Can WW1 be avoided?

[Halagaz]

The Bulgarians were eventually going to do a return visit on the 1913 Balkans war - perhaps as early as 1915 - and this time one assumes they'd be cautious enough to make sure that the Austrians would come in from the other side.

You've said before that the Austrian invasion of Serbia was justified because Serbia would probably attack from behind in the event of a war with Serbia...does that mean Serbian aggressive acts against Austria were also justified, because Austria would probably attack from behind in the event of a war with Bulgaria?

As a heads up, I've lost interest in this aspect of the discussion - it's quite clear you're good with the Serbian invasion of Albania in 1912, and your dance to avoid stating this fact directly has become tiresome.

I've stated quite clearly that I'm not "good" with an invasion of Albania, or a continued occupation of Albania by Serbian troops once Albania declared independence.
I've also explained quite clearly that there was no "invasion of Albania" in 1912, because the occupation of Albania by Serbian and Greek troops predates the Albanian declaration of independence, as anyone who bothers to familiarize himself with the chronology of the Balkan Wars should easily see. I've lost interest in reiterating this any further, too.

So where's the decree the king was supposed to sign? Should be in the Serbian archives. Cite from it - I'm interested in the wording.

Only a small fraction of the material in the Serbian archives is available online, and, seeing as I already posted sources, I feel that my intention not to go shuffling through them right now is justified.

Their claims were probably lies and the demand was rejected.

They would have reason to shelter Ciganovic only if, by capturing him, they would risk something about their own involvement coming out. Their involvement hasn't been conclusively proven even today, and even if it was, they still could have captured him and easily engineered a false confession. Meanwhile, it has been proven pretty much beyond all reasonable doubt that Austria was aiming for war from the beginning of the crisis, which makes their own assertions somewhat dubious.

No.

Yes. I've already posted a source.

The Austrian promise not to annex had been conditional on Russian non-interference. When Russia and Austria went at war, the Austrians were relieved from their promise.

In order words, Austria's dreams of annexation were restrained only by their fear of Russian interference. Then it became clear that Russia was going to interfere anyway.

The telegram is not available because it never existed. Alternatively, the Serbians themselves destroyed it as part of a purge of their records in 1915 to hide their guilt for the war.

Take your pick.

Option 3: it was available when Albertini was gathering the materials for his book, but was destroyed during the bombing campaigns.

Option 4: It was available and still exists, but I'm not going to go hunting for it because an eminent historian has already bothered to do so, which you reject on the flimsy grounds that he's Italian and it doesn't completely fit into your own preferred narrative.

http://archive.org/stream/austrianredbooko00austuoft/austrianredbooko00austuoft_djvu.txt

The format is not the greatest, but, this is the basis of the Austrian claim to the prefect assisting the flight of Ciganovic,

Interesting. So, according to the Red Book, the "response" to the Serbian note was made (communicated to Austria's embassies) on July 28, a little after the declaration of war with Serbia. So, instead of continuing negotiations, clarifying the troublesome point 6. and other points, Austria jumped on the pretext and went to war.

 

[Halagaz]

The Austrian complaint to the Serbian reply

Serbia did not comply with the demand to confiscate printing materials, or assure that the re-establishment of such societies under other names would be prevented.

The Austrian assertion that the Serbians had not agreed to confiscate printing materials is correct. The Austrian assertion that the Serbians had not agreed to prevent new organisations from forming and carrying on is also correct. What the Serbians had agreed to was that Narodna Odbrana would change its name every now and again while pumping out propaganda from the printing presses the Serbians had refused to sieze.

Except that dissemination of anti-Austrian propaganda would be against the law, as per demand 1), allowing such organizations to be re-created only if they were fine with being completely defanged cultural associations.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Germany and A-H were dealing with the aftermath of an act of state sponsored terrorism...

Austria, according to its own official investigation, had no evidence of Serbian state involvement in the assassination. Years later, the clandesting activities of "Apis" (conducted without the knowledge of Serbia's government) came to light, but in 1914 Austria had no legitimate casus belli against Serbia.

Austria attacked Serbia because Serbian political agitation, and indeed the very existence of a sovereign Serbian state, was a threat to the jury-rigged and gerrymandered Austro-Hungarian state. The assassination was merely a convenient excuse.

I'm not aware of any conspiracy between A-H and Germany, but doubt they could have arranged for the assassination of the A-H Heir or the full mobilisation of the Russian armed services...

Austria secretly decided to go to war, with Germany's secret approval. High German officials lied about this to everyone else, including the German public. Their purpose was to ensure that the other Powers would be taken by surprise by Austria's draconian ultimatum, and would not have time to pressure Austria to moderate it or achieve any sort of mediation. I call that a conspiracy to start a war.

Neither Germany nor A-H were involved in any significant wars in the 40 years prior to WW1 and neither were entangled in the earlier Crimean war. Conversely, Britain, USA and Italy all aggressively pursued wars of choice in the 15 years preceding WW1.

I wrote "Great Power wars". In any case, Germany fought several colonial wars in this period - the Maji-Maji War in East Africa and the Herero War among them.

 

[BooNZ]

Austria, according to its own official investigation, had no evidence of Serbian state involvement in the assassination. Years later, the clandesting activities of "Apis" (conducted without the knowledge of Serbia's government) came to light, but in 1914 Austria had no legitimate casus belli against Serbia.

More so than the British war against the Boer, the USA war against Spain or the Italian war against the Ottomans.

Austria attacked Serbia because Serbian political agitation, and indeed the very existence of a sovereign Serbian state, was a threat to the jury-rigged and gerrymandered Austro-Hungarian state. The assassination was merely a convenient excuse.

Serbia was a basket case and pain in the A-H arse, but A-H was generally disinterested in governing Serbia (except perhaps for Conrad).

Austria secretly decided to go to war, with Germany's secret approval. High German officials lied about this to everyone else, including the German public. Their purpose was to ensure that the other Powers would be taken by surprise by Austria's draconian ultimatum, and would not have time to pressure Austria to moderate it or achieve any sort of mediation. I call that a conspiracy to start a war.

You might classify the British Jameson raid against the Boers as a 'secret war'. The A-H public declaration of war against Serbia - not really a secret.

Grey and the French had secretly conspired against the Germany, France and Russia secretly conspired against both Germany and A-H. France and Italy secretly conspired against the Ottomans. Such diplomacy was rarely undertaken under public scrutiny.

I wrote "Great Power wars". In any case, Germany fought several colonial wars in this period - the Maji-Maji War in East Africa and the Herero War among them.

In context, you were implying that states such as Germany and A-H were prone to warmongering, unlike 'virtuous' democracies such as Italy, France and Britain. This was simply not true, as their war records illustrate.

There is also far more meat in the colonial records of those various democracies...

 

[Glenn239]

Except that dissemination of anti-Austrian propaganda would be against the law, as per demand 1), allowing such organizations to be re-created only if they were fine with being completely defanged cultural associations.

The Serbian reply to Demand (1),

. During the next regular meeting of the Skuptschina to embody in the press laws a clause, to wit, that the incitement to hatred of, and contempt for, the Monarchy is to be most severely punished, as well as every publication whose general tendency is directed against the territorial integrity of Austria-Hungary.

It binds itself in view of the coming revision of the constitution to embody an amendment into Art. 22 of the constitutional law which permits the confiscation of such publications as is at present impossible according to the clear definition of Art. 12 of the constitution.


The Austrian reply suggest that that this procedure could be rejected simply by the device of being voted down in the Skuptschina. If so, then the Serbian answer to (1) did not assure their compliance to (2) because if a bill was inevitably defeated, and then never again reintroduced, their answer to (2) would become meaningless.

 

[Saphroneth]

Read what the Serbians wrote in their reply. They stated they would introduce a bill. They did not state that this would pass.

The Serbian answer to (1) did not assure their compliance to (2) because when the bill they promised to introduce was inevitably defeated and never again reintroduced, their answer to (2) became meaningless.

Was it defeated and never reintroduced because of some nefarious plan, or because by that point they were already at war?

 

[Glenn239]

Austria secretly decided to go to war, with Germany's secret approval. High German officials lied about this to everyone else, including the German public. Their purpose was to ensure that the other Powers would be taken by surprise by Austria's draconian ultimatum, and would not have time to pressure Austria to moderate it or achieve any sort of mediation. I call that a conspiracy to start a war.

That's all true, but the purpose to trying to take the Entente by surprise was to -hopefully - complete the war before Russia could drag the British and French into a more violent confrontation. In all fairness to Austria and Germany, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone in either capital that no one in Paris or London would be willing to exercise restraint on St. Petersburg.

 

[Glenn239]

Grey and the French had secretly conspired against the Germany, France and Russia secretly conspired against both Germany and A-H. France and Italy secretly conspired against the Ottomans. Such diplomacy was rarely undertaken under public scrutiny.

BoonNZ, don't you get it? The British were free to attack the Boers and it would be Germany's fault for the war if they intervened. The Japanese and Russians were free to attack each other, and it would be Germany's fault if it intervened. Russia and Japan were free to attack China, and it would be Germany's fault if they intervened. The Italians were free to attack the Ottomans and it would be Germany's fault if they intervened. The French were free to attack Morocco and it would be Germany's fault if they intervened. Everyone was free to attack the Ottomans in the Balkans, and it would be Germany's fault if they intervened. The pattern was the same for all the Great Powers.

Except Austria.

In context, you were implying that states such as Germany and A-H were prone to warmongering, unlike 'virtuous' democracies such as Italy, France and Britain. This was simply not true, as their war records illustrate.

What he's imply is a case of the CP actions that omits a crucial aspect to the original context of the CP decision. That is, the fact that the secrecy displayed by the Central Powers was motivated from a fear that massive Russian aggression against Austria could occur if the Entente were given time to organize their response. Something like a beaten wife filing for divorce in secrecy for fear that her bullying husband (Russia) would not attack in a rage.

 

[Glenn239]

Was it defeated and never reintroduced because of some nefarious plan, or because by that point they were already at war?

Already at war, so there was no reason to go through the motions of introducing a bill and then voting it down while Europe laughed at Austria's stupidity.

 

[Glenn239]

You've said before that the Austrian invasion of Serbia was justified because Serbia would probably attack from behind in the event of a war with Serbia...does that mean Serbian aggressive acts against Austria were also justified, because Austria would probably attack from behind in the event of a war with Bulgaria?

I said that Austria could reasonably anticipate that Serbia would do that. There was nothing about justifying anything.

Only a small fraction of the material in the Serbian archives is available online, and, seeing as I already posted sources, I feel that my intention not to go shuffling through them right now is justified.

What's next, you take Moltke's word that Germany would intend no annexations of Belgium if the Belgians just went along with his march? Don't tell me, let me guess at your methodology - German claims without proof are not accepted while Serbian claims without archival evidence are accepted without question?

No such telegram as claimed on June 18th has ever been found in the Serbian archives. It does not exist. And BTW - if the Serbians are indeed secretive with their archive 100 years after the fact, you could hardly claim that strange situation to be for any feasible reason save their guilt in starting the war.

In order words, Austria's dreams of annexation were restrained only by their fear of Russian interference.

You have now suddenly become unfamiliar with the entire fundamental principle of the Imperial era - that rival ambitions of the Great Powers were held in check only by mutual fear?

Option 3: it was available when Albertini was gathering the materials for his book, but was destroyed during the bombing campaigns.

Option 4 - UFO's stole it from the Serbian archives just as Albertini was arriving at the building.

Either the telegram never existed or the Serbians purged it, maybe around 1919.

Interesting. So, according to the Red Book, the "response" to the Serbian note was made (communicated to Austria's embassies) on July 28, a little after the declaration of war with Serbia. So, instead of continuing negotiations, clarifying the troublesome point 6. and other points, Austria jumped on the pretext and went to war.

Are you saying by this that you are so unfamliar with the basic facts of the Sarajevo Crisis that you were unaware that Austria declared war shortly after breaking relations on 25 July?

Anyways, there is a much better formatted version of the Red Book at that link that shows the formal rebuttal of the Serbian note as it appeared in its final form in the Austrian Red Book. And as a piece of advice, don't rely on Albertini to discard his heavily anti-Austrian bias. Never forget that Albertini was a jingoist Italian nationalist during the war.

 

[Halagaz]

The Serbian reply to Demand (1),

. During the next regular meeting of the Skuptschina to embody in the press laws a clause, to wit, that the incitement to hatred of, and contempt for, the Monarchy is to be most severely punished, as well as every publication whose general tendency is directed against the territorial integrity of Austria-Hungary.

It binds itself in view of the coming revision of the constitution to embody an amendment into Art. 22 of the constitutional law which permits the confiscation of such publications as is at present impossible according to the clear definition of Art. 12 of the constitution.


The Austrian reply suggest that that this procedure could be rejected simply by the device of being voted down in the Skuptschina. If so, then the Serbian answer to (1) did not assure their compliance to (2) because if a bill was inevitably defeated, and then never again reintroduced, their answer to (2) would become meaningless.

The Serbian government promised to "embody" - that is to say, create - not merely "propose" the relevant laws. With Pasic's party holding 54% of the Skupshtina seats, it would have been very easy for the government to do so.

 

[Halagaz]

What's next, you take Moltke's word that Germany would intend no annexations of Belgium if the Belgians just went along with his march? Don't tell me, let me guess at your methodology - German claims without proof are not accepted while Serbian claims without archival evidence are accepted without question?

Maybe Belgium's territorial integrity would have been more or less preserved, maybe not. I'm not a member of the "Septemberprogramm" school of thought that states Imperial Germany wanted to annex literally everything, everywhere.

No such telegram as claimed on June 18th has ever been found in the Serbian archives. It does not exist. And BTW - if the Serbians are indeed secretive with their archive 100 years after the fact, you could hardly claim that strange situation to be for any feasible reason save their guilt in starting the war.

Either the telegram never existed or the Serbians purged it, maybe around 1919.

No such telegram has ever been looked for in the Serbian archives after Albertini.

If Serbia indeed did indeed "purge" this document, which I find extremely unlikely, it would have happened around 1915, when there was a fear the Entente may end up losing. Winners don't have to care about war guilt.

Are you saying by this that you are so unfamliar with the basic facts of the Sarajevo Crisis that you were unaware that Austria declared war shortly after breaking relations on 25 July?

No, I'm saying that it appears the Austrian rebuttal to Serbia's note was only made at the start of the war. Had the Austrians put forth this rebuttal without simultaneously declaring war, in the context of continued negotiations, one could have argued that they had peaceful intentions. But the way it happened, it remains clear that Austria was simply jumping at an excuse for war.

 

[Glenn239]

The Serbian government promised to "embody" - that is to say, create - not merely "propose" the relevant laws. With Pasic's party holding 54% of the Skupshtina seats, it would have been very easy for the government to do so.

The Austrian objection was that the Serbians had only proposed to introduce the bill, not to pass it. And really, it seems practically impossible to imagine anyone could vote for such a thing in Belgrade, right?

Not sure on the Serbian constitution, but I wonder whether what the Austrians were thinking of were more along the lines of some sort of Serbian war measures act that could circumvent their parliament.

 

[Glenn239]

No, I'm saying that it appears the Austrian rebuttal to Serbia's note was only made at the start of the war. Had the Austrians put forth this rebuttal without simultaneously declaring war, in the context of continued negotiations, one could have argued that they had peaceful intentions. But the way it happened, it remains clear that Austria was simply jumping at an excuse for war.

The Austrians had warned the Serbians to accept without reservation. The Serbians did not - they rejected two demands and left wiggle room on another 5. The Austrian rebuttal to the Serbian reply was not the purpose of dialogue with Serbia, it was to try and win the support of the Entente, to explain why the Serbians had not accepted the note, in hopes that this would keep the Entente sidelined.

 

[Saphroneth]

The Austrians had warned the Serbians to accept without reservation. The Serbians did not - they rejected two demands and left wiggle room on another 5. The Austrian rebuttal to the Serbian reply was not the purpose of dialogue with Serbia, it was to try and win the support of the Entente, to explain why the Serbians had not accepted the note, in hopes that this would keep the Entente sidelined.

Yes, that's perfectly sensible and right diplomacy. Ten demands, accept them unconditionally and in the most total way possible the first time or you're invaded.

It also seems coincidental that the ones the Serbians accepted promptly they were trying to weasel out of, and the ones they asked to be reduced were actually the very undemanding ones. (At least, according to the Austrian account.)

 

[Whanztastic]

Man - I was excited to just come across this question and see seven pages but this has really shown the worst of AH.com in it, sidebar galore...

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, due to Hardcore History, and I am in the camp that WW1 is extremely probable (in one form or another) but totally avoidable.