Become a Member
Geoffrey Alderman

ByGeoffrey Alderman, Geoffrey Alderman

Opinion

Great wounds of the Great War

January 10, 2014 10:47
2 min read

Later this year, the world’s media will preoccupy us with material related to the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War — the “Great War” — which was triggered, so it is said, by the assassination, in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, of the heir to the Habsburg throne, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie.

The Sarajevo murders (June 28 1914) were carried out by a gang of Bosnian-Serb nationalists whose ultimate aim was to unite all the “South Slavs” in a Greater Serbia, allied to Imperial Russia. Whether this act of terrorism was actually responsible for the Great War is a question historians have pondered long and hard.

In this country, there was a great deal of sympathy with Austrian demands that Serbia should rein in on anti-Austrian terrorist activities. Until August 3 1914, the majority view in the government was that Britain should keep out of the crisis that was escalating on the European mainland, where Austria had declared war on Serbia, Russia had commenced hostilities against Austria, and France (Russia’s ally) had as a consequence found itself at war with both Austria and Germany. After all, Britain had no treaty obligations to defend Russia or France. But Britain and Germany were both guarantors of Belgian neutrality. And it was Germany’s invasion of Belgium (or, more correctly, its invasion of France through Belgium) that brought the UK — and its Empire — into the conflict the following day.

How the outbreak of war should be marked in this country has already elicited strong views. At a conference that I’ve been helping to organise next June in Sarajevo, these opposing views will, I’m sure, be fiercely put and passionately contested.