How Avoidable was WWI?

[Tibi088]

Actually fair enough no official treaty but pretty damn clear mutual agreement and support, (the Russians had just basically put Pasic back in government). the Russian had not been shy about their backing either, and the AH were well aware of it. Russia had been in with Serbia since 1807, and had basically been making moves in this area since then. AH knew they were countering Russian influence in the area (and vice versa of course).

Actually Russia was traditionally Bulgaria's sponsor on the Balkans and not Serbia's. Serbia has been practically and especially economically a dependance of Austria till the tariff war of 1906-08. Austria and Russia had various agreements to this effect during the century. Serbia becoming Russia's main protege on the Balkan was a pretty new development meaning the Balkan wars.

Well yes, but high ranking Serbian officials cover a lot of ground especially as Serbia had it's own factionalism going (which is why Pasic had needed Russian support). Also when you are multi ethnic empire guess what you will be susceptible to people looking at separatism, how you deal with depends on you

I have to agree however seeing as before WWI likely only active russian support for Pasic saved him from being violently removed from power by military officers who were involved and part of the Black hand and seeing how this same military had a free hand in Macedonia i think im justified to say that Serbia was basically a terrorist state. Maybe given a lot of time Pasic might have reigned in the military but im doubtful of that.

Also separatism is one thing - far from a friendly step on itself but still. Planning and performing acts of terrorism is another.

Did he? More importantly did he condone it? Pasic wanted peace (not because he was a lovely peaceful chap who loved AH, but because they were still skint from the last Balkan war), dont get me wrong I've no doubt there was a line between some Serbian factions - Black hand - Young Bosnians. But this idea that the assassination of FF was some official foreign policy move by the Serbian Gov while it might make AH look better, isn't necessarily true

He did know about it and also issued a warning to Vienna - though in such a vague way that it proved useless. The point I was trying to make was that even though he knew about it he was powerless to stop it - that shows both the support the Black hand enjoyed in Serbia and the balance of power within the state.
This might also look like im trying to make AH look better. I dont - AH wasnt a nice place, activly wanted war with Serbia, however he had good reason to want to war with Serbia.

It could have acted faster and handed the world a fait accompli that no one was going to go to war over (but fucked that option up)

It could have framed it's ultimatum demands in such a way that they could have be met and satisfaction given/extracted, and not be about the most transparent looking for rejection excuse for war ever (the Serbs actually agreed all but one demand, but no that's not good enough no choice but war!)

it could have agreed to international arbitration (but didn't like that idea thinking it wouldn't get a free hand). This was the big one for me there were international attempts to do this right up until the eleventh hour but both AH and Germany said no, why say no when general war is looming?

It had options, it's not like it was forced to do what it did, especially as since it was relying on the German blank cheque and what that could mean for escalation.

Austria did mishandle the situation however I dont think they could have done anything to persuade Russia not to back Serbia. Looking at the realities of AH military creating a fait accomply you propose was impossible.

An international arbitration has the problem of who should be the judge? Russia has rejected the results of Austrian investigation before they were finished based on the fact that a decade earlier austrian authorities did try to condemn a sebian nationalist on fabricated evidence - and failed by the way. Paris and London accepted the Russian position.

Seeing how intervovene were official and unofficial Serbia before WWI i highly doubt any intervention sort of a long military occupation was going to solve the situation. Unless you propose that Austria should have given up all of his south slavic territories without a fight.

 

[Matteo]

I think that rather discounts the aggressiveness of France's own military leaders, their desire to regain Alsace-Lorraine, and their belief that a great war had to be enacted before demographic trends placed Germany at a firm advantage over France.

This was the case until the 1880’s. No more in the 1910’s.

In 1914, France’s population was barely 40 million people. Germany’s was 67 million.

This is because of such an imbalance that Germany thought it could bully France with an ultimatum to drop the Russian and surrender its border fortresses for the time of the coming war against Russia or that it could knock France out of the coming conflict in barely one month with the Schlieffen plan.

This is not to say France did not hope to regain Alsace and north Lorraine, but it was not suicidal nor in a position to take the initiative of attacking Germany. France went to war because it knew that if it dropped its Russian ally, Russia would be defeated and France would be at the mercy of a crushingly dominant greater Germany.

This being said a general conflict such as WW1 was hardly avoidable, no matter killing or not an archduke of any country because the european Great powers had been on a collision course close to a generation.

There was not a single but even a double Thucydides’ trap.

One that opposed declining Britain and rising Germany and the other that opposed rising Germany and faster rising Russia.

Germany finally decided to take its chances in 1914 because its assessment was that Russia’s fast modernization and military and industrial rise would finally overcome Germany’s.

Edit : And think of the oil revolution too, that was happening with the Middle East about to become the disclose its incredible oil reserves (which became obvious by 1908 in Iran), the foundation of the Turkish Oil Company, the Berlin-Bagdad-Bahn, ... etc.

There was going to be a massive confrontation. The Balkan wars before WW1 were not only due to clashing nationalisms but to establishing or breaking strategic roads that would completely upset the balance of powers in the age of oil.

 

[TDM]

Getting worse how?

Increased nationalism within AH, especially in this case pan slavism having replaced* the ottomans in Eastern Europe. I.e it no longer a case of are you part of the AH empire or the Ottoman empire.

Replaced not really the right word, especially as it had been used by the AH and Russian against the Ottomans (it's just AH made the classic mistake if thinks of course it wouldn't be used against them as all their Slavic subjects just love being part of them.

Bearing in mind they had been “grabbing” it since 1878 and the world didn’t implode, it’s maybe not so bad. As for reactions, maybe a fair bit of sabre rattling and not much else?

True but each time they grab they increase tensions, right? It's no surprise Bismark talks about some "damn fool thing in the Balkans". Moreover when they then transparently go for war with Serbia knowing Serbia has Russian backing, it's going to involve Russia and AH butting heads directly rather than indirectly. As I posted earlier the alliance system allows for greater power taking on a lesser one, but it designed to disincentavise two great powers going at it because it mean all great powers go at. Now AH could have got it's pound of flesh out of Serbia with it's demands, pretty much business as usual. As you say a bit of sabre rattling and so on, but no it's got Germans blank cheque and assumes that going to be enough and goes the whole way. But the alliance system isn't about protecting you back as you do what you want, it about curtailing actions that might provoke a war.

However my point was also every time AH pushes further into eastern Europe which as you say they had been doing, of course Serbia is going to push back, and Serbia pushes back with pan slavisim and Slavic nationalism, and so on.

I meant as a weakness of the A-H Empire.

And as i said that is a weakness of the AH when you they just officially taken Bosnia into them as well as extend control into former ottoman eastern Europe. It's not like they killed FF because he was the first big name to arrive they targeted him because he was the crown prince of AH

 

[Derek Pullem]

Now thats just nonsense.

In a way.

But Germany was in a very precarious position sandwiched between France and Russia. If only one of them mobilised then they could just about afford to react to the mobilisation rather than preempt it. But when both of them mobilise then the only alternative to avoid a terrible strategic position is to attack (at least in the pre-WW1 mindset - now we know different). The Franco Prussian war was won by the faster mobilisation of German reserves and every General Staff works to refight the last war.

The French and the Russians were as guilty as the Germans as they fully understood the consequences of mobilisation. But the Germans di have to mobilise faster, did have to attack and their plan did say attack France.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Austria did mishandle the situation however I dont think they could have done anything to persuade Russia not to back Serbia. Looking at the realities of AH military creating a fait accomply you propose was impossible.

An international arbitration has the problem of who should be the judge? Russia has rejected the results of Austrian investigation before they were finished based on the fact that a decade earlier austrian authorities did try to condemn a sebian nationalist on fabricated evidence - and failed by the way. Paris and London accepted the Russian position.

Seeing how intervovene were official and unofficial Serbia before WWI i highly doubt any intervention sort of a long military occupation was going to solve the situation. Unless you propose that Austria should have given up all of his south slavic territories without a fight.

Grey wanted to use the standing committee of the Treaty of London conference, if I REMEMBER my terms right. Basically the holdover from the 2nd Balkan War

 

[TDM]

Actually Russia was traditionally Bulgaria's sponsor on the Balkans and not Serbia's. Serbia has been practically and especially economically a dependance of Austria till the tariff war of 1906-08. Austria and Russia had various agreements to this effect during the century. Serbia becoming Russia's main protege on the Balkan was a pretty new development meaning the Balkan wars.

Only Bulgaria is a busted flush after the 2nd Balkan war. and Russia had friendly relationship with Serbia since Napoleonic times.

I have to agree however seeing as before WWI likely only active russian support for Pasic saved him from being violently removed from power by military officers who were involved and part of the Black hand and seeing how this same military had a free hand in Macedonia i think im justified to say that Serbia was basically a terrorist state. Maybe given a lot of time Pasic might have reigned in the military but im doubtful of that.

I think calling Serbia a terrorist state is a bit OTT, also It's not like AH gave Pasic much chance with the whole threatening to invade Serbia thing didn't really make him very likely to help them either

Also separatism is one thing - far from a friendly step on itself but still. Planning and performing acts of terrorism is another.

Right but who actually directly planing that?

He did know about it and also issued a warning to Vienna - though in such a vague way that it proved useless. The point I was trying to make was that even though he knew about it he was powerless to stop it - that shows both the support the Black hand enjoyed in Serbia and the balance of power within the state.

Right but like I said knowing and condoning or stopping it is different things, Serbia has plenty of factionalism (Pasic only just been put back in place by Russia). Also powerless to stop is it kind of all or nothing statement, I think it wasn't his highest priority, he was already walking a tightrope and not worth the amount of political ammunition it would expended to pull off. As it would have involved trying to rip out the black hand from his military structure. and frankly why's he going to do this for AH?

This might also look like im trying to make AH look better. I dont - AH wasnt a nice place, activly wanted war with Serbia, however he had good reason to want to war with Serbia.

Ok but the point was they had other options especially as the stakes got very high. And they refused all of them except war.[/QUOTE]

Austria did mishandle the situation however I dont think they could have done anything to persuade Russia not to back Serbia. Looking at the realities of AH military creating a fait accomply you propose was impossible.

Right but that's AH's failure not anyone else's, right. if you can't do thing you dont make it everyone else's fault when you do something else.

An international arbitration has the problem of who should be the judge? Russia has rejected the results of Austrian investigation before they were finished based on the fact that a decade earlier Austrian authorities did try to condemn a sebian nationalist on fabricated evidence - and failed by the way.[/QUOTE]

well what can I say, don't cry wolf AH's actions coming back on it

Paris and London accepted the Russian position.

Russia rejected the Serbian investigation because there hadn't been a proper investigation (the final clause of the AH ultimatum the Serbians refused on was AH investigators having full jurisdiction on Serbian territory), you can see why that combines badly with the earlier claims AH had made.

But there's also Germany and other actors as well. I mean you are right AH didn't like the idea of international arbitration because it didn't think it would get everything it wanted, but well too bad that international politics for you. It also would have help if they had doen this when sympathy for the dead was fresh but they waited a month.

Seeing how intervovene were official and unofficial Serbia before WWI i highly doubt any intervention sort of a long military occupation was going to solve the situation. Unless you propose that Austria should have given up all of his south slavic territories without a fight.

Why is Ah giving up all it's Slavic territories the only way to avoid WW1?

 

[TDM]

There was no Treaty, secret or otherwise.
Just mostly the Promises of the Russian Ambassador. Really was the Tail wagging the Dog.

Who said secret, it was very much not secret, not an official treaty but very much a mutual pact between them,

Russia had just put Pasic back in government, Russia had been backing what ever Slavic power group against Ah expansion for decades, Russia had also been trying to increase eit own influence in the area. AH knew this (it's hwy they were so keen on Russian mobilisation plans, and having German backing after all).

Also if it was as you say just some Russian ambassador making promises he couldn't cover, did that Russian ambassador also mobilise the Russian army?

 

[TDM]

I think that rather discounts the aggressiveness of France's own military leaders, their desire to regain Alsace-Lorraine, and their belief that a great war had to be enacted before demographic trends placed Germany at a firm advantage over France.

France's "military leaders" or rather leader in the military were busy trying to persuade it's political leader to allow it extend the draft from 1 year to 2 years. France political leaders were more worried about a militarily coup and trying to curtail the size and power of the standing army. All that meant that the France military plan was basically get hit by a invasion take the blow and then mobilise the invader out the country. No one if seriously thinking in terms of taking back A-L.

 

[TDM]

...

The French and the Russians were as guilty as the Germans as they fully understood the consequences of mobilisation.

I agree once mobilisation starts it would take a miracle to stop conflict but Russia are mobilising in response to AH's actions in Serbia. The French mobilise at the same time as Germany, it's just their mobilisation plans dont involve going hell for leather into Germany (nor that Germany can sit back for the reasons you say)

But the Germans di have to mobilise faster, did have to attack and their plan did say attack France.

And this combines badly with the above point,

What really doesn't help is Germany describing the treaty of London as "just a piece of paper" and hoping Britain can't get there quickly enough to make a difference

 

[anotherlurker]

I'm a bit disturbed by this. Are you saying Croats and Bosniaks are not Slavs? Are you saying they were not unhappy at being second class citizens? Are you saying Serbia was not aiding those wanting more rights ( for its own benefit/reasons of course )? I never said all the Slav's wanted to Serbs , just that they wanted equal rights and would prefer say, an independent Croatia, to staying in AH. Your assesrtion that AH rule was seen as better than independence is frankly patronizing.

The 3 peoples of Bosnia see it all differently, for the Serbs Princip is a hero, for the Croats and Bosniaks a terrorist. He nearly got lynched by angry pedestrians right after the assassination and had to be protected. I myself am a Bosniak, though emigrated, i see the A-H time as the best the land enjoyed the past 500 years - infrastructure, factories, schools, hospitals, bureaucracy etc. everything a modern country needs was suddenly being buildt up, with the 1960s and 70s as a strong contender. The alternative is the Serbian or Ottoman shitshow, or a possible Italian one, independence is not one, because for that the stronger states in the region have to be beaten into submission, that you only get through war. The last one happened in real life, Serbia, Hungary and Italy were whacked in turn and lost most appetite for land acquisitions, and it has resulted in independence... which is a huge shithow today (i could write all day long as to why that is, i'll spare us all).

 

[marathag]

Who said secret, it was very much not secret, not an official treaty but very much a mutual pact between them

What I said, not a Treaty.

And even when Treaties actually exist, countried can break them, like the US did with South Vietnam in 1975.

Wasn't even a Pact- just statements and promises from the Russian Ambassador, Hartwig, who boasted he was more Serbian than any Serb.

And the Russian Government decided to back what he said.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

France's "military leaders" or rather leader in the military were busy trying to persuade it's political leader to allow it extend the draft from 1 year to 2 years. France political leaders were more worried about a militarily coup and trying to curtail the size and power of the standing army. All that meant that the France military plan was basically get hit by a invasion take the blow and then mobilise the invader out the country. No one if seriously thinking in terms of taking back A-L.

All part of the “powder keg”, no? Once mobilisation became a very real possibility (and authority slid towards the military from the political establishment) there was no real voice calling for restraint. Also, if there was no one seriously thinking in terms of taking back A-L, how does that explain Plan XVII?

 

[Grey Wolf]

What really doesn't help is Germany describing the treaty of London as "just a piece of paper" and hoping Britain can't get there quickly enough to make a difference

While true to modern eyes, the Southern Netherlands had almost always been a conduit for war between major powers - it was for example where Waterloo was fought

 

[TDM]

What I said, not a Treaty.

And even when Treaties actually exist, countried can break them, like the US did with South Vietnam in 1975.

So Ok why didn't Germany break it treaty with AH then? I mean your right but this point only get brought up for why the entente member honoured their treaties but never the CP. It basically amounts to 'why din't the entente just let the CP do what they want.

Wasn't even a Pact- just statements and promises from the Russian Ambassador, Hartwig, who boasted he was more Serbian than any Serb.

And the Russian Government decided to back what he said.

Yeah OK the Russian government just decided to back this rogue agent, no other wider content fo history at all, they put Pasic back in power just on whim as well?

All part of the “powder keg”, no? Once mobilisation became a very real possibility (and authority slid towards the military from the political establishment) there was no real voice calling for restraint. Also, if there was no one seriously thinking in terms of taking back A-L, how does that explain Plan XVII?

Not really the post was suggesting that France was being led by a military that was keen to take back AL, the reality was the military in France was politically pretty weak having to fight the government for petty much everything it had.

I mean you right mobilisation is kind of a point of no return, though

While true to modern eyes, the Southern Netherlands had almost always been a conduit for war between major powers - it was for example where Waterloo was fought

Only as above why does Germany think this treaty is so weak, but somehow it's own treaty with AH must be upheld at all costs?

Also the treaty of London was pretty much penned with Waterloo in mind, and Belgium hadn't been site for such conflict for the 75 years. Between the treaty and 1914

 

[Grey Wolf]

Only as above why does Germany think this treaty is so weak, but somehow it's own treaty with AH must be upheld at all costs?

Also the treaty of London was pretty much penned with Waterloo in mind, and Belgium hadn't been site for such conflict for the 75 years. Between the treaty and 1914

An alliance is obviously more important than a guarantee. If Germany does not uphold an alliance then it loses its ally. If it breaks the guarantee then it can always be restored afterwards

As for the guarantee, it's untested. It's probably, but I am not sure, also an untested idea - great powers going to war to back up a guarantee treaty.

 

[marathag]

Ok why didn't Germany break it treaty with AH then

Because Germany was surrounded bybthe Franco-Russian Alliance.
Better to be shackled to a corpse than to be all alone

 

[marathag]

Russian government just decided to back this rogue agent

That's pretty much it. Many Russians in positions of Power thought it was a grand idea, thus the Full Mobilization orders to back Serbia 100%

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Not really the post was suggesting that France was being led by a military that was keen to take back AL, the reality was the military in France was politically pretty weak having to fight the government for petty much everything it had.

Just ignoring Plan XVII then?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Just ignoring Plan XVII then?

It's the French army's plan rather than the French government's plan - french governments come and go but the plan is meaningless without war which is entirely a politicians' purview but once they decide it, this is the only plan to go with, as the French did one plan at a time

 

[Grey Wolf]

It's the French army's plan rather than the French government's plan - french governments come and go but the plan is meaningless without war which is entirely a politicians' purview but once they decide it, this is the only plan to go with, as the French did one plan at a time

Damn, I said more than this and the webpage refreshed and deleted it. I don't know why that happens but I am sure as hell not typing it all out again