Sane German response to the Sarajovo murder in July 1914

[TDM]

Indeed, after the 1914 Carnegie Report the whole world knew the Serbs were not only war mongers and suspected state sponsors of terrorism, but also advocates for widespread attrocities in the Balkan wars. The Serbs had also developed a reputation for brinkmanship and going back on prior undertakings, hence Wilhelm's assessment the Serbs could not be trusted.

Only there were crimes were committed by all sides in the Balkans war the report didn't single out the Serbs as singularly awful.

. According to Mazower, the Carnegie Report confirms that during the Balkan Wars, both Christians and Muslims became perpetrators and targets of violence. The evidence presented by the Commission suggests that the atrocities which Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians inflicted upon each other were just as severe as the reprisals against their former Ottoman oppressors

and frankly if were going to get into atrocities in war AH shows what it's capable of pretty quickly in Serbia once the war starts

I agree though you couldn't trust the Serbs at face value which is why there was the whole idea of intentional arbitration

Such as Serbian territorial aspirations, which were only possible through a wider war?

absolutely, but AH had them too, Serbia again not being exceptional in this regard. also notice it not Serbia that's ignoring mediation and invading AH and triggering a much larger war is it?.

look I don't like Serbia here, they do some truly shitty stuff and had been making moves for pan-slavism for decades. But this narrative that they are so uniquely awful that they not only deserved all bad things but thus anyone standing in the way of that must be similarly compromised is not only simplistic in regards to Serbia it ignores the reality of mush wider context of what had been going on and whey people ended up fighting WW1.

No, I am referring to the fact Grey's diplomacy lead the Germans to believe the British would enter the war in almost all circumstaces, so the relevence of Belgium neutrality became of no importance. If Germany had recognised British neutrality was a genuine possibility if Belgium was not invaded, then this becomes a consideration for German planners. However, Grey did not want his French friends to fight the Germans alone, so was deliberately vague.

Only if your narrative of Grey as the rogue agent is right why did Britain then a back his threat up with a preliminary mobilisation as per my link?

There was also no possibility the German planners were going to change their plan two weeks before the invasion. But the point is there was no hope of British neutrality because allowing Germany to invade France an Belgium was against British policy.

No, the vast majority of the British Cabinet were firmly against war, until their hand was forced by the German invasion of Belgium.

Once again you can be against a war and still fight it, and yes German actions forced their hand.

It does not require a CP bias to maintain the peace, since Britain and Germany had previously worked together in 1912 to maintain the same.

Right only that involved intentional talks ete, which is exactly what was being proposed in July 1914 only what happened? Oh yeah AH said no and Germany ultimately backed them!

No, in the British Cabinet deliberations there was no concern expressed regarding the invasion of France, aside perhaps from Grey and Churchill. Even a minor Breach of Belgian interests was held to be acceptable. So again, Grey deliberately deceived the Germans into believing the British would go to war to protect French interests

if this was true as a position of policy (and not one of many opinions raised in an internal discussion) again why did the British back Grey threat up? But again you seem to think the that the only two possible positions is to be rabid war mongers or neutrality, again in reality there are more

 

[TDM]

No, the German blank cheque was to cover A-H against third parties. The Franco-Russian blank cheque was to attack A-H directly i.e. join the fight.

In this context what do you think "covering AH against third parties" means? It's not like we dont know they invaded Belgium and France, that seems pretty damn directly joining teh fight to me?

Literacy? The British did not have a treaty with either Russia or France - even Grey was forced to admit to the rest of the British Cabinet that Britain retained a free hand, despite the promises he had made. The Russians did not have a treaty with Serbia. Germany did have a treaty with A-H and was merely reaffirming it would accept A-H actions to be valid under that treaty. The fact the Russians were the first to mobilise was kept secret for the majority of the war.

None of that puts the onus on Britain to let Ah and Germany do what they want though? Countries can take actions out side of official treaties

What A-H adventurism are you referring to? Aside from the annexation of Bosnia Herzegovina, a territory administered by A-H for 30 years, A-H diplomacy had been more-or-less inert.

well teh annexation you reference for one, you preempting it doesn't make it go away

 

[TDM]

The factions of Serbia were the one who were supporting the black hand and those like Pasic who thought that the war with Austria to "free" the south slavs must come later. And as Princip and his associates received their weapons through the black hand from official serbian army depots I dont see how they were "one step removed". Because the leadership of the black hand were high ranking officers of the serbian army whos main reason not to try and completly take ower he country was that Russia did not want Pasic removed.

By one step removed i mean the assassin weren't in the black hand, but Young Bosnia

Yes we have. The greeks and bulgarians havent been a jot better than the serbians in Macedonia. But they did not directly operate against any Great Power (I think they would have if geography placed them in such a situation but thats beside the point) and did not threaten an alt WWI so they are of much less importance.

The point was the Serbs were not empirically worse (look at the language being used in thsi thread), not weather others didn't make moves against great powers. And it's not like the great powers weren't doing the same stuff (hence my link to AH supporting the polish groups). Also what's the inference great powers should be allowed to do what they like under threat of trigger general European wars if they dont get their way?

In the last years before the war A-H has been practically banished from the Balkans. Russia mananged to have a Blakan League under his sponsorhip and even managed to steer away Hohenzollern Romania from the CP side. They barely lost Bulgaria because they had to choose between them and everyone else.

Bosnian Crisis?

But you right elsewhere AH influence had been pushed out from the Balkans, do we think they were happy with that and didn't have a policy in regards to that

No, that came after the war when Gavrilo Princip was venerated as a national hero in serbian dominated Yugoslavia - and AFAIK is even today in Serbia.

Not quite sure what you mean, The Serbians accepted teh idea do international mediation and the other demands when they accepted all but one of the AH demands?

 

[Tibi088]

By one step removed i mean the assassin weren't in the black hand, but Young Bosnia

When the asassination was planned by the Black Hand and the asassins received their weapons from the black hand I dont really care for the difference.

The point was the Serbs wee not empirically worse (look at the language being used in thsi thread), not weather others didn't make moves against great powers. And it's not like the great powers weren't doing the same stuff (hence my link to AH supporting the polish groups). Also what's the inference great powers should be allowed to do what they like under threat of trigger general European wars if they dont get their way?

I think every single country has the right to step up against countries who sponsor terrorism on their territory. GP's are just more ready and able and obliged to do so - especially if they want to remain a GP.

As for the polish group: they were a tool that would have been dropped the moment they become problematic. Serbia IMO would have been incapable of ridding itself from the Black Hand even if he wanted to. Pasic new about the coming asassination and was completly unable to do anything about it - even after it happened. The Black Hand was far too strong and far too intewoven with the state to be discarded.

Bosnian Crisis?

But you right elsewhere AH influence had been pushed out from the Balkans, do we think they were happy with that and didn't have a policy in regards to that

They certainly had plans - though I dont know them. But so had Russia, Italy and other great powers as well. After and in great part because of the Bosnian crisis Austrian diplomacy suffered so severe setbacks on the peninsula that at points the whole of it seemed to get under Russian influence.

Not quite sure what you mean, The Serbians accepted teh idea do international mediation and the other demands when they accepted all but one of the AH demands?

In your former post:

Plus on top of all this, the Serbian government didn't sit back twirl it moustaches and bellow loudly "we have killed your duke what are going to do about it Russia has our back"

To which I pointed out that after the war Gavrilo Princip was venerated as a national hero in Yugoslavia and AFAIK even today in Serbia. That seems to me something really like the bellowing loudly and proudly that we killed the Archduke and are not at all sorry about it.

 

[Mikey]

True, but there also a certain amount of second guessing what each side was saying openly as well. See the point about the Germans thinking Russia was blustering (but of course the two were linked).

You also get stuff like Messages being sat on by those how think they know better or because passing them on would mess with own agenda. And then odd stuff like Germany screwing with French communications as the French PM and President sailed back from St Petersburg on their battleship. Which I could understand if we're already at war or even just trying gain an advantage before an inevitable war, but its odd decision if we accept that ostensibly everyone is trying to negotiate a politically satisfactory alternative to open war with the clock ticking!

Yeah, I think I agree here. There's a LOT of issues around just garbled communications within the various powers, and some bad information between them - some of it as deliberate diplomatic secrecy, but also a fair amount of things that just got messed up. The diplomats writing their memoirs after the war tended to stress that the whole thing was inevitable, but that's self-serving, and even at the time, it seems like few of them were actively hoping for war consistently. Even the more belligerent politicians tended to hvae some doubts until it was too late.

Related to that, there was a fair amount of tunnel vision, where the parties focused on things that were neither about preventing the war, or winning it: trying to ensure that they wouldn't be seen as the aggressor; the prestige involved; the anxiety about backing down; false stereotypes about each other's 'national character,' focuses on offensives and initiative, etc. All of which amounted to the whole thing being something of a surprise which wasn't taken seriously ENOUGH until it was too late.

 

[marathag]

but the Empire came out of it larger and arguably stronger

Worth a generation of Men expended in Belgian mud, and passing the torch to the USA for driving the World economy?
Nope.

 

[marathag]

My point is that there were no good options for the british.

Staying out was possible. Could have thrown Belgium under the Bus like postwar Poland was

 

[marathag]

The point was the Serbs wee not empirically worse

Talk to Albanians about that

 

[TDM]

When the asassination was planned by the Black Hand and the asassins received their weapons from the black hand I dont really care for the difference.

That's fair and in terms of the end result it's still an assassination of chap and his wife. But the point is in one more step in reality that gets in the way of the contraction "the Serbian government assassinated the arch duke" which is a reductive one.

I think every single country has the right to step up against countries who sponsor terrorism on their territory. GP's are just more ready and able and obliged to do so - especially if they want to remain a GP.

Fair enough, I just think GP especially have more options open to them and the risk of their actions are higher, AH realy went out of it way to ignore all other options than open war and did so in a context where open war was going to escalate. Also no one was fooled about their actual end goal here.

As for the polish group: they were a tool that would have been dropped the moment they become problematic.

that doesn't really answer the point that they were there in the first place funded and supported by factions within AH military intelligence and killing Russian officials.

Serbia IMO would have been incapable of ridding itself from the Black Hand even if he wanted to. Pasic new about the coming asassination and was completly unable to do anything about it - even after it happened. The Black Hand was far too strong and far too intewoven with the state to be discarded.

There is some debate about how much Pasic knew (or more importantly approved or could act on), and frankly we don't know how successful he might have been in curtailing them especially if he was acting under teh demands and bolstered by an international investigation an cleaning house of fanatical bunch trouble makers etc (but equally that doesn't disprove your point either). what we can say is he didn't get the chance.

They certainly had plans - though I dont know them. But so had Russia, Italy and other great powers as well. After and in great part because of the Bosnian crisis Austrian diplomacy suffered so severe setbacks on the peninsula that at points the whole of it seemed to get under Russian influence.

Absolutely, all GPs bordering the Balkans had skin in the Balkan game. Which is why I really don't get the posts that seem to think that the assassination came completely out teh blue because Serbians are basically Klingons, Ah had not been making moves in the area since 1870 or this apparent disbelief that Russia would have Serbia's back.

Your point about the Bosnian crisis is important. One of the reason why AH wasn't too keen to go down the international diplomacy route was because of their experience in Bosnian crisis. Of course this means they doubled down on the general European war route instead because they thought that would be better. Now to be fair to them if they had just marched straight in and dealt with political fallout afterwards (which is also what Germany waited them to do when they first gave the bank cheque) it might well have ended there in military terms anyway. But they didn't.

To which I pointed out that after the war Gavrilo Princip was venerated as a national hero in Yugoslavia and AFAIK even today in Serbia. That seems to me something really like the bellowing loudly and proudly that we killed the Archduke and are not at all sorry about it.

Ah OK yes i see you point (and I've seen the statues too), so OK a couple of points on that:

1). what happened post war and post the collapse of AH is a different context. (let's not forget AH behaviour during WW1 in Serbia afterall)
2). popular feeling after 1918 isn't government policy in July 1914 not when Serbia is staring down the barrel of a very large gun and is dependent on international good will.
3). IIRC it's as much tied up in anti AH feeling as yay terrorism is great

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Worth a generation of Men expended in Belgian mud, and passing the torch to the USA for driving the World economy?
Nope.

Within the realms of hindsight? Probably not.

Knowing what they knew at the time and preventing Prussian militarism conquering Europe? Possibly so.

 

[TDM]

Staying out was possible. Could have thrown Belgium under the Bus like postwar Poland was

OK what's your point here?

Are you saying Britain should have left Belgium at the mercy of Germany abandoning a treaty that had been in place for decades and had been created specifically to try and ward of a general war between France and German states. Because you think Britain left Poland at the mercy of Russia in 1945 (despite declaring war against Germany over the invasion of Poland in 1939).

With that in mind should Britain also not have declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland in 1939. So we're basically left with Britain should just let Germany invade whoever as a foreign policy, right?

tangentially tell me what is your plan for the British army in 1945 for attacking the red army positions and driving them out of Poland?

Remember no one is forcing Germany to invade Belgium, they choose to do so.

Talk to Albanians about that

again what's your point, have I said Serbia at no point did terrible things, is Albania alone in having terrible things done to them, is Serbia alone in doing terrible things.

look I like one line zingers as much as the next chap, but you've got to develop them a bit more

 

[marathag]

Are you saying Britain should have left Belgium at the mercy of Germany abandoning a treaty that had been in place for decades

Perfidious Albion has done worse.

 

[TDM]

Perfidious Albion has done worse.

It most certainly has, but you didn't answer the question about Belgium in 1914 (or Poland in 1939 come to that)

 

[marathag]

again what your point, have I said Serbia at no point did terrible things, is Albania alone in having terrible things done to them, is Serbia alone in doing terrible things.

But Serbia alone (well, Montenegrins helped too) were the ones doing terrible things to Albanians since 1877
Some of the first 'ethnic cleansing' done in modern Europe, and continued in the following Balkan Wars

 

[TDM]

But Serbia alone (well, Montenegrins helped too) were the ones doing terrible things to Albanians since 1877
Some of the first 'ethnic cleansing' done in modern Europe, and continued in the following Balkan Wars

Don't forget the Greeks, they had history in Albania too. But either way what's your point that Serbia did terrible things in Albania, yep absolutely. Do we only look at that when looking at the whole thing?

 

[Aghasverov]

Within the realms of hindsight? Probably not.

Knowing what they knew at the time and preventing Prussian militarism conquering Europe? Possibly so.

I classify "Prussian Militarism" as one of those abstract tropes that gained a lot of currency among historians in the post-WWI milieu, in order to rationalize the horrors which had occurred... I've never been a fan of explanations of historical events that rely on concepts ("the rise of nationalism" etc) at the expense of specific actions of governments and individuals when faced with decisive moments - never really gave it much thought before but maybe I am an adherent of the "Great Man" school of interpretation after all... anyway...
Just how many wars/conflicts, including colonial "affairs", did the "militaristic" German Empire engage in between 1871 and 1914, compared to Russia... France... the UK... ANY of the Balkan states? If anyone has a compilation/comparison of this, I'd love to see it...

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I classify "Prussian Militarism" as one of those abstract tropes that gained a lot of currency among historians in the post-WWI milieu, in order to rationalize the horrors which had occurred...

Possibly, I can see how “trope” fits the bill. But it’s a useful shorthand to describe the milieu of Wilhelmine Germany and how it was perceived abroad. It usefully describes an Empire, dominated by Prussia, that allowed its military to run almost unchecked to the point that the Chief of the General Staff practically determined the form of the nation’s Foreign Policy. It’s a phrase that, when used correctly, allows one to understand what someone means when describing German actions. It also, to a degree, absolves the general German population of complaisance with the actions of the Wilhelmine government.

Just how many wars/conflicts, including colonial "affairs", did the "militaristic" German Empire engage in between 1871 and 1914, compared to Russia... France... the UK... ANY of the Balkan states? If anyone has a compilation/comparison of this, I'd love to see it...

Not exactly relevant. Germany crossed the border into Belgium and backed Austria to the hilt in the Balkans.

 

[Mikey]

I classify "Prussian Militarism" as one of those abstract tropes that gained a lot of currency among historians in the post-WWI milieu, in order to rationalize the horrors which had occurred... I've never been a fan of explanations of historical events that rely on concepts ("the rise of nationalism" etc) at the expense of specific actions of governments and individuals when faced with decisive moments - never really gave it much thought before but maybe I am an adherent of the "Great Man" school of interpretation after all... anyway...
Just how many wars/conflicts, including colonial "affairs", did the "militaristic" German Empire engage in between 1871 and 1914, compared to Russia... France... the UK... ANY of the Balkan states? If anyone has a compilation/comparison of this, I'd love to see it...

Yeah, I think this is an interesting point. I think it's more relevant, honestly, in domestic German politics than foreign policy, because a militaristic society isn't necessarily the same thing as one which engages in aggressive foreign wars. In some ways, civilian leadership has been *more* blase about soldiers dying in battle to achieve whatever political objective they're after.

So while I think the cultural militarism in Germany in general, and in the Imperial family in particular, is enormously significant to the character of the German Empire itself, I don't think it's the case that such militarism made them unusually belligerent compared to Russia, France, or Britain.

In particular—Bethman-Hollweg and von Jagow did not come from the ranks of the German military despite their roles in the outbreak of the war. The military leadership fought the war itself and essentially ruled Germany during the fighting, but didn't really provoke it. "Militarism" is the kind of term that can get difficult to define—does it mean that German civilians were more warlike than their counterparts?

I'm not really persuaded.

 

[cjc]

Possibly, I can see how “trope” fits the bill. But it’s a useful shorthand to describe the milieu of Wilhelmine Germany and how it was perceived abroad. It usefully describes an Empire, dominated by Prussia, that allowed its military to run almost unchecked to the point that the Chief of the General Staff practically determined the form of the nation’s Foreign Policy. It’s a phrase that, when used correctly, allows one to understand what someone means when describing German actions. It also, to a degree, absolves the general German population of complaisance with the actions of the Wilhelmine government.


Not exactly relevant. Germany crossed the border into Belgium and backed Austria to the hilt in the Balkans.

It is because if Germany dint engage in more wars then its counterparts in Europe then one can't exactly call Germany any more milerterstic then any other country's in Europe, can say the army was more of a power in germany then France sence france had a higher amount of troops per capata then germany and both wer lead by civilian governments, the German military wasn't really more powerful then in many European countries dispite the propaganda.

 

[Stonepile]

The Russian full mobilization (and refusal of Tsar Nicky to de-mobilize) made that quite impossible...

The only reason the Russians mobilized was because of a stupid mistaken in which no one mentioned to the Russian's that the Austro-Hungarians had promised that they wouldn't annex a foot of Serbia and planned to halt in Belgrade.