Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseArchduke Franz Ferdinand was the nephew of Emperor Franz Joseph and the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. On Sunday 28 June 1914 he and his wife, Sophie, were to drive through Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia.
The date was badly chosen. 28 June is the day when Serbs remember the Battle of Kosovo of 1389, so to many Bosnian Serbs the visit was an insult.
A group of young men from Young Bosnia was waiting for him. One was Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb aged 19. In Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, Princip and two friends had been given four pistols and six bombs by Major Tankosić, an officer in the Black Hand, and helped to cross the border secretly.
Key terms:
The leader of the Black Hand was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, known as 'Apis'. He was also the head of Serbian army intelligence. The Serbian government did not order the murder, but men inside the Serbian army had armed the killers.
The plotters stood along the road to the town hall. One of them, Nedeljko Čabrinović, threw a bomb at the Archduke's open car. It bounced off and exploded under the car behind, wounding several people. Čabrinović was caught.
After a visit to the town hall, Franz Ferdinand asked to see the wounded in hospital. Nobody told his driver about the new route. He turned into a side street, was told to stop, and began to back out. Princip happened to be standing a few steps away. He fired two shots. The Archduke and Sophie both died shortly afterwards.
Princip was arrested on the spot.
What turned this murder into a crisis was the way Austria-Hungary and Germany chose to react.
Austria-Hungary's leaders blamed Serbia straight away. Army leaders had long wanted a war with Serbia, and this was their excuse. The foreign minister, Count Berchtold, now agreed with them. The aim was to end Serbia's power in the Balkans for good.
Two things held them back.
On 5 July the Austro-Hungarian ambassador handed Kaiser Wilhelm II a letter from Franz Joseph over lunch at Potsdam, near Berlin. The Kaiser promised Germany's full support, even if it meant war with Russia, and urged Austria-Hungary to act quickly. The next day the Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, confirmed the promise.
Germany set no limits on what its ally could do, which is why historians call it a blank cheque.
Austria-Hungary was the one great power Germany could rely on. Germany could not let it look weak.
The Kaiser believed Russia was not ready to fight. A fast strike might be over before anyone stepped in.
Russia's army was growing fast. Some German generals argued that a war with Russia was better fought now than later.
The blank cheque is the turning point of the crisis. Without it, Austria-Hungary would probably not have dared to attack Serbia.
Germany wanted speed, but Austria-Hungary took nearly three weeks. Tisza had to be won over, and many soldiers were on harvest leave. The French president was visiting Russia from 20 to 23 July. Austria-Hungary waited until he had left, so that France and Russia could not plan their answer together.
Remember, an ultimatum is a final demand with a time limit. At 6 pm on 23 July, Austria-Hungary's ambassador in Belgrade handed one over. Serbia was given 48 hours to accept ten demands. They included:
The last of these was the key one. No independent country could easily let foreign officials take part in an inquiry on its own soil. The ultimatum was written to be refused, to give Austria-Hungary its reason for war. What happened next comes in the lesson From Sarajevo to War: The July Crisis of 1914.
Don't write that the assassination 'caused' the war on its own. It was the trigger. Don't say the Serbian government planned the murder: the weapons came from the Black Hand. And the blank cheque was not a treaty. It was a promise of support with no conditions.
Source A: From a secret telegram sent by Count Szögyény, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador in Berlin, to his foreign minister, Count Berchtold, 5 July 1914 (translated). He is reporting what Kaiser Wilhelm II said to him that day. 'We' and 'our' mean Austria-Hungary.
'His Majesty authorized me to report ... that in this case, too, we could count on Germany's full support ... even if war broke out between Austria-Hungary and Russia, we could rest assured that Germany would take our side ... if we really deemed a military operation against Serbia necessary, he (Kaiser Wilhelm) would find it regrettable if we did not seize the present moment'.
Source B: From a confidential telegram sent by Bethmann Hollweg, the German Chancellor, to the German ambassador in Vienna, 6 July 1914 (translated). 'His Majesty' is Kaiser Wilhelm II.
'Finally, as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty, of course, cannot interfere in the dispute now going on between Austria-Hungary and that country, as it is a matter not within his competence. The Emperor Francis Joseph may, however, rest assured that His Majesty will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary, as is required by the obligations of his alliance and of his ancient friendship.'
Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about Germany's attitude to Austria-Hungary's quarrel with Serbia in July 1914? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B on the main point, that Germany would back its ally. Source B says the Kaiser 'will faithfully stand by Austria-Hungary'. Source A agrees, reporting that Austria-Hungary 'could count on Germany's full support'. Both present this as loyalty: Source B speaks of 'the obligations of his alliance', and Source A says 'Germany would take our side'.
However, the sources differ on how far Germany was getting involved. Source B says the Kaiser 'cannot interfere in the dispute' because it is 'not within his competence', so the choice is left to Austria-Hungary. Source A does not support this. In it the Kaiser gives advice, saying he would 'find it regrettable if we did not seize the present moment'. Source A also talks of war with Russia, which Source B does not mention.
Overall, Source A supports Source B to a large extent, because both show the same firm promise of support. It does not support Source B's claim that Germany was staying out of the decision, since in Source A the Kaiser is pushing for quick military action.
What lifts this to the top level: it matches short quotations from both sources for agreement and for difference, then judges how far Source A supports Source B.
Take Source B one claim at a time and ask 'does Source A say the same?' Source B makes two claims: Germany will stand by its ally, and Germany will not interfere. Source A backs the first and not the second. That split gives you your answer and your judgement. For more help, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 2 Section A Question (b): How Far Does Source A Support Source B?