Sane German response to the Sarajovo murder in July 1914

[Tibi088]

How about the War Council of 1912?


So the product a nation where the Military was unfettered by civilian control and forced said nation into foreign policy manoeuvres to justify the actions of said military?

And yet Austria sought German clarification of their position before taking any action? Is it so radical to suggest, when asked, a different German response would produce a different Austrian reaction?

My personal opinion in the matter is that without Germany restraining them Austria would have gone to war against Serbia during the annexation crisis and the Balkan wars as well. The germans knew this and were aware that a blank cheque instead of the restraining as in the former conflicts would lead to war between Austria and Serbia.

Thus Germany in the summer of 1914 was resolved to risk the outbreak of a great war.
The same can be said for the french who assured the russian of their support in a very similar manner.
The russians who were the first to mobilize too have decided that - without any treaty obliging them to - they will start a great war if Austria attacks Serbia.
As I said Austria wanted a reckoning with Serbia since at last 1908-09.
And it would be of course pretty hard to absolve the serbs who basically fired the first shot in Sarajevo.

I hold this five states - or at least a big chunk of their leadership - in some measures responsible for the outbreak of WWI. All of them made a decision that lead either to war or turning a possibly local war to a world war. All had some justification for said decision - some better and some worse. But seeing the resulting war I think none of those sufficient or satisfactory.

 

[BooNZ]

How about the War Council of 1912?

I was going to mention it for completeness, but I don't recall any resulting course of action except informing Tirpitz to plan for war against the British, which was curious given the Anglo-German naval rivalry over the previous decade.

So the product a nation where the Military was unfettered by civilian control and forced said nation into foreign policy manoeuvres to justify the actions of said military?

As previously mentioned, the German army had negligible impact on German Foreign policy prior to the July crisis and the early Russian mobilisation. The same could not be said about Russia or France, where the defensive agreement was to attack Germany by +15.

And yet Austria sought German clarification of their position before taking any action? Is it so radical to suggest, when asked, a different German response would produce a different Austrian reaction?

That was the perogative of A-H. Clearly A-H did not share Serbia's sense of entitlement.

 

[BooNZ]

My personal opinion in the matter is that without Germany restraining them Austria would have gone to war against Serbia during the annexation crisis and the Balkan wars as well. The germans knew this and were aware that a blank cheque instead of the restraining as in the former conflicts would lead to war between Austria and Serbia.

Thus Germany in the summer of 1914 was resolved to risk the outbreak of a great war.
The same can be said for the french who assured the russian of their support in a very similar manner.
The russians who were the first to mobilize too have decided that - without any treaty obliging them to - they will start a great war if Austria attacks Serbia.
As I said Austria wanted a reckoning with Serbia since at last 1908-09.
And it would be of course pretty hard to absolve the serbs who basically fired the first shot in Sarajevo.

I hold this five states - or at least a big chunk of their leadership - in some measures responsible for the outbreak of WWI. All of them made a decision that lead either to war or turning a possibly local war to a world war. All had some justification for said decision - some better and some worse. But seeing the resulting war I think none of those sufficient or satisfactory.

I believe Germany contemplated a local war and a blank check was intended to prompt A-H to action and deter third parties from intervention and thereby avoid an escalation. This differs from the Russians and French, who contemplated intervention with the expectation of a wider european war. In respect of CP decision makers, those militerists who advocated for war were ordinarily kept away from the levers of power until the July Crisis.

 

[Tibi088]

I believe Germany contemplated a local war and a blank check was intended to prompt A-H to action and deter third parties from intervention and thereby avoid an escalation. This differs from the Russians and French, who contemplated intervention with the expectation of a wider european war. In respect of CP decision makers, those militerists who advocated for war were ordinarily kept away from the levers of power until the July Crisis.

I agree but they knew the risk was there and the miscalculations result was WWI - thus I hold them responsible though personally to a lesser degree than the other 4.

 

[Chris S]

The Sleepwalkers - as I have the ebook I cant give pages. The earlier court case was in 1909 in connection by Heinrich Friedjung described in chapter 2. An in chapter 8 its use by Hartwig and effect on russia during the sarajevo crisis. In chapeter 9 Besides the russians The Friedjung affair was directly mentioned by Poincaré to the austrian ambassador in St Petersburg in relation to the ongoing investigations on the 21st of july. its not hard to see what that implies about french position of the matter.

Readin about the Russian position and how France supported it I think it unlikely that they would have agreed to an international investigation that could result in finding Serbia responsible. And backed by Russia I think Serbia would refuse as well.

Okay, but on what exact date was that Russian declaration made?

Also the assumption being made here is that Russia and France would support an international investigation in which Serbia could be found responsible. Certainly. However that's only really possible anyway if for instance Austria-Hungary has full control over the investigation, which it clearly would not if an international commission was formed. And the terms of reference of such a commission would likely be framed in such a way that Austria could be satisfied of actually finding the killers and the direct organizers (but this would again require the Austrians to not believe that they have carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted in and to Serbia by Germany and so the focus would shift from wanting war at any costs to wanting to actually find the persons responsible) and that the Serbian cabinet itself would not be implicated. That's what diplomacy is about. An investigation which perhaps pointed the finger at a rogue Serbian officer would not actually find Serbia guilty since Apis =/= King of Serbia or Prime Minister of Serbia. Also recall that at the time, France's and Russia's governments whilst not finding the blaming of Serbia acceptable would not know what the outcome of a proper international investigation would have been and once Austria-Hungary wasn't actually in charge of said investigation they might well have been more comfortable with it.

For instance, with Russian and British interests in Iran, why would they be okay with an international police force in that country in the early 1900s? The fact that it was led by Sweden probably helped to ensure that it wasn't seen as a way for say Germany, France or Austria to gain influence in Iran. Ditto with having the force in Albania originally be led by the Dutch.

This was also the time period of International Anti-Anarchists Conferences (1898 and 1904) and the first International Criminal Police Congress (April 1914 with a second congress scheduled for 1916 but which clearly got delayed in OTL) which was attended by delegates from 24 countries including Monaco (as host), France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, the United
States, and Britain. It's hard to see how Russia or France would oppose international investigation led by say Spain or Denmark along the same lines as exactly what they were doing in Greece, Albania and Iran.

Using how Russia or France were reacting to an exclusively Austro-Hungarian investigation to postulate that they would react in the exact same way to a true international investigation falls down on that point because an international investigation would be an entirely different proposition altogether (heck, even if only France supported it initially that would go a long way to pushing Russia to accepting it).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I was going to mention it for completeness, but I don't recall any resulting course of action except informing Tirpitz to plan for war against the British, which was curious given the Anglo-German naval rivalry over the previous decade.

Possibly due to the building race effectively ending by this point? Or is it more of a case of the Council approving Tirpitz’s actions and confirming the naval course of action.

As previously mentioned, the German army had negligible impact on German Foreign policy prior to the July crisis and the early Russian mobilisation. The same could not be said about Russia or France, where the defensive agreement was to attack Germany by +15.

+15 after War being declared, which they didn’t plan to do in the first place? Anyway, I disagree. Compare to the French position, for instance where the General Staff’s plans for moving through Belgium were rejected. Civilian oversight and control of military operations. Something lacking in the German case.

 

[Tibi088]

Okay, but on what exact date was that Russian declaration made?

Also the assumption being made here is that Russia and France would support an international investigation in which Serbia could be found responsible. Certainly. However that's only really possible anyway if for instance Austria-Hungary has full control over the investigation, which it clearly would not if an international commission was formed. And the terms of reference of such a commission would likely be framed in such a way that Austria could be satisfied of actually finding the killers and the direct organizers (but this would again require the Austrians to not believe that they have carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted in and to Serbia by Germany and so the focus would shift from wanting war at any costs to wanting to actually find the persons responsible) and that the Serbian cabinet itself would not be implicated. That's what diplomacy is about. An investigation which perhaps pointed the finger at a rogue Serbian officer would not actually find Serbia guilty since Apis =/= King of Serbia or Prime Minister of Serbia. Also recall that at the time, France's and Russia's governments whilst not finding the blaming of Serbia acceptable would not know what the outcome of a proper international investigation would have been and once Austria-Hungary wasn't actually in charge of said investigation they might well have been more comfortable with it.

For instance, with Russian and British interests in Iran, why would they be okay with an international police force in that country in the early 1900s? The fact that it was led by Sweden probably helped to ensure that it wasn't seen as a way for say Germany, France or Austria to gain influence in Iran. Ditto with having the force in Albania originally be led by the Dutch.

This was also the time period of International Anti-Anarchists Conferences (1898 and 1904) and the first International Criminal Police Congress (April 1914 with a second congress scheduled for 1916 but which clearly got delayed in OTL) which was attended by delegates from 24 countries including Monaco (as host), France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, the United
States, and Britain. It's hard to see how Russia or France would oppose international investigation led by say Spain or Denmark along the same lines as exactly what they were doing in Greece, Albania and Iran.

Using how Russia or France were reacting to an exclusively Austro-Hungarian investigation to postulate that they would react in the exact same way to a true international investigation falls down on that point because an international investigation would be an entirely different proposition altogether (heck, even if only France supported it initially that would go a long way to pushing Russia to accepting it).

I found a date for Poincaré's talk I alluded to with the austrian ambassador: that was the 21st of July.

The problem with that assesment is the following: it assumes that the russians were interested to discover the culprits. Im not at all sure about that.
1. Im not sure if the russian leadership knew of official ties to Serbia - I think they did not. But there were lower level offcials who were aware of this. There has been I think a military attache in Belgrad who boeasted after the war that he was supporting Apis and the Black hand with Money - though he stated he didnt know of the assassination beforehand - if what he sad is true hat would even incriminate russian officials.
2. If the russian higher ups even suspect that Sebia might be involved they would find a reason to prevent any investigation. And they can easily get that information.
3. Seeing how deeply rooted in Serbia the Black Hand was do we suppose that any foreign investigators who are forced to at least a big part to rely on local assistance will have a successfull investigation.
4. If the investigation goes along and despite every serbian attempt to mislead the investigators it succeeds and a very big chunk of the serbian officer corps is revealed to be either directly responsible for the action or being members of the organization that is responsible for it, that the assassins were armed from official serbian army depots its hard to see what happens next. Would the conspirators go along with this result without a fight? Would russia accept this? Or come up with a reason why the finding are invalid?

This was not simply a murder case but a political question and the Russian would be very interested in not allowing the truth to surface or deny it if it surfaced anyway. France was ready to go along with this.

 

[Tibi088]

+15 after War being declared, which they didn’t plan to do in the first place? Anyway, I disagree. Compare to the French position, for instance where the General Staff’s plans for moving through Belgium were rejected. Civilian oversight and control of military operations. Something lacking in the German case.

+15 after start of mobilization. Which they started before the germans.

 

[TDM]

It means seeking to limit the crisis to Serbia and A-H and discouraging an escalation. The German invasion of Belgium was a military decision made after diplomacy had failed and Russia had already mobilised against Germany first.

Sure they discouraged any escalation by assuring AH they had their back no matter what, even after suggesting AH accept the Serbian response.

I'll honest in years of seeing this debate I think that's the first time I seen anyone attempt to argue Germany was overall a de-escalating actor in all this!

also if you mean the Russian partial mobilisation on the 25th that was in the Balkans

You were acusing other members of double standards (#94), while in the same paragraph imagining British and French treaties that OTL did not exist, but ignoring the existing treaty commitments between Germany and A-H.

No I wasn't ignoring the German/AH treaties I was pointing out others (including you) of ignoring British and French treaties and commitments. In fact you are still ignoring them or pretending they didn't exist above France had treaty with Russia, they had extended it to include backing Russia in the Balkans. as per my previous links.

You were citing invasions by Germany and A-H,

well no one else is doing any invading?

while discounting Serbia's terrorist activities, Serbia's rejection of the A-H ultimatum and the early Russian mobilisation, all of which preceded military actions from the CP powers.

I have addressed Serbian terrorist action several times now.

Of course Serbia responded to the AH ultimatum before AH invaded!? That's really not some proof of evil doing just proof we we live in a universe of cause and effect not effect and cause, after all even the Serbians had not developed time travel at this point!

Only they didn't reject the ultimatum did they? They accept all but one clause thus fucking up AH's cunning plan and even the German Kaiser recognises AH has been out played

On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented, "But that eliminates any reason for war"[132] or "every cause for war falls to the ground".[133] Wilhelm noted that Serbia had made "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind",[133] that "the few reservations [that] Serbia has made with respect to certain points can in my opinion surely be cleared up by negotiation"

Russian early mobilisation,

Serbia mobilises on the 24th (expecting AH to declare war and invade the next day) given the Serbians are massively outnumbered by the AH it's hardly like they were going to invade AH
AH Mobilises 25th
Russia war council meets 24th-25th and on the 25th they put the army on general notice and start their secret partial mobilisation

You stated "Plus there's been plenty of AH adventurism in and destabilisation of the Balkans as well..." and the only example you have is the one I provided, which is essentially formalising the status quo after seeking and initially getting the approval of Russia.

OK without getting into the detail Bosnian Crisis I'm sure the AH foreign office would agree with your description, it's just many others didn't thus triggering the Bosnian Crisis. AH had been hip deep in the Balkan wars in general. as had Russia. You can pretend that AH had not been making moves or trying to extend in influence in the area (want's an Adriatic port, want's to contain pan-slavism post Ottoman retreat etc) if you want but you are kidding yourself. The thing is I'm not even saying they were worse than the other GPs in the area (Russian/Ottomans), just that you have accept that they were there.

Finally if you really are wondering why Serbia (and thus Russia) might have had some worries about AH's next move after absorbing Bosnia, I suggest you look at a couple of maps of the Balkans

1907:

1914

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

This was also the time period of International Anti-Anarchists Conferences (1898 and 1904) and the first International Criminal Police Congress (April 1914 with a second congress scheduled for 1916 but which clearly got delayed in OTL) which was attended by delegates from 24 countries including Monaco (as host), France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, the United
States, and Britain. It's hard to see how Russia or France would oppose international investigation led by say Spain or Denmark along the same lines as exactly what they were doing in Greece, Albania and Iran.

Good point
I wonder why the assasination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't seen in the line of the earlier political assasinations of the three decades before. A certain protocol was developing in exchange of information. The three eastern countries were hardliners in that matter. They wanted all three an extensive possibility for international inquiries into 'anarchist acts' in opposition to Great Britains position. This makes Russia's response to the crisis very equivocal.

 

[TDM]

I believe Germany contemplated a local war and a blank check was intended to prompt A-H to action and deter third parties from intervention and thereby avoid an escalation. This differs from the Russians and French, who contemplated intervention with the expectation of a wider european war. In respect of CP decision makers, those militerists who advocated for war were ordinarily kept away from the levers of power until the July Crisis.

This is again a double standard, when Germany threatens to fight France and Russia on behalf of AH it them trying de-escalate things, but when France and Russia threaten to fight Germany in response to that it's because they sought a wider conflict?

On top of that Germany's actions bring Britain into the war!

what you writ here reminds me of this

Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote that the Triple Entente had conspired to entrap Germany in its treaty obligations with Austria "as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us"

which always sounded like "Oh no we were tricked into unconditionally supporting AH, and other countries have unfairly taken AH's and our actions into consideration when responding to us doing that"

 

[TDM]

+15 after start of mobilization. Which they started before the germans.

I think France and Germany both gave orders to mobilise at the same time (1st Aug)

Russia started mobilising earlier (25th in the Balkans, 31st in General). Not that it mattered because:


At 9:00 p.m. on July 30, Bethmann Hollweg gave in to Moltke and Falkenhayn's repeated demands and promised them that Germany would issue a proclamation of "imminent danger of war" at noon the next day regardless of whether Russia began a general mobilization or not.


TBH all this is worrying about who mobilised first is fine so long as remember that while it is an escalation if known about it was being done in response to what was already happening and not out the blue!

 

[Chris S]

I found a date for Poincaré's talk I alluded to with the austrian ambassador: that was the 21st of July.

Yes I saw that and thanks, but it would still be nice to know when the Russian declaration that you referred to was made.

The problem with that assesment is the following: it assumes that the russians were interested to discover the culprits. Im not at all sure about that.

A massive assumption and it also assumes that the Russians would be less interested in finding some culprits (who were also not the King or Prime Minister of Serbia) as part of a process to steer Austria away from an attack on Serbia. If the latter holds true then we need to have sources showing without a doubt that Russia was not trying to deter Austria from attacking Serbia.

1. Im not sure if the russian leadership knew of official ties to Serbia - I think they did not. But there were lower level offcials who were aware of this.

Given that it would be the Russian leadership who would make the call and not the lower level officials, the fact that they were unaware of ties between Black Hand and persons in the Serbian government would tend to suggest that they might be open to an international investigation. Besides, it was the Russian government who advised Serbia to accept as much of the demands as possible even while indicating that Russia would stand behind them. Why would they do that (advise Serbia to accept as many demands as possible) and then tell them to not accept an international investigation in which Russia would partake (and thus presumably be able to protect Serbia), as would Russia's ally France and with said investigation being led by a neutral nation? Britain's Grey had proposed four-power mediation (Britain, Italy, France and Germany) for Austria and Russia and although the Russian ambassador to London didn't like the idea, Russia's foreign minister Sazanov accepted the idea on July 23. Had Austria attempted to pivot to regain the diplomatic advantage that Serbia had taken by its conciliatory reply (by "graciously" acceding to the possibility of international cooperation on the investigation whilst still reiterating that it reserved the right to punish Serbia militarily if Serbia in turn did not accept international cooperation) then the stage would be set for Grey's four power mediation to lead to something approaching this as the Four Power conference would actually have something to work with (Austrian willingness to accept international cooperation on the issue as a way to avoid war).

There has been I think a military attache in Belgrad who boeasted after the war that he was supporting Apis and the Black hand with Money

I would be cautious about using that as evidence about what would have happened in say an alternate July 25, 1914 onwards if Austria-Hungary's leadership had decided to perhaps delay the idea of war and seize upon Serbia's reply to state that they wanted Serbia to accept an international investigation or risk war.

2. If the russian higher ups even suspect that Sebia might be involved they would find a reason to prevent any investigation. And they can easily get that information.

Again, this pre-supposes that the Russian government would presume that Serbia as a state was guilty and not some non-royal or non-cabinet official who could be characterized as "acting on his own". Russia would actually be far more likely to tack to the idea of rogue agents or independent terrorists one would think.

3. Seeing how deeply rooted in Serbia the Black Hand was do we suppose that any foreign investigators who are forced to at least a big part to rely on local assistance will have a successfull investigation.

This supposes that every Serb who an international police team spoke to would simply clam up or lie and that every single official and local Serbian police officer was a secret Black Hand agent. I don't buy the idea that every single Serb was guilty by association or actively linked into a secret society. I am sure many, many Serbs agreed with the idea of a Greater Serbia, but that's not the same thing as every Serb investigators could possibly interact with being a member of a criminal terrorist organization that wanted to kill Austrian royals.

Only half a year earlier there was example of an international police force (the Dutch-led international gendarmerie of about 5,000 officers in all of Albania) having a detachment successfully raid Vlore and stop a plot by the Young Turks to install an Ottoman-Albanian military officer as monarch of Albania and thus restore Ottoman suzerainty over Albania. In the process they captured 200 Ottoman soldiers and the Ottoman officer charged with leading the plot. The plot itself was made with and being carried out with the full and active support (not just the awareness) of the Albanian Prime Minister Ismail Qemali. Qemali and his cabinet resigned after the trial of the plotters and Qemali left for Nice, later returning to Albania in mid-1914 to offer his services to (German) Prince of Albania.

4. If the investigation goes along and despite every serbian attempt to mislead the investigators it succeeds and a very big chunk of the serbian officer corps is revealed to be either directly responsible for the action or being members of the organization that is responsible for it, that the assassins were armed from official serbian army depots its hard to see what happens next. Would the conspirators go along with this result without a fight? Would russia accept this? Or come up with a reason why the finding are invalid?

Well most likely as happened with Albania, the direct conspirators end up on trial (a great outcome for Pašić as Dimitrijević and the Black Hand were supposedly dissatisfied with Pašić meaning he gets the removal of a potential threat to his premiership), you probably see some high profile resignations and life goes on and maybe 20 million people don't all die between 1914 and 1918. In Albania the revelation that both the Ottoman and Albanian governments were plotting together to overthrow the German prince as ruler of Albania and bring Albania back into a relationship with the Ottoman Empire didn't result in an Austro-Ottoman War or German-Ottoman War or Franco-Ottoman War or Italo-Ottoman War killing thousands did it? Nor did the assassination of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in 1898 by an Italian result in Austria waging war on Italy (despite much popular agitation for reprisals against Italy in Vienna). A fews years later when the Italian King was assassinated by an Italian-American there wasn't some Italian-American war or Italian sanctions against America.

We also have the examples of Alexandros Schinas (assassin of the King of Greece in 1913) who died from falling out a police station window after interrogation in May 1913 as a possible fate for Apis. Defenestration was very popular at the time.

This was not simply a murder case but a political question and the Russian would be very interested in not allowing the truth to surface or deny it if it surfaced anyway. France was ready to go along with this.

Again that's making some very major assumptions and the simple truth is that almost everything was a political question during that period anyway. Curiously despite the numerous examples of cases where the Great Powers did not go to war over pressing political questions between 1890 and 1914 (Fashoda, Morocco I and Morocco II, Bosnia, the Balkan Wars, the Albanian question, the Ottoman-Albania plot) and examples of Great Power cooperation (Boxer Rebellion, international police congress of 1914 which was the predecessor to Interpol, international anti-anarchists conferences, cooperation in Orthodox Greece (where Russia would be expected to not like the idea of the Germans or Austrians being involved), Iran (where Russia wouldn't like the idea of powers besides Great Britain being involved) and Albania (which touched on the interests of most of the powers whether directly or indirectly)) there seems to be this idea even today that the Serbo-Russian baddies would inevitably conspire to protect Dimitrijević when they found out the truth (rather than try to protect Pašić and throw Apis under the bus, or more likely out the police station window) and that the Austrians were not totally without justification for wanting to shell an entire city of people because they felt (without yet having absolute proof in July 1914) that Serbia as a nation was responsible.

As noted above though as happened after the Ottoman-Albania plot, assassination of Empress Elisabeth, assassination of the Greek King, assasination of the Italian King and with the Boxer Rebellion, Greek Debt Management arrangement and international action in Albania and Iran, life would very likely have gone on as it had before (more or less)

Pašić might have been compelled to resign, but:

- new elections had been called for August 1914 anyway by Pašić
- as happened in the immediate aftermath of the 1912 elections when Pašić was actually in Russia at the time, someone else from his party would probably lead the new Serbian government (in 1912 it was Marko Trifković, it would probably be him again in 1914).

Look a bit further afield, the outcome of such a course of action would probably have resulted in a delay of the planned Serbia-Montenegro union (Serbia and Montenegro had been in talks in early 1914 on forming some kind of union (involving their militaries, finances, trade, foreign policy and communications) and Austria was opposed to this (yet the Austrian policies towards Montenegro actually strengthened the case and desire for Montenegro to forge closer links with Serbia until Austria realized this and tried (far too late) to change its policies)). Perhaps after a period outside of official governance Pašić returns between 1916-1918, during which time the Serbo-Montenegrin union of their militaries, budgets, customs, foreign policy and communications would already have occurred. Would this be the end of Austro-Serbian tensions? Of course not. But the point of the OP for this thread is that war was not unavoidable specifically in July/August 1914 (it was always highly probable, but not inevitable).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Finally if you really are wondering why Serbia (and thus Russia) might have had some worries about AH's next move after absorbing Bosnia, I suggest you look at a couple of maps of the Balkans

1907:



1914

I wouldn’t trust those maps too much. They’re incorrect.

 

[Help]

I wouldn’t trust those maps too much. They’re incorrect.

The first seems to be sometime during the Yugoslav breakup, and A-H never annexed more than Bosnia, IIRC.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Sure they discouraged any escalation by assuring AH they had their back no matter what, even after suggesting AH accept the Serbian response.

I'll honest in years of seeing this debate I think that's the first time I seen anyone attempt to argue Germany was overall a de-escalating actor in all this!

also if you mean the Russian partial mobilisation on the 25th that was in the Balkans



No I wasn't ignoring the German/AH treaties I was pointing out others (including you) of ignoring British and French treaties and commitments. In fact you are still ignoring them or pretending they didn't exist above France had treaty with Russia, they had extended it to include backing Russia in the Balkans. as per my previous links.



well no one else is doing any invading?



I have addressed Serbian terrorist action several times now.

Of course Serbia responded to the AH ultimatum before AH invaded!? That's really not some proof of evil doing just proof we we live in a universe of cause and effect not effect and cause, after all even the Serbians had not developed time travel at this point!

Only they didn't reject the ultimatum did they? They accept all but one clause thus fucking up AH's cunning plan and even the German Kaiser recognises AH has been out played

On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented, "But that eliminates any reason for war"[132] or "every cause for war falls to the ground".[133] Wilhelm noted that Serbia had made "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind",[133] that "the few reservations [that] Serbia has made with respect to certain points can in my opinion surely be cleared up by negotiation"

Russian early mobilisation,

Serbia mobilises on the 24th (expecting AH to declare war and invade the next day) given the Serbians are massively outnumbered by the AH it's hardly like they were going to invade AH
AH Mobilises 25th
Russia war council meets 24th-25th and on the 25th they put the army on general notice and start their secret partial mobilisation




OK without getting into the detail Bosnian Crisis I'm sure the AH foreign office would agree with your description, it's just many others didn't thus triggering the Bosnian Crisis. AH had been hip deep in the Balkan wars in general. as had Russia. You can pretend that AH had not been making moves or trying to extend in influence in the area (want's an Adriatic port, want's to contain pan-slavism post Ottoman retreat etc) if you want but you are kidding yourself. The thing is I'm not even saying they were worse than the other GPs in the area (Russian/Ottomans), just that you have accept that they were there.

Finally if you really are wondering why Serbia (and thus Russia) might have had some worries about AH's next move after absorbing Bosnia, I suggest you look at a couple of maps of the Balkans

1907:

1914

Seems to be a great deal of real estate changed colour in those 7 years.

The word 'powder keg' was often used to describe the region - no wonder the Serbs had a grievance!

 

[marathag]

Nor did the assassination of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in 1898 by an Italian result in Austria waging war on Italy (despite much popular agitation for reprisals against Italy in Vienna). A fews years later when the Italian King was assassinated by an Italian-American there wasn't some Italian-American war or Italian sanctions against America.

Maybe because those were all in what today are called 'Lone Wolves' and not members of a secret society that had already obliterated one Serbian Royal Dynasty that was friendly towards the Austrians?

 

[marathag]

I wouldn’t trust those maps too much. They’re incorrect.

The best one for an idea what was going on is the 1910 Balkans Language map I regularly post, but away from my links at the moment.

 

[Chris S]

Good point
I wonder why the assasination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't seen in the line of the earlier political assasinations of the three decades before. A certain protocol was developing in exchange of information. The three eastern countries were hardliners in that matter. They wanted all three an extensive possibility for international inquiries into 'anarchist acts' in opposition to Great Britains position. This makes Russia's response to the crisis very equivocal.

I suspect that's because the assassination quickly became a tool for a majority in the Austrian government to fulfill certain Balkan dreams and this became very clear to everyone early on. As @TDM said earlier Austria-Hungary had become "Too quick to set policy but too slow to enact it before it would trigger greater events, and too obstinate to care about triggering them when it would." In contrast to the 1898 assassination of the Empress by an Italian (an anarchist), the government decided to use this event for war rather than let cooler heads prevail as happened in 1898 when there were calls for reprisals against Italy in Vienna.

 

[TDM]

Seems to be a great deal of real estate changed colour in those 7 years.

The word 'powder keg' was often used to describe the region - no wonder the Serbs had a grievance!

True enough but as I'm sure others will point out the Serbs had done their fair share of grabbing and causing grievances too!