How Avoidable was WWI?
- Thread starter Jito
- Start date
what you mean he wasn't saying to the Serbians do what you like and we'll back you no matter what?
Are you saying that there was no ultimatum, no response from Serbia, Kaiser Wilhelm thinking that the Serbian response was reasonable enough to head off war?
Pot and kettle much
BH was given to AH to temporally administer, it was still part of the Ottoman empire in fact, but AH saw it's opportunity in 1908.
And again Serbia =/= the Black hand. look I know your not going concede this point because your entire argument hangs on Serbia being a carton villain but you repeating it doesn't make it true
And of course AH were fine with Serbian tactics against the Turks, including the uprisings in 1870's, of course it's a different matter when it against your empire
Hang on, this is the same Russia you just said was giving the Black hand carte blanche for terrorism with unrestricted support.
Also you get why chunks of the Serbian population (and other population in the area) were sympathetic? Do you think just possibly it might have had something to do with AH policy in the area?
Oh come off it, the black hand was no more gong to destroy AH than the IRA were able to destroy the UK. Maybe just maybe AH foreign policy in the area (to grab as much of it as possible) might just have had repercussions when it came to growing Slavic nationalism continuing to build up now that they weren't Ottoman empire territory.
Last edited:
A fairly respectable case can be made for Ireland (pop 4.4m in 1914) being responsible for the demise of the rather larger British Empire.
No I said:
"You get that AH had just launched a land grab BH right? You get that the annexation crisis was caused by AH? "
But actually given the geography of the area and the recent history, yes AH was doing this with an eye too Serbia
Oh please stop clutching the pearls, you telling me you think AH has more in common culturally and ethnically with BH than Serbia does? BH was made up of predominately Bosnian Muslims (who didn't generally want to leave the Ottoman empire / be part of the AH empire, Croats who were initially fine with the annexation because they thought BH would be combined with Croatia (but then got pissed when that didn't happen) and the Serbs in the area.
Half the great powers had a fit and retroactively had to have their feathers smoothed.
The annexation and Bulgarian declaration were viewed as violations of the Treaty of Berlin. France, Britain, Russia and Italy therefore were in favor of a conference to consider the matter. German opposition and complex diplomatic maneuvering as to the location, nature and preconditions of the conference delayed and ultimately scuttled it.[25] Instead, the Powers reached agreement on amendments to the Treaty through consultations between capitals.
Italy expected compensations in the areas of "Italia Irredenta" ruled by Austria-Hungary in exchange for its recognition of the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as was agreed upon in the Triple Alliance treaties with Austria-Hungary. However this did not happen and this became one of the reasons for Italy to break its alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1915.[26] The mutual compensation clause was article 7 of the 1909 and of 5 December 1912 versions of the same treaty:
However, if, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and in the Aegean Sea should become impossible, and if, whether in consequence of the action of a third Power or otherwise, Austria-Hungary or Italy should find themselves under the necessity of modifying it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a previous agreement between the two Powers, based upon the principle of a reciprocal compensation for every advantage, territorial or other, which each of them might obtain beyond the present status quo, and giving satisfaction to the interests and well founded claims of the two Parties.[27]
See above
Last edited:
Oh I agree, It's just AH* seemed happy with and even to support such things going on in other areas, but apparently it's the worst thing ever to ever happen when it happen to them and those supporting it are the worst ever.
Ultimately the point here is that when you are an empire expanding your territory it's not that unusual for those in that area to fight back in a variety of unpleasant ways.
So don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of Serbia in general here (their own plans for how the Balkans should be aren't all sunshine and rainbows), and the black hand were nationalist fanatics. But I can see why both groups are looking at AH with increasing alarm.
But AH was fine with nationalist / pan-slavic Serbs slitting throats in the 1870's when it was Turkish throats being slit
and they were happy with Serbia when it looks like Serbia was going to be their ally prior to the pro-AH royal family being axed in favor of the Pro-Russian one
But when AH decides it's going to have proper go at consolidating into Balkans it somehow acts surprised when Serbian nationalism / pan-slavism bites it in the ass? And somehow when it happens to them it's inherently far worse than when it happens to everyone else?
*or since there's no requirement on AH to be even handed when it comes to itself and others, rather those who look to justify AH's actions
Last edited:
heh I rather think there was many other relevent factors, and dissimilarities between the the Balkans & AH empire and Ireland & British empire
!
Last edited:
They were a powerful faction in Serbia at the time, they weren't ever a powerful faction in the AH empire.
or put it another way there's a reason why they waited for FF to go to Sarajevo! (and i think we all know how lucky they got that day
!)
Last edited:
True* but by that standard at least Serbs made a significant proportion of the BH population. AH wanted BH to become part of greater AH and didn't care what the Muslims, Croats or Serbs in BH wanted (not too many Austro-Hungarians other than in military garrisons of course).
Basically if we going to go with that as a measure of who was most right then AH is still wrong!
But pan-slavism is a thing (even if it's also at times a Russian foreign policy tool), and while the AH empire felt it was only right and proper that it's boundaries would expand to include what used to be within Ottoman boundaries. But this is the turn of the C20th not the turn of the C18th, and societies have changed and as I said earlier there are other options than either being part of the AH Empire or part of the Ottoman Empire.
*and the BH Croats wanted BH to be part of a greater Croatia, The BH Muslims didn't really want to leave the Ottoman Empire / become part foe AH Empire etc, etc Part of the problem here being that due to basically being within 50 years post colonial territories, lines on maps and groups of people don't actually line nicely up!
EDIT however while I agree that was definitely one reason why Serbia wasn't happy, there were others:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why Serbia in it's current anti AH kick has other issues with AH taking over BH other than just it wanted to have BH itself
Last edited: