned in the movie, probably because these are the causes of the war, not the causes of U.S.’s entry. Overall, both sources prove to be valid in investigating the causes of WWI. Although the book had more details, the movie proved to be a thought provoking and interesting source as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the video, the major long term cause of World War I was outlined to be the tensions between major European powers. This tension was caused mainly by colonial and imperialistic competition. The book mentions the same cause, but does not emphasize it as much as the video does. In the movie, the emphasis is mainly on Britain as a leading power in imperialism, while the book seems to consider other European countries more equally. Both sources also seem to agree that one of the leading causes of the war was the competition between European nations to become the world's leading industrial country. One of the other leading causes emphasized in both sources is Germany's daily increasing thirst for power. Germany felt it deserved a greater reputation in the world than it already had. The textbook and video both seem to agree that Germany's ambitions was one of the major causes of World War II.
ReplyDeleteGermany's ambitions also led to a huge spike in the money they spent on their military. This was one of the major short term causes of World War I. The video goes much more in depth on Germany's interest in developing their military than the book does. Although both sources mention the major alliances formed between European nations as one of the causes of World War I, the formation of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance are described in much detail in the text, while they are mentioned only briefly in the video.
Both the video and the textbook seem to agree that the leading immediate cause of the war was the assassination of the Austrian duke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist. This is equally emphasized in the textbook and the YouTube video as possibly the largest short-term cause of World War I. However, the textbook goes on to explain the domino effect of this event, while the video only outlines the event itself. The textbook goes on to say that this assassination led to Austria's declaration of war and the immediate shattering of the fragile peace that had been upheld in Europe.
Philip Frasse
ReplyDeleteIBH History Y1
Period E
25/10/10
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
Both the textbook and the video say the same basic facts about what the causes of the war were. They both mention the Alliance system as a big factor in the immediate causes and short term causes (for the Austro-Hungarian and German alliance is what caused the Franco-Russian and later English alliance). Both pieces also referred to the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne as an immediate cause of war. For Short Term causes, they both referred to the worldwide military build-up. This includes the Germany-England naval race, as well as the whole world in general building up their armies. For Long Term causes, both of them do refer to Europe's domination of the rest of the world and their relative industrial strength, being in the "Inner Zone".
The two sources differ on the amount of detail and the amount of emphasis placed on certain causes. For example, in Short term causes, the video placed much more emphasis on the British monopoly of the tea trade in China and then the tea growing in India. The textbook didn't spend as much time on that. Also, the video was less detailed on certain events, like specifying the name of the heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated. As sources themselves, the video was easier to watch and understand because of the mood-setting music, the relevant images, and the fact that all one must do is sit and listen. The textbook, however, has more details, going into far more depth.
It can be noticed from both sources that the Long Term Effects (nationalism, imperialism, superiority) were mainly ideas that were rooted further back, and gradually intertwined to create a society verging on war.
The Short Term Effects were little events that occurred to create animosity between the nations that would soon be opposing and create bonds between the nations that would soon be in an alliance with each other.
The Immediate Effects were the assassination of Ferdinand and the alliance system that turned a two-country dispute into a worldwide war.
Kathy Lee, IBH E
ReplyDeleteThe long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War are very well expressed in the two sources of, Palmers, “ A History of the Modern World” text and the “Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2” on YouTube. Palmer’s book and the YouTube video share many similarities and differences in the amount of information or value that they both express as sources.
The long term cause of the First World War was similarly expressed, by both sources to being the increasing competition between the various imperialistic powers. During the time period, wealth and power was gradually more dependent on colonial rule in outside lands. The scramble for Africa and parts of Asia are examples of the European nations utilizing their nationalistic attitudes for imperialistic dreams. The two sources both mention the superiority of Britain amongst the nations in terms of contest for colonies, manufacturing, and industrial expansion. In the textbook however, it quickly moves on to the rise of Germany and their quick mobilization to become the top producer in steel and a threat to the other European nations. As in the you tube video, the importance of tea and the reason behind imperialistic ways was prominent, Germans sudden rise into power was said to be out of frustration on the industrial might and territorial imperiority. Both sources however, include examples of Germany’s threat and aggression in power through the Germany and France crisis between Morocco. This imperialistic issue was just one of the reasons why the First World War broke out; it was the ambitious program of an arms race between rising nations. In both sources, the nationalistic attitudes that became imperialistic strategies gave rise to tension and rivalries between nations as everyone competed to be the best and most acknowledged nation in the world.
The short term cause of the First World War can easily be informed as the tangled alliances from one nation to another that eventually caused everyone to take part in war. Both sources emphasized this cause as being one of the most major reasons for the world war. In the you tube video, the alliances are simply stated as almost suddenly becoming the triple alliance and triple entente. On the other hand, in the textbook there is a lot of importance put into the process and reasons as to why these certain nations chose to become allies with each other. In the textbook, you learn that the triple alliance and triple entente were developed under terms of insecurity and uncertainty. If one nation were to become involved in war with two or more powers, the allies would come to aid and be a force of arms. The textbook highlights the development of the triple entente, seeing that many past accumulated bad feelings and events such as the Fashoda Crisis had to be forgotten in order for the alliance to be made. Both sources, underscore the isolation that Britain chose to be in, taking part in their own way away from the dependency of an alliance. Eventually, British joins the triple entente and when one spark is made, suddenly all the linked nations in the alliances are taking part in a world war.
The immediate cause of the First World War can easily be spotted as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austria heir by a Serbian nationalist, in both sources. Just as the you tube video shares, the assassination of the Austria heir, caused Austria to move against Serbia eventually bringing all the other allies head to head as well. The textbook, in more detail states the side parts such as Germany’s blank check, Austria’s ultimatum and Serbia’s rejection to the ultimatum that eventually led up to the ultimate declaration of war against Serbia. In the textbook, the US taking part in the war holds a lot of detail as to why and the reasons that sparked its entry into a world war. In the you tube video however; it simply states the entry of the US into the war in 1917 without much explanation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Kim
ReplyDeletePeriod E
The video focuses heavily on the scramble for colonies as the major reason for the outbreak of World War 1. It goes into great detail on the effects of imperialism, such as how the British drank tea imported from China, and how the struggle for colonies caused fractures in relationships between European powers. The video mentions how the struggle for more colonies lead to struggles with fellow European nations. The video also highlights the Morocco crisis where Germany tested the French colonial claims. The book in the meantime does not go into great detail on how imperialism was a factor in the war.
Both the book and the video however stress the fact that the rapid industrialization and mobilization of armies was a major factor of the war. Both sources mention how every adavantage that a country gained was soon overturned by their foe. Rapid militarization is another cause. Both sources mention how all nations struggled to maintain large armies and how plans were laid for battles.
Both sources also agree that the alliance system assisted in dragging the world to war. Both the video and the book describe the intricate alliance system that came into effect once Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia entered, then Germany, then France, and after Germany invaded Belgium, Britain as well.
Both sources detail the outbreak of the war. However, the Video focuses more on the political causes, while the book focuses more on the economies and production of countries as the main cause of the war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Suh
ReplyDeleteMr. Hamm
IBH History 1
10/25/10
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video
The causes of the World War listed by Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" and the "Origins of World War 1" part 1 and 2 are very similar. The two sources emphasize that Europe was dominant over all by their sheer number of colonies and their excellent industrial and politcal set up in the continent of Africa. This allowed them to sustain power and their high standards of living. Competition between European countries for these investments in land and power became a long term cause to the start of the World War.
For the short term causes, the two sources state that the alliance system basically caused tension between countries and lead them to war. Another short term cause, as mentioned by both sources, was the arms race between nations. The countries were under pressure of assembling the biggest or most efficient army to defend themselves in time of war. For example, Britain had the best navy at the time so Germany, feeling constant threat, advanced hastily in building up their own navy. Finally, the immediate cause was said to be the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It caused the Austrians to seek war against the Slavs and this brought up the complex alliance system to aid the countries they were required to, thus involving nearly all in the war.
The two sources are different in the way they represent the causes. Though the youtube video gives a pretty good presentation of the causes of the World War, the amount of detail is far less than that of the text. In the video for example, it simply sais that by forming alliances, the countries in one group became an enemy to the other while in the text it offers additional details like Germany seeking alliances because of the threat of being "encircled" by France and Russia.
Another difference is that there is a bigger fraction of the video talking about the arms race between nations than the fraction dealing with this in the text. In other words, they emphasize the causes differently.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCompare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
ReplyDeleteLong: There was a chain of events that led up to and influenced the start of World War I. The video explains the growth and advancements in technology that was occurring in Europe and how that affected the war. Also, industrialism was growing as well as imperialism. Most of the world was “owned” by the Europeans. Each European country desired to increase its empire, but to gain more colonies another European country had to lose that colony first. Furthermore, with Japan on the rise, the balance of power in Europe was all jumbled up. The video mainly focuses on the colonization and industrialization occurring Europe and its involvement in creating some of the tension. The textbook vaguely mentions the above, but is more centered on the politics behind the war. However, both sources point out the rise and rapid growth of power in Germany.
Short: Both sources, for the most part, have the same information on the short term causes of WWI. The text goes into more detail on most of the following causes, but both mention them. The video and the textbook agree that “Never had the European sates maintained such huge armies in peacetime as at the beginning of the twentieth century.” (Palmer) Militarism and the desire to be the best, nationalism were part of the ammunition added to an already burning fire. The naval race between Britain and German used and wasted up lots of money. More tension and hate was created between Germany and Britain, because of this competition. Throughout Europe secret alliances were being formed such as the Triple Entente.
Immediate: The textbook and video explain the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and how it was just icing on the cake. In Europe, tension was rising and everyone anticipated a war. The blend of alliances, throughout Europe, played a key part in how fast countries entered into the war. In the video, it expresses how tense Europe was before WWI. Military leaders, in Europe, were creating battle strategies just in case war broke out. The textbook, unlike the video, describes the blank check sent by Germany to Austria-Hungary. As well as how that made Austria-Hungary bolder in their punishment of Serbia, now that they knew they had the support of Germany.
Citations:
Palmer, R. R. History of the Modern World. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2001. Print.
Compare and contrast the long-term, short-term and immediate causes of World War I.
ReplyDeleteAccording to both sources, there were several long- and short-term causes of World War I, all of which built up to culminate in the so-called “war to end all wars” after an explosive trigger event. Understandably, Palmer’s “A History of the Modern World” (Source A) goes into greater depth when it comes to the causes of WWI, simply because the “Origins of World War 1” video (Source B) was only around 17 minutes. Nevertheless, both sources brought up interesting and valid points.
First, when it came to long-term causes, both Sources A and B agreed that imperialism was a major part of the heightened tension that prevailed throughout Europe. While imperialism represented strength by displaying the fact that a country’s might is be strong enough to subdue another country, each nation’s prosperity was dependent on its ability to maintain and expand their colonial empire. This resulted in a fierce competition over the colonies between states— and the “mad scramble for Africa”— which is otherwise known as imperialist rivalry. The two sources contradicted one another to the extent of the influence of imperialism, however. Source A elaborated on the fact that this rivalry caused more problems to crop up between nations, notably the Russo-Japanese war over Manchuria. On the other hand, Source B focused on the fact that this rivalry resulted from the nations’ desire to gain more resources, only glossing over the repercussions of imperialism. Furthermore, both sources agreed that the Arms Race and militarism were significant causes of WWI, since many nations kept armies reserved during peacetime just in case. This made war seem inevitable, to both the government and the civilians. Source B seemed to go more in-depth into the fact that the military were highly revered by their respective nations, and their leaders looked up to, therefore a nation’s military was a matter of pride. The video elaborated on the fact that each nation wanted to be one step ahead of its potential enemies, thus creating a vicious cycle that no one wanted to abandon, for fear of being left behind and wholly unprepared. Source A only briefly mentioned the fact that this would ensure that war would seem inevitable. Source A also went more in-depth into more specific causes that were extensions of the ones already mentioned, such as pan-Slavism, the discontent in Russia due to its humiliating loss at the hands of the Japanese, secret deals between Russia and Austria-Hungary, among others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere were several short-term causes too that were agreed upon by Source A and B. Source B mentions the First Moroccan Crisis as an important cause of WWI, in which the Kaiser tries to block France from the Moroccan port, but fails to go into significant detail on the Second Moroccan Crisis or the Bosnian Crisis. Source A manages to go into detail on all the important crises, and how the German plan of driving a wedge between England and France failed, as it only brought the two nations closer. Both sources assented that Germany’s growing power threatened Britain in its “splendid isolation” and France (although only Source A mentioned France’s bitterness over losing its territories to Germany in a previous war), which escalated the tension. Source B included a cause that was interesting and one that Source A had not proposed: the Alliance system also was a major cause in WWI. That so many different alliances were made— some, according to Source A, unconditional such as those of Germany to Austria-Hungary or Russia to Serbia— ensured that all of Europe would be caught up in the war once it has begun. Furthermore, although it was not mentioned in Source B, the Schlieffen Plan cost Germany greatly. It portrayed Germany as the aggressor, painting it in a bad light to the other European nations, while also aggravating Britain, who then joined the war as neutral Belgium’s protector.
ReplyDeleteThe immediate cause of the war— the trigger, if you will— was agreed by Sources A and B to be the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. Source A went further in depth than Source B, though, because Source B never mentioned the ultimatum that Austria-Hungary gave to Serbia. Because Serbia refused to comply, Austria-Hungary declared war. Germany was obligated to support Serbia while Russia (and its ally, France) needed to support Serbia. Thus, World War I began.
Firstly, both sources agree that the main long-term cause of the Great War was imperialist rivalry. The video explicitly states this, and elaborates further by giving examples of such rivalries over nations, such as the fight for Africa among the "inner zone". The textbook only briefly goes over the heightened imperialistic competition, and focuses primarily on the economic aspects of imperialism, not the fight over coveted nations to be subjugated. Furthermore, the textbook goes over the manufacturing aspects by giving statistics such as, "Germany produced more steel than France and Britain combined". Thus, both sources agree that the long-term cause of WWI was rivalry, but not of which kind.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, both sources agree that the short-term cause was the arms race, which lead to the creation of alliances. The textbook says this through mentioning the "mandatory military service for all young men" and the inordinate size of the military in peacetime. The video agrees with that opinion, and further substantiates the claim by adding how plans were made for possible battles. Unlike the textbook however, the video authenticates the assertion of the cause by giving examples of small skirmishes before the War was declared, like the Russo-Japanese War. In the end, both sources agree also that the arms race brought alliances, for additional protection from the looming threat of war.
Thirdly, both sources agree that a short-term cause was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The video explains how the long- and short-term causes result in the assassination, and inadvertently, the outbreak of War. Unfortunately, it does not address the reasons why the US joined the war. The textbook addresses those reasons in depth; for example, the Zimmerman Note.
With reference to their origin and purpose, discuss the value and limitations of Source 1 and Source 2 for Historians studying the "Origins and Causes" of the First World War.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cartoons.ac.uk/browse/cartoon_item/anytext=world%20war%20I?subjects_text[]=Germany&page=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeMeuuspmk&feature=related
David Oh
ReplyDeleteIBH History A
Mr. Hamm
October 25, 2010
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" Youtube video.
Palmer’s “A History of the Modern World” text and the “Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2” video from Youtube, both address the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War. However, although the two sources both address the same topics, there are some discrepancies in their viewpoints and the depths to which they address said topics.
First off, both the text and the video establish that the long term causes of World War 1 were imperialism and nationalism; the colonization of Africa and Asia by the European powers and the competition amongst European powers to gather up more colonies and more resources. For the long term causes of World War 1, there aren’t any differences in each viewpoint or the depth discussed about the topic because both sources address very similar, if not the same, viewpoints and provide much depth. For example, European, particularly British, involvement in the colonization of India and the tea domination there and the intrusion of “spheres of influence”, areas in a independent country where a nation could exert their own rule, in China.
While the long term causes of World War 1 were agreed upon by both sources, differentiation between viewpoints emerge when discussing the short term causes of World War 1. The text suggests, and the video agrees, that the primary short term causes were the formation of military alliances and rapid armament production such as the creation of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente and the naval race between Britain and Germany. However, the difference is this: the text states that had the alliances not been created, the arms races would not have occurred and the war would not have expanded as much and instead had been more exclusive to certain areas whereas the video states that war was inevitable.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteThere are no more significant differences between the text and video, as both resources are adamant in their beliefs that the immediate cause of World War 1 was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. The only difference between the resources would be the amount of information covered; the video only touches upon the subject whereas the text explains in further detail.
While both sources, Palmer’s “A History of the Modern World” and the “Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2” video from Youtube, contain many of the same long, short, and immediate causes of World War 1. But, as always as is in history, the sources have their differences, namely differences in viewpoints and difference in the amount of information given. And although the resources differ, both still ultimately carry the same gist of what the long, short, and immediate causes for World War 1 were.
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
ReplyDeleteBoth the textbook and the video mention many different types of causes like long term, short term, and immediate causes. One of the major long term cause mentioned in both the video and the textbook was imperialism. The number of colonies represented the power of the country at the time and many European countries fought each other for the colonies. During these fights, the tension between the states arose. While the textbook states many of the wars and colonies in detail, the video only went over the major ones and grouped them into continents mentioning them as "Africa and Asia".
One of the major short term causes that was mentioned in both the sources was the alliances formed by the European states. The alliances between France, Britain, Russia and Germany, Austria, caused not only the countries involved in the conflict to be involved war but their allied countries as well. This is one of the major reasons why an assassination which only at first involved two countries ended up in a world war. The textbook goes through the process of these alliances in great depth while the video briefly skims over the idea.
Lastly, the immediate cause of World War I was, stated both in the book and the video, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was the heir to the Austrian Empire. This event caused Austria to declare war on Serbia. However, this war wasn't a war just between the two countries. Austria, as stated from the textbook, received a "blank check" from Germany, representing their full support and Serbia received full support from France. Soon, this became a war between, Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire vs France, Serbia, Britain, and Russia.
Overall, the textbook was much more detailed than the video. The short video provided a brief overview while the textbook went into depth with detail.
The causes of the First World War presented in the Youtube clips “Origins of World War 1” and the Palmer’s book “A History of the Modern World” are quite similar and therefore support one another’s reliability in a sense. The main focus differs slightly in the two sources as in the book more detail is accounted and there is more in-depth focus on specific events which are but vaguely mentioned in the summarized clip. This includes for example the Russo-Japanese war as in the book this is accounted for in great detail however in the clip the effects rather than causes and events of the conflicts are mentioned. This may be because it was ultimately the effects of conflicts such as these which acted as causes for the First World War and in this case, the main effect was that of a non-European nation defeating a European nation, imposing embarrassment and questioning the balance throughout the entire European continent.
ReplyDeleteBoth the sources agree upon that the main causes was that of the imperialist rivalry, industrial expansion, build-up of tension, establishment of alliances and build-up of military powers in all nations, as stated in the clip “just in case”. The ones that fall under the category of short term causes could be that of the spurred nationalism throughout the nations as well as the build-up of alliances and military enforcement whereas industrialization, imperialism and colonization are rather presented as the long term causes. This is as stated earlier, agreed upon in both sources but with varied focus. The book goes into deeper detail whereas the clip summarizes the events and seems to exclude more events which have to do with the American intervention (such as the Zimmerman telegram) and put more focus on solely Europe.
The immediate cause of the First World War is also agreed upon in both the sources and presented as the murder of the Austrian heir to the throne (Ferdinand) in Sarajevo by a Serb. This then lead to Austria declaring war on Serbia with the backing of Germany, and the Triple Alliance, and Serbia was in return backed by the Triple Entente including France, Britain and Russia. In the book there is focus on both the ‘triple alliance and entente’ whereas in the clip, the Triple Alliance is conveyed with more detail than that of the Entente which is simply referred to as an alliance.
In conclusion, these sources do not oppose or contradict one another but rather act as complements. The main difference between the sources is the depth in which they analyze or portray the causes of World War I, with the exception of that the clip goes into quite a bit of detail concerning the tension between Germany and Britain due to Germany’s will to expand and exceed Britain’s level of power hence the competition between the two nations concerning trade and colonization.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuth Seok
ReplyDeleteIBH History A period
Mr. Hamm
October 26, 2010
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
Both the textbook and videos seem to point to imperialistic competitions and tensions between the nations as a long term cause. As mentioned in the video, each country's prosperity seemed to depend on the ability to maintain and expand colonial empires. From the 1880s, nations were on a hectic scramble to claim territory to exploit for resources or administrate through "spheres of influence." The video seems to focus only on non-Euoropean expansion, such as in India, China and Africa while the book also mentions inner-European scrambles for the Balkans. The video also focuses primarily on Britain as the main imperialist in India while the book almost equally describes each of the nation's stance. However it does mention, without any details, which nations had conflicts such as Russia and Japan (Russo-Japanese War) and Britain against the Dutch colonists. Similarly, the tension that arose between Germany and Britain because Britain felt threatened by Germany's growing naval power is used as an example in both the textbook and video to characterize rivalry underlying the WWI.
An evident short term cause mentioned in both sources were the formations of the alliances. The video mentions the formation of the Triple Entente, which includes Britain, Russia and France.It does not mention the formation of the Triple Alliance and what measures Germany took to ensure the support of major nations as mentioned in the book. The video fails to elaborate on the fear-driven factor that caused them to form treaties amongst themselves. The textbook also goes into much more in depth detail as to how these alliances created a complicated web by discussing the Moroccan crises and Balkan Wars. However, both sources mention that because of an assassination, Austria and Serbia are in conflict and those that are tied to help these nations are helplessly drawn to participate as well.
The textbook and video both state that the immediate cause to the WWI was the assassination of the Austrian heir, Archduke Ferdinand by a nationalistic and revolutionary Bosnian. Although the video shows the immediate aftermath of this event, it fails to mention that Austria and Serbia were already in a state of tension. The video also does not mention what motivated the assassin to kill the heir and details such as the Black Hand. Both sources express that Germany came to support Austria immediately and Russia supported Serbia. The alliances then came into play and dragged the others into the conflict too. Although in the video, the assassination was the sole immediate cause of the war, the textbook mentions conflict amongst other countries such as the United States and Germany through the Zimmerman telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare.
Although the Youtube videos only briefly touch upon the various causes of WWI, most of the aspects mentioned match those that are elaborated upon in the textbook. The textbook also mentions more about the underlying motives for each of the actions the nations took in fear.
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" Youtube video.
ReplyDeletePalmer's "A History of the Modern World" and the Youtube both had the same view on the long, short and immediate causes of the war. The only difference is the depth of information between these two sources. The immediate cause was obvious, its a world known and accepted fact that the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the immediate cause of World War I. Both sources agreed that the long term cause or the "root" of World War I was Imperialism. Imperialism caused rivalry amongst the European nations because they needed the colonies for their ever-growing industries. This was the start of tensions in Europe. The video stressed the importance of this much more than the text did. In the center of Imperialism and Industrial Expansion was Britain. Britain had colonized more parts of the world than any European nation and their industry became enormous and dominant. Germany felt that they needed become a world power like Britain and be recognized for their supremacy. So Germany sought to have a better navy than Britain. With the Naval Race came the Arms Race. Arms race, a short term cause. The text does not mention the arms race. Another short term cause mentioned in both sources were the entangled alliances. These alliances were made because the European nations feared each other. Germany allied Austria-Hungary and Italy. This was known as the Triple Alliance. France and Russia allied each other and soon after Britain joined. These entangled alliance meant if one country declare war on the other, all of Europe was at war (this is what happened). The textbook goes in further detail on the chronological events of these alliances forming.
In the end they both explained the Origins of the First World War well. Even though textbook had much more info and explained these causes in much more detail than the video. It was easier to understand the causes of the war from the Video because it gave an overview of the Origins of War, which made it easier to organize the causes in my mind.
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text (Source A) and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video (Source B)
ReplyDeleteThe textbook and video have essentially the same points. However, since the video is less than twenty minutes, it does not go as much in depth as the textbook, thus lacking in fine points and details.
Source A and Source B both agree on many of the long term causes, one of them being imperialism. The European nations that consisted of both old power (such as Britain and France) and newly-emerging power (such as Germany) disputed territorial claims to obtain the best land and resources for themselves. This created tension between them all. While Source B does not expand more than the fact that “Africa and Asia were mostly colonized” and a “part of each continent” as well, Source A describes the “mad scramble for Africa” and reveals several colonies and the wars caused by imperialism, such as the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War over Manchuria. Source A and B both agreed that keeping the largest peace time stand-in military force influenced the people to think that “war was inevitable.” However, Source B went more in depth to portray this military with a more optimistic light, stating that with the Arms Race happening, the military was pride and product of ongoing industrialization and revered by the people. However, Source A merely mentions the military as a cause to the World War I. Also, both sources agree that Europe in a sense “scrambled” for China as well, due to the promising lucrative profits and thus established “spheres of influences”. Both mentioned the importance of tea.
Likewise, the short term causes of the war were shared among both sources. Both sources convey the formation of the alliances between countries divided Europe in half, creating the two sides for the impending war. Source A had a step-by-step procedure outlining how each country established the alliances in effect of other alliances established, showing the inter-relations. On the other hand, Source B mentions how the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente were formed in a brief manner. Details lacking that were found in Source A were the entente cordiale between France and Britain and the fait accompli between Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia. On the other hand, Source B does not mention Germany’s fear of losing its place in Europe and desire of becoming the “golden sun,” seen in Source A.
Both Source A and B explicitly say Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination by a Serbian nationalist was the immediate cause of the war. However, the video lacks and does not make connections with the background details, such as Austria-Hungary and Serbia’s pre-existing tension, that orchestrated the start of the war and brought the bigger nations in. There is an entire chapter in Source A dedicated to this event while the video makes a few statements. Also, the ultimatum given to Serbia was not mentioned in Source B.
Robin Lee
ReplyDeleteIBH History Y1 (E)
Mr. Hamm
24/10/2010
Origins and Causes of World War 1 Final Assessment
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
Through the great tension caused amongst European nations in the begging phases of the 20th century the creation World War 1 was inevitable. The explanations and general information for the causes of World War One are similar in the two sources, “Origins of the World War 1 pt 1 and 2” youtube video and “A History of the Modern World” Palmers history text, the outstanding difference between the two is the detail and attention provided addressing critical information.
One of the long-term affects both the documentary and the textbook agree on is the imperialistic time era leading up to World War One. During this time frame countries all over the world were competing for new stable markets, vital natural resources and new colonies symbolizing wealth and power. The reason for the interpretation of colonies being equivalent to powers is due to the fact that the countries with colonies where able to gain more natural resources speeding up weapon and military production. The documentary focuses more on British colonies and their superiority through their colonial claims, it also focuses on the improvement in British standard of living in particular through the tea production and the struggling to keep up with its demand. Unlike the documentary the text refers to the German building up their empire and how this ended up as one factors leading to World War 1. Both Sources A and B agree (show similarity) on the Morocco conflict and how it was an attempt of Keiser William II to test the British and French alliance system and to discover their limitations and restrictions. The text again provides a more detailed account surrounding the main thesis idea compared to the short documentary video. The video also focuses a lot on British colonial rule on India where as the text on the other hand is more about the African colonies.
The short-term effects of World War One according to the sources provided were the new militaristic attitude and the creation of alliances amongst Europe. Germany, Italy and Austro-Hungary formed the triple alliances; this was soon countered through the construction of Triple Entente a treaty between Britain, France and Russia. This alliance system is mentioned in the youtube documentary however is not formatted and structured the same as in the text provided. In the text the Entente is described as tension situations and separation of Europe. The Zimmerman Note also played an important aspect in the alliance system as it influenced the involvement of the United States as deduced from the information in the text. This not was intercepted by US inelegance; the purpose of the telegraph was to ally with Mexico and to rise against US itself. The text in this case is a lot more descriptive compared to the video. The Militaristic advancement of technology plays a big part in both the sources, as Germany and England compete into the naval race. During this time Germany over took England in its steel and iron production allowing them to increase weapon arsenals quicker. This also led to tension amongst different nations as military powers where on highest alert. In the documentary the process connected to the naval race is very well explained which shows similarity to the text. The big difference between the two is again the extended detail in the book, for example the Lusitania. The Lusitania was a great passenger ship connecting Britain and the United States. A German U-boat attacked the ship after being suspected of carrying weapons to Britain. This act of violence against the American civilian population was another factor
leading up to the war influencing American involvement.
The sudden cause of the war, setting everything into motion was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. This assassination led to the mobilization of troops and the declaration of war on Serbia. This declaration of war between Austria and Serbia immediately pulled the other European powers into the war due to the alliances formed. Russia had an alliance with Serbia, and Germany with Austria, all these nations where also part of the triple alliance and entente making war inevitable. Both documentary and text address this factor as it is of great importance. The difference between the two sources is again the detail in which the situation is addresses with. In the video the events and chronological happenings are briefly summarized, the text however goes into a greater in depth knowledge also focusing on the prewar situation and the ultimatum the Austrians proposed to the Serbs before the official declaration of war. The text also refers to the German blank check encouraging Austria to be Firm. One thing the video connects with the situation of war is the imperialistic thirst for new colonies expressed by many countries fueling the war.
ReplyDeleteThe long term, short term and immediate responses all combine creating the outcome of the First World War. Both sources focus on the key areas of causes, imperialism, alliances, militarism and the assassination. However even though both text and youtube documentary have the same principal ideas the in depth knowledge displayed varies a lot with the textbook providing more detail to the reader.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRenee Nothomb
ReplyDeleteIBH History Y1
Mr. Hamm
Period A
30/10/10
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
The YouTube videos and Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text both agree that a long term cause of world war one was the formation of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were the main reasons as to why the war involved most of the European countries. Another long term cause that both the video and the text agreed on was that the competition between European nation wanting to become the world's leading industrial country was a leading cause of the war.
A long term cause was the ongoing imperialism and the extremely competitive and imperialistic Europe. Also the tensions are what eventually led to the star of the world war, including the tensions between the major European powers.
The textbook says that the alliance system was a short term cause, which led to conflicts that resulted in the world war.
An immediate cause of the war was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Serbian nationalist.
In the textbook it says that the Crises in Morocco where Germany became involved in the French and Moroccan affairs, played a major role in the start of world war one. It also says that the competition between Germany and Britain to gain the strongest navy was a long term cause of the war.
In the video it says that Britain was the leading power of imperialism and it says that the competition between Germany and Britain to gain the strongest navy was a long term cause. The movie also said that the German military development, followed by the arms race and the creation of the alliances were also a major cause in causing the war. The arms race had lead people to believe that the war was ineviteble.
It also pointed out that the alliance, the Triple Entente (France, England & Russia) and the Triple Alliances (Germany, Austria-Hungary, & the Ottoman Empire) were important in creating the tensions that eventually led to the war.
Compare and contrast the long term, short term, and immediate causes of the First World War according to Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" text and the "Origins of World War 1 pt 1 and 2" youtube video.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" textbook and the "Origins of World War 1" YouTube videos agree on the long-term, short-term, and immediate causes of World War I. Overall, the textbook is more focused on the short-term and immediate causes of war, while the video goes into a lot more detail on the long-term causes of the war.
In Chapter 17 of the textbook, the longest-term cause mentioned is the alliance system that divided Europe into two opposing camps, but in contrast to this, the video focuses a lot on the long-term cause of imperialism, claiming it to be "a primary cause of World War One". This view was supported later in the video, when it claimed that "At the root of it all was the fierce competition among the imperial powers." The textbook provides no such claims about imperialism causing World War I.
According to both sources, the short-term causes of the war were the alliance system, the arms race, and small localized conflicts. As stated in the Palmer text, "The Continent was thus divided by 1894 into two opposed camps, the German-Austrian-Italian against the Franco-Russian". The video agrees with this point, as well as on Britain's policy of "splendid isolation" prior to the Entente Cordiale. As the video puts it, "The alliance system had virtually guaranteed that if a war erupted, it would engulf all of Europe". For this reason, the alliance system was one of the major short-term causes of the war.
Another short-term cause of the war was the arms race that occurred between rival powers. The textbook focuses mainly on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany, but the video provided a more comprehensive view of the "continuing buildup of arms and armies going on throughout Europe". A third short-term cause of the war presented in both sources was several small localized conflicts. The video mentions several in Sudan, Cuba, and the Philippines, but never goes into too much detail, as opposed to the textbook, which has two whole pages of text devoted to the Moroccan and Balkan crises.
One main difference between the two sources is the amount of detail paid to the immediate causes of war. Although the video focused more on the long-term causes such as imperialism, it only brushed over the immediate causes of war, which were the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and the ultimatum that Austria issued to Serbia, which was addressed in detail, but not mentioned in the video. Another important detail that was not discussed in the video was the "blank check" of support given by Germany to Austria, which gave Austria the confidence to issue their ultimatum.
Overall, Palmer's "A History of the Modern World" textbook and the YouTube videos "Origins of World War One" part 1 and 2 have similar depictions of the causes of World War I, although they had various emphasis on different long-term, short-term, and immediate causes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete