Both Russia and AH had been making moves in the Balkans in the mid C19th, and to be surprised by Russia backing Serbia in 1914 is to not only ignore that in general but to ignore the previous few years specifically.
By backing Serbia, you mean when they were not backing Bulgaria or Romania... The Balkans at the time were a mess and all powers were trying to find a stable solution. And Russia was one that had switched "favorites" several times. At least as far as I remember.
I get your re Serbia but no country would cede judicial sovereignty to another (especially when it was combined with AH troops coming in to help with the investigation, it's de-facto allowing AH to put Serbia under AH martial law).
If only there had been a suggestion to run the investigation through an international mediation and appointment that while not pleasing either side completely, would have been a compromise?
If that is your reading, then ok. I think it is more that AH wanted to be included into the investigations and be able to keep the Serbs from brushing things under the rug. As they had tried before by talking about the points and seemingly agreeing (I think) while at the same time doing nothing. And for me that is remeniscent of what happend then. The Serbs "investigated" for a week... and got absolutely nothing. Even the people that were named did not exist... You see the problem AH would have had if they let the Serbs do the "investigating" on their own.
As to an international investigation, points against are the French and Russian declarations without investigation and in undue haste that the Serbians did nothing wrong.
I was talking about the German reaction to the Serbian Response to the AH Ultimatum
I am unsure what this reaction has to do with the point raised about the French Blank Cheque to Russia?
As to the reactions? Well the times had so many crisis and conflict was simmering so at a point I think it is the feeling of "at least" that was going on. My interpretation naturaly.
As to the Kaiser... you need to ask why they wanted him not meddeling?
And I see ne refute that a faster AH response would have been better.
Certainly those that dislike AH e.g the pan-slavists in the Balkan where AH was trying to make moves were going to push that narrative, but it was you arguing that not being able to curbstomp Serbia would mean AH's collapse?
To the wider question itself. What can I say trying to be a centuries old multi-polar, multi-ethic monarchic empire, in the early C20th were an up surging in anti monocracy, nationalism and self determination is a tough row to hoe.
Especially if when you long term rival multi-polar, multi-ethic monarchic empire is falling apart and you try to pick up some Balkan bling but by doing so raise some pretty obvious questions about the relevance of multi-polar, multi-ethic monarchic empires!
The point about the sick man was more a general observation that I found interesting. And Clark not only has the Pan-Slavists for that but also Grey and Crow in Britian that pushed that. May have been for Germany in their case. But if push for negative opinion pices and "reward" them it pushes that narative.
And I think your own points show you see AH as failing. Were there problems? Sure. All nations had problems. But was AH failing? I think it was not.
And again, what was AH to do in this case? It was attacked in a terroristic manner and Serbia was known to employ those tactics and irregular forces. Add that, as far as I know, Serbia was seen as a kind of Rouge State that had ignored other states and was willing to lie about the goings on and I understand that AH choose war. Was it the right choise? Probably not but AH had to show strenght as otherwise Serbie, Imo, would have kept pushing for more and further.
On that note, what would nations like Russia, France or Great Britain have done in such a case? Becasue I think that in such a circumstance they also would have reacted with violence.
