D2.His.15.9-12: Long-Term Causes and the Triggering Event of the War of 1914

Overview

Lesson Procedure

65-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A forest fire starts when lightning strikes a dead tree after a dry summer. Which is the cause: the lightning, the dry summer, or the dead wood that had piled up for years? Write two sentences explaining your answer."

   Take a quick poll. Most classes split between the lightning and the dry conditions. Name the two kinds of cause: the lightning is a triggering event, and the dry summer and the dead wood are long-term causes. Ask: "Would a different spark, such as a campfire, have done the same thing?" Tell students that historians argue about questions like that one for the war of 1914.

2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes

   Give the frame in three minutes. In 1914 the great powers of Europe were grouped in rival alliances: the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Dual Alliance of France and Russia, with the British "understandings" with France and Russia (Source 5). Austria-Hungary ruled Bosnia and Herzegovina, where many Serbs lived (Source 1). On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was killed in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, and 37 days later German troops were in Belgium and Britain had sent Germany an ultimatum (timeline table).

   Sorting a cause: four questions (an SVHS teaching tool)

   Question	Points to a long-term cause	Points to a triggering event
   How long did it act before the outcome?	Years or decades	Hours, days or a few weeks
   What does it explain?	Why the outcome became possible or likely	Why the outcome began at that moment and in that place
   What kind of thing is it?	A condition shared by many people or states: an alliance, a rivalry, a movement	A specific act or decision by a few people
   Could another event have played its part?	Usually not: other conditions would have to change	Historians argue about this; if another crisis could have served, the long-term causes carry more weight

   From the triggering event to war, June 28 to August 4, 1914 (selected entries from the "Diary of the Events Leading to the War" in Why We Are at War, Oxford, 1914, chapter IV)

   Date (1914)	Event, as the Oxford diary records it
   June 28	Assassination at Sarajevo of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the Duchess of Hohenberg
   July 23	Austria presents her Note to Servia giving her 48 hours in which to accept
   July 25	Servian reply; considered unsatisfactory by Austria-Hungary
   July 28	Austria-Hungary declares war on Servia
   July 29	Russian mobilization in the four military districts of Odessa, Kiev, Moscow, and Kazan
   July 31	General Russian mobilization ordered; Germany presents ultimatum to Russia demanding that her mobilization should cease within 12 hours
   Aug. 1	Orders issued for general mobilization of French army; orders issued for general mobilization of German army
   Aug. 2	Germans invade Luxemburg
   Aug. 4	Germans enter Belgian territory; Britain presents an ultimatum to Germany demanding an answer by midnight

   Read Source 1. Reynolds edited a multi-volume American history of the war, published in New York in 1916. Ask students to mark long-term causes in one color and the triggering event in another.

   1It was the boast of the greater European powers, during the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, and after, that the "conflagration in the Balkans had been localized"--i.e., that none of the western nations would be involved in the complications growing out of the trouble in the Balkans. The conflagration in the mountainous peninsula had been "localized," it was true; but the smouldering fire that remained after the Balkan Wars was to flare forth, during the summer of 1914, to spread over Europe from the Shetland Islands to Crete in one grand flame, and to drop sparks on the remaining four continents. That smouldering fire was the doctrine known as Greater Serbianism, sometimes wrongly spoken of as Pan-Serbianism.

   [...]

   2But Austria, too, had the disease of Nationalism, and she had been engaged since 1908 in "ironing out" the Serbs within her borders. Thus great friction was engendered, and when, on June 28, 1914, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the crown prince and his morganatic wife visited the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, they and the officials of the city and province knew that the lives of the pair were in danger from Serbian intrigue.

   3The archduke had gone to Bosnia on his first visit to take charge of military maneuvers there, and before he left the Austrian capital the Serbian minister had expressed doubt as to the wisdom of the visit, telling the court that the Serbian population in Bosnia might make unfavorable demonstrations. The fears of the Serbian minister proved to be well founded; Sarajevo displayed many Serbian flags on the day of his arrival. The archduke's party, in automobiles, proceeded to the Town Hall after leaving the railway station, passing through crowded streets. The city officials were gathered at the Town Hall to give him an official welcome. A bomb, hurled from a roof, fell into the archduke's car; he caught it and threw it to the pavement, where it exploded, doing no damage to either him or his wife, but injuring two adjutants in the car following. One Gabrinovics, a Serbian from Trebinje, was arrested as the assailant.

   4The archduke proceeded to the Town Hall, and after berating the city officials listened to the speeches of welcome. As he and his wife were departing a Serbian student, named Prinzip, who was later arrested, rushed out from the crowd and fired point-blank at the couple with a revolver. Both were hit a number of times and died some hours later from their wounds.

   Read Source 2. In August 1914 the German Foreign Office issued this "White Book" to explain Germany's decisions to the world; Britain's Oxford historians reprinted its official English version in full because, they wrote, it was "difficult of access." Point out that the text is the German government's own case.

   1On June 28th the Austro-Hungarian successor to the throne, Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, the Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated by a member of a band of servian conspirators. The investigation of the crime through the Austro-Hungarian authorities has yielded the fact that the conspiracy against the life of the Arch-Duke and successor to the throne was prepared and abetted in Belgrade with the cooperation of Servian officials, and executed with arms from the Servian State arsenal. This crime must have opened the eyes of the entire civilized world, not only in regard to the aims of the Servian policies directed against the conservation and integrity of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, but also concerning the criminal means which the pan-Serb propaganda in Servia had no hesitation in employing for the achievement of these aims.

   2The goal of these policies was the gradual revolutionizing and final separation of the south-easterly districts from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and their union with Servia. This direction of Servias policy has not been altered in the least in spite of the repeated and solemn declarations of Servia in which it vouchsafed a change in these policies toward Austria-Hungary as well as the cultivation of good and neighborly relations.

   3In this manner for the third time in the course of the last 6 years Servia has led Europe to the brink of a world-war.

   4It could only do this because it believed itself supported in its intentions by Russia.

   [...]

   5Under these circumstances it was clear to Austria that it was not compatible with the dignity and the spirit of self-preservation of the monarchy to view idly any longer this agitation across the border. The Imperial and Royal Government appraised Germany of this conception and asked for our opinion. With all our heart we were able to agree with our allys estimate of the situation, and assure him that any action considered necessary to end the movement in Servia directed against the conservation of the monarchy would meet with our approval.

   6We were perfectly aware that a possible warlike attitude of Austria-Hungary against Servia might bring Russia upon the field, and that it might therefore involve us in a war, in accordance with our duty as allies. We could not, however, in these vital interests of Austria-Hungary, which were at stake, advise our ally to take a yielding attitude not compatible with his dignity, nor deny him our assistance in these trying days. We could do this all the less as our own interests were menaced through the continued Serb agitation. If the Serbs continued with the aid of Russia and France to menace the existence of Austria-Hungary, the gradual collapse of Austria and the subjection of all the Slavs under one Russian sceptre would be the consequence, thus making untenable the position of the Teutonic race in Central Europe. A morally weakened Austria under the pressure of Russian pan-slavism would be no longer an ally on whom we could count and in whom we could have confidence, as we must be able to have, in view of the ever more menacing attitude of our easterly and westerly neighbors. We, therefore, permitted Austria a completely free hand in her action towards Servia but have not participated in her preparations.

   Model the distinction with the worked examples. Stress that every source here is also making an argument about causes, so students should ask what each author gains by giving more weight to the long-term causes or to the trigger.

   • Reading a historian's metaphor (Source 1, paragraph 1)

     Reynolds writes that the "smouldering fire that remained after the Balkan Wars was to flare forth, during the summer of 1914," and names that fire as "the doctrine known as Greater Serbianism."

     Result: The smouldering fire is a long-term cause: a nationalist movement that had been building since before the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The flare in the summer of 1914 is the moment a triggering event set it off. Reynolds's image is itself an argument: it gives the long-term cause most of the weight and makes the trigger a spark.

   • How one side builds a trigger into a long-term story (Source 2, paragraphs 1 and 3)

     The German White Book calls the killings at Sarajevo a crime "prepared and abetted in Belgrade" and then says that "for the third time in the course of the last 6 years Servia has led Europe to the brink of a world-war."

     Result: The White Book treats the assassination as the trigger but places it inside a long-term pattern blamed on Serbia. Six years back from 1914 is 1908. Placing the trigger inside a pattern serves the German argument: if the danger came from Serbia's long-term policy, Austria-Hungary's response looks like defense.

   • Finding the chain inside one paragraph (Source 2, paragraph 5)

     The White Book says Austria could no longer "view idly any longer this agitation across the border," that the Imperial and Royal Government asked Germany "for our opinion," and that Germany answered that any necessary action "would meet with our approval."

     Result: The "agitation across the border" is a long-term condition, at least as Germany saw it. Austria's request and Germany's approval are different: they are decisions made after the trigger, so they belong to the chain between the assassination and the war. One paragraph can contain both kinds of cause, and an argument has to sort them.

   • Measuring the chain from trigger to war (the timeline table)

     The Oxford diary dates the assassination June 28, Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia July 28, and the German entry into Belgium and Britain's ultimatum August 4.

     Result: June 28 to July 28 is 30 days; June 28 to August 4 is 2 + 31 + 4 = 37 days. The war did not follow the trigger at once. A month of decisions came in between, so an argument must say how the trigger led to war through those decisions, not just that it came first.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Read Source 3, Serbia's reply to Austria-Hungary's note of July 23. Austria-Hungary judged the reply unsatisfactory (timeline table). In pairs, students answer: (a) What does Serbia's government say about the period since March 31, 1909? (b) How does the reply describe Serbia's part in the investigation of the crime? (c) Is the reply itself a long-term cause, the trigger, or a step in the chain? Then run Activity 1.

   1A few minutes before 6 p. m., July 25, 1914, the Serbian Government made its reply to the Austrian note.

   2This declared that no attempts had been made, or declarations uttered, by responsible representatives of Serbia, tending to subvert Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since March 31, 1909, when protests against the annexation of these countries made in the Skupshtina (Serbian Parliament) were cut short by declarations of the Serbian Government. It drew attention to the fact that Austria-Hungary had since then made no complaint in this connection save in regard to a school book, concerning which it had received an entirely satisfactory explanation.

   3"Serbia has several times given proofs of her pacific and moderate policy during the Balkan crisis, and it is thanks to Serbia and to the sacrifice that she has made in the exclusive interest of European peace that that peace has been preserved. The Royal Government cannot be held responsible for manifestations of a private character, such as articles in the press and the peaceable work of societies--manifestations which take place in nearly all countries in the ordinary course of events, and which, as a general rule, escape official control. The Royal Government are all the less responsible, in view of the fact that at the time of the solution of a series of questions which arose between Serbia and Austria-Hungary they gave proof of a great readiness to oblige, and thus succeeded in settling the majority of these questions to the advantage of the two neighboring countries.

   4"For these reasons the Royal Government have been pained and surprised at the statements, according to which members of the Kingdom of Serbia are supposed to have participated in the preparations for the crime committed at Sarajevo; the Royal Government expected to be invited to collaborate in an investigation of all that concerns this crime, and they were ready, in order to prove the entire correctness of their attitude, to take measures against any persons concerning whom representations were made to them. [...]

   Key. (a) Paragraph 2 says no responsible Serbian representatives had tried to undermine Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina since March 31, 1909, and that Austria-Hungary had complained since then only about a school book. Serbia is answering the long-term charge that the White Book makes. (b) Paragraph 4 says the government "expected to be invited to collaborate in an investigation" and was ready to act against any persons named. (c) The reply is a step in the chain of July decisions: it came 27 days after the trigger and was followed by Austria-Hungary's declaration of war three days later.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read Source 4 on their own. William II was the German emperor in 1914; he gave up the throne at the end of the war and published these memoirs in 1922. Each student writes a paragraph answering: Which long-term causes does he name, and how does he treat the events of July 1914? How might his position in 1914, and in 1922, shape that choice? Then run Activity 2 if time allows.

   1[...] The apparent complicity in the crisis of July, 1914, should deceive nobody. The telegrams exchanged at that time between the Cabinets of the great powers and their rulers, the activities of the statesmen and leading private individuals in verbal negotiations with important personages of the Entente, were certainly of the greatest importance on account of the decisive significance assumed by almost every word when it came from responsible lips, by every line that was written or telegraphed. The essential basis of the causes of the war, however, is not altered by such things; it is firmly established, and people must never hesitate from freeing it, calmly and with an eye to realities, from the bewildering outcroppings from the events accompanying the outbreak of war.

   2The general situation of the German Empire in the period before the war had become continually more brilliant, and for that very reason continually more difficult from the point of view of foreign politics. Unprecedented progress in industry, commerce, and world traffic had made Germany prosperous. The curve of our development tended steadily upward.

   3The concomitant of this peaceful penetration of a considerable part of the world's markets, to which German diligence and our achievements justly entitled us, was bound to be disagreeable to older nations of the world, particularly to England. This is quite a natural phenomenon, having nothing remarkable about it. Nobody is pleased when a competitor suddenly appears and obliges one to look on while the old customers desert to him. For this reason I cannot reproach the British Empire because of English ill humor at Germany's progress in the world's markets.

   [...]

   4In France the idea of revenge had been sedulously cultivated ever since 1870-71; it was fostered, with every possible variation, in literary, political, and military writings, in the officer corps, in schools, associations, political circles.

   [...]

   5Thus England, France, and Russia had, though for different reasons, an aim in common--viz., to overthrow Germany. England wished to do so for commercial-political reasons, France on account of her policy of revenge, Russia because she was a satellite of France and also for reasons of internal politics and because she wished to reach the southern sea. These three great nations, therefore, were bound to act together. The union of these ambitions in a common course of action, duly planned, is what we call the "policy of encirclement."

5. Closure10 minutes

   Run Activity 3 with Source 6, a sample argument SVHS wrote for this lesson. It contains four errors on purpose.

   (1) The First World War had one long-term cause and one triggering event. (2) The trigger was the alliance system, which pulled the great powers into the war in the first days of August 1914. (3) The long-term cause was nationalism in the Balkans, which Reynolds calls a "smouldering fire" (Source 1, paragraph 1).

   (4) The Kaiser proves that the crisis of July 1914 did not matter, because he writes that "The apparent complicity in the crisis of July, 1914, should deceive nobody" (Source 4, paragraph 1). (5) So the assassination at Sarajevo was not really a cause at all, and the war would have started that summer anyway.

   Exit ticket: "Write one sentence that names a long-term cause of the war of 1914 and one that names the triggering event, and add a third sentence saying which one your argument will give more weight, and why." Hand out Source 5 for the homework.

   1Even at the risk of being tedious it is essential that we should sketch in outline the events which have produced the present grouping of belligerent states, and the long-drawn-out preparations which have equipped them for conflict on this colossal scale. To understand why Austria-Hungary and Germany have thrown down the glove to France and Russia, why England has intervened not only as the protector of Belgium, but also as the friend of France, we must go back to the situation created by the Franco-German War. Starting from that point, we must notice in order the formation of the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, of the Dual Alliance between France and Russia, of the Anglo-French and the Anglo-Russian understandings. The Triple Alliance has been the grand cause of the present situation; not because such a grouping of the Central European Powers was objectionable, but because it has inspired over-confidence in the two leading allies; because they have traded upon the prestige of their league to press their claims East and West with an intolerable disregard for the law of nations. Above all it was the threatening attitude of Germany towards her Western neighbours that drove England forward step by step in a policy of precautions which, she hoped, would avert a European conflagration, and which her rivals have attempted to represent as stages in a Machiavellian design to ruin Germany's well-being. These precautions, so obviously necessary that they were continued and expanded by the most pacific Government which England has seen since Mr. Gladstone's retirement, have taken two forms: that of diplomatic understandings, and that of naval preparations. Whichever form they have taken, they have been adopted in response to definite provocations, and to threats which it was impossible to overlook. They have been strictly and jealously measured by the magnitude of the peril immediately in view. In her diplomacy England has given no blank cheques; in her armaments she has cut down expenditure to the minimum that, with reasonable good fortune, might enable her to defend this country and English sea-borne trade against any probable combination of hostile Powers.

   2Let us consider (1) the development of the diplomatic situation since 1870, (2) the so-called race of armaments since 1886.

   Teacher notes. (1) The sources describe a killing: the archduke and his wife died of their wounds (Source 1). Treat it with care and keep the focus on how causes are argued. (2) Every source here was written by a side in the conflict or during it: the German government and the former emperor defend Germany, Serbia's government defends Serbia, the Oxford historians state "Great Britain's case," and Reynolds wrote in New York in 1916, far from the fighting. Present each as a perspective to be weighed, not as the verdict. No French or Russian source is printed here, so the former emperor's statements about French and Russian aims (Source 4) are one side's claims; say so when students use them. (3) The sources use the national, ethnic and racial language of their time, such as "Teutonic race," "pan-Serb" and "Slavs." "Teutonic race" (Source 2) treats the German-speaking peoples as a race, and sets it against the "Slavs" (peoples who speak Slavic languages, such as Russians, Serbs, Czechs and Poles). The belief that Europe's peoples were rival races was common in 1914 and is rejected today; "pan-Serb" refers to the movement to unite all Serbs in one state. Discuss these words as evidence of how nationalism and racial thinking shaped the way people saw the crisis, not as accurate descriptions of peoples. (4) Reynolds calls the attackers "Serbian." Princip and Gabrinovics (in modern spelling, Čabrinović) were Bosnian Serbs, born in Bosnia and so subjects of Austria-Hungary, which tried them at Sarajevo in October 1914. Historians have since documented that members of a secret Serbian nationalist society, Unification or Death (the "Black Hand"), whose leader headed Serbian military intelligence, armed them and helped them cross the border; how much the Serbian government knew is still debated. Reynolds also wrote early, and some of his details differ from later accounts: each victim was hit by one bullet, and both died within an hour. (5) Which country bore the most responsibility for the war was disputed from the start, as these sources show; the rubric scores how students distinguish and weigh causes, not the side they take.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Invented example: two neighboring towns argued for twenty years over who could use a river. In a dry August, a farmer from one town dammed the stream, and a fight broke out that week. Which is the triggering event?

   AThe twenty years of argument over the river BThe dry climate of the river valley CThe farmer damming the stream that August DThe steady growth of both towns' farms

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 1, paragraph 3, says that "Sarajevo displayed many Serbian flags on the day of his arrival." What does this detail add to the account of the triggering event?

   AIt shows Serbian feeling on open display where it happened BIt proves that the Serbian government itself planned the attack CIt shows that the city officials welcomed the visit warmly DIt gives the date on which Greater Serbianism first began

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, paragraph 2, Reynolds writes that Austria had been "ironing out" the Serbs within her borders since 1908, and "Thus great friction was engendered." What does the word "Thus" do in his argument?

   AIt marks the moment the war began BIt shows that the friction came before 1908 CIt shows that he is quoting from an Austrian newspaper DIt ties a long policy to the tension that followed

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 1, paragraph 3, says the Serbian minister "had expressed doubt as to the wisdom of the visit." What does this detail suggest about the triggering event?

   AIt was planned in secret by the Serbian minister himself BIt grew out of a danger that people already knew about CIt was the only cause that Reynolds can find DIt happened in a place with no tension at all

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, a bomb thrown at the archduke's car did "no damage to either him or his wife," and only a later attack by a student killed them. What does this sequence show about triggering events?

   ATriggers matter less than any long-term cause BThe killing had been planned by the city officials of Sarajevo CA trigger can depend on chance and on a few people's acts DThe archduke's visit had no military purpose

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 2, paragraph 1, says the conspiracy "was prepared and abetted in Belgrade with the cooperation of Servian officials." How should a historian treat this sentence?

   AAs an accusation by one side that needs checking BAs a neutral finding that all governments accepted in 1914 CAs Serbia's own account of what its officials had done DAs proof that the long-term causes did not matter

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 2, paragraph 2, what was the long-term goal of the Serbian policies that the German government blamed?

   ATo gain a port on the Adriatic coast for Serbian trade and shipping BTo build an alliance with Germany against Russia and France CTo stop the archduke's planned visit to Bosnia in June 1914 DTo separate Austria's south-eastern lands and join them to Serbia

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 2, paragraph 6, ends: "We, therefore, permitted Austria a completely free hand in her action towards Servia but have not participated in her preparations." What is the purpose of the last clause?

   ATo show that Germany had no alliance with Austria BTo limit Germany's share in Austria-Hungary's next steps CTo show that Russia caused the assassination DTo admit that Germany had planned the note of July 23 itself

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 2, paragraph 6, says: "We were perfectly aware that a possible warlike attitude of Austria-Hungary against Servia might bring Russia upon the field." What does this admission show?

   AGerman leaders knew a local war could spread through alliances BRussia had already declared war on Germany by that point in July CGermany expected Serbia to accept every Austrian demand DThe German government had not heard of the assassination

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 3, paragraph 3, Serbia's reply says that "The Royal Government cannot be held responsible for manifestations of a private character, such as articles in the press." What is Serbia arguing?

    AThat Serbia's press had never written about Austria BThat Austria-Hungary's note to Serbia had been entirely fair and reasonable CThat its government is not to blame for private nationalist activity DThat Serbia was ready to declare war on Austria-Hungary

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 4, paragraph 1, says of the crisis of July 1914: "The essential basis of the causes of the war, however, is not altered by such things." What position is the former emperor taking?

    AThat the trigger was the only real cause of the war BThat no one can know what caused the war CThat the July telegrams prove Germany's guilt DThat deep causes outweigh the events of July 1914

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 4, paragraph 3, the former emperor writes: "I cannot reproach the British Empire because of English ill humor at Germany's progress in the world's markets." How does this sentence work in his argument?

    AIt shows that he blames Germany for the war BIt makes him seem fair before he blames England in paragraph 5 CIt proves that England and Germany were allies DIt shows that trade rivalry had nothing at all to do with the war

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 4, paragraph 5, what reasons does the former emperor give for Russia's part in the shared aim he calls the "policy of encirclement"?

    AIt followed France, had troubles at home, and wanted the southern sea BIt wanted revenge on Germany for the defeat suffered in the war of 1870-71 CIt feared the growth of German trade in world markets DIt had been attacked by Austria-Hungary in 1908

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which pair of sources gives two governments' opposing accounts of who was responsible for the plot behind the triggering event?

    ASources 1 and 4 BSources 2 and 3 CSources 4 and 5 DSources 1 and 5

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Classify each of these as a long-term cause or a triggering event, and give a reason for each from its source: (a) the "policy of encirclement" (Source 4, paragraph 5); (b) the bomb hurled at the archduke's car (Source 1, paragraph 3); (c) Russia's wish "to reach the southern sea" (Source 4, paragraph 5).

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using the timeline table, how many days passed between the assassination (June 28) and Austria-Hungary's note to Serbia (July 23)? Explain what this gap means for an argument that the assassination "caused" the war.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare how Source 2 (the German White Book) and Source 3 (Serbia's reply) each connect the triggering event to longer-term issues. Use one quotation from each.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Reynolds (Source 1, 1916) and the former emperor (Source 4, 1922) both give most weight to long-term causes, but not the same ones. Name the long-term cause each emphasizes and suggest one reason connected to each author's position for the difference.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Position A in Activity 2 says that if the attack at Sarajevo had failed, another crisis would probably have set off a general war. Write a short argument (four to six sentences) for or against Position A that keeps long-term causes and the triggering event distinct and cites two sources.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a thesis statement (two or three sentences) for an essay on the outbreak of the war of 1914 that names at least one long-term cause and the triggering event, states which mattered more, and names two sources you would use.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.15.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.