Could the Bosnian crisis of 1908 have lead to an early ww1?

Wat would it take for the Bosnian nnexation crisis to escalate into a large scale conflict?
Looking at the events that surrounded the crisis, I have the impession that the Austro-Hungarians bluffed and cheated their way to success in a situation that was not really favourable to them from the start (in a somewhat similar manner to Hitler at Munich in 1938). Given the number of powers that were displeased with this turn of events, would in not have been possible for them to coordinate a joint action seeking to reverse it? And if this happened, would the Central Powers back down in time to avoid a war?
 
Fundamentally, France and Britain were unwilling and unready to go to war in 1908-9. Russia, potentially, was - all they have to do is reject Bülow's "Yes or No" note, which was theoretically an option - but they would have done so alone.

As an aside, most of the initial revulsion in the West was at Izvolsky's plan, not Ährenthal's; revising the Straits treaties was one of the few moves that Britain, especially, could be guaranteed not to have supported. So the French and British didn't particularly care about the Bosnian annexation, one of the key reasons that they informed the Russians that they'd be sitting this one out. Arguably, the annexation worked to the benefit of France and Britain; it kept the new constitutionalist government of the Ottoman Empire discredited and weakened, and if there's anything the British could not countenance, it was a strong Turkey. It was just the Russians - or rather, the general tenor of opinion in the Council of Ministers, since "public opinion" was amorphous and relatively easily manipulated - who felt hurt and betrayed by the Austrian move.
 
A few more thoughts:

What if Izvolsky either realises early on that he is heading towards an embarassment, or he looses his position (for whatewer reason) to someone who is against the whole scheme, after the initial talks but before te annexation. Will this give the Russians enough time to organize a more efficient response?

What if the French are a bit less clear in their intentions? As 1914 showed, they do not need to be actually enthusiastic about the war. If they do not communicate their desire for peace strongly enough, they can still end up dragged into a war (and Britain too)
 
Last edited:
A few more thoughts:

What if Izvolsky either realises early on that he is heading towards an embarassment, or he looses his position (for whatewer reason) to someone who is against the whole scheme, after the initial talks but before te annexation. Will this give the Russians enough time to organize a more efficient response?
The chain of events seems unclear to me. You want Izvolsky to make the initial agreement with Ährenthal in mid-September and then be magically fired within a few weeks? Why would the Austrians even go through with the annexation in that case? Also, what qualifies as an "efficient response"? Historically, charges and countercharges dragged on for nearly seven months. It's not as though the Russians need "time" to muster some sort of alternative story; Izvolsky was already disseminating his alternate version to the British before the Austrians even formally annexed Bosnia on October 6. (The British, who ought to get more credit for low cunning than they usually do, saw right through Izvolsky's version and suspected he had made some sort of bargain with Austria over the Straits and Bosnia. They were quickly proven correct, of course.)
Easterling said:
What if the French are a bit less clear in their intentions? As 1914 showed, they do not need to be actually enthusiastic about the war. If they do not communicate their desire for peace strongly enough, they can still end up dragged into a war (and Britain too)
The French weren't about to be "dragged into" anything. When war finally did come in 1914, all parties made conscious decisions to enter the fighting after weighing the pros and cons of sticking by their alliances or not. Treaties did not mean the automatic entry of a party into war; Romania and Italy notably failed to abide by their treaty obligations (Romania more blatantly, Italy with some legal grounds), while Russia and the United Kingdom acted on the basis of no treaty obligations whatsoever - indeed, the UK's actions were in large part the result of secret and illegal Anglo-French staff talks.

At any rate, in 1908, the French knew what they wanted, and what they wanted was to not support a Russian revision of the Straits conventions, especially not if it caused a war with Germany. By comparison, in 1914, the French were willing to try conclusions with the Germans and, arguably more importantly, the Austrians.
 
The chain of events seems unclear to me. You want Izvolsky to make the initial agreement with Ährenthal in mid-September and then be magically fired within a few weeks?
Well, he could fall down some stairs and break his neck, a very popular instrument of alternate history
Why would the Austrians even go through with the annexation in that case? Also, what qualifies as an "efficient response"?
What I'm thinking about is a situation where Russia tries to preempt the "fait accompli" of the annexation, for exemple by warning the Ottomans and urging them to fight, promising support. However, this would happen late enough that the Austians are still tempted to go through with the annexation.
The French weren't about to be "dragged into" anything. When war finally did come in 1914, all parties made conscious decisions to enter the fighting after weighing the pros and cons of sticking by their alliances or not. Treaties did not mean the automatic entry of a party into war; Romania and Italy notably failed to abide by their treaty obligations (Romania more blatantly, Italy with some legal grounds), while Russia and the United Kingdom acted on the basis of no treaty obligations whatsoever - indeed, the UK's actions were in large part the result of secret and illegal Anglo-French staff talks.

At any rate, in 1908, the French knew what they wanted, and what they wanted was to not support a Russian revision of the Straits conventions, especially not if it caused a war with Germany. By comparison, in 1914, the French were willing to try conclusions with the Germans and, arguably more importantly, the Austrians.
France in 1914 did neither declare war nor make any explicit threats of war against anyone. The french kept completely quiet and this made both Russia and Germany believe that France would certainly support Russia, triggering the Grman prremptive attack. It is possible that a France that is a bit too quiet in 1908 would give rise to the same assumptions with the same conclusions.
Also a small nitpick: Romania did have a reason to get out of her treaty obligations. It claimed that the alliance was strictly defensive and that the German and Austiran war declarations had invalidated it.




BTW, why so little interest in the topic? What happened to the alternate-WW1 craze that was going on a short time ago?
 
BTW, why so little interest in the topic? What happened to the alternate-WW1 craze that was going on a short time ago?

I'm focusing on the myriad possibilities for a WW1 before 1900 at the moment... so... it's still around!

For the OP, what about simulwars that converge? As popular as falling down stairs and breaking necks is in AH, Trent Affairs/Maines/Lusitanias are also just as popular for sparking convenient bad blood if used as directed.
 
This topic is interesting for a variety of reasons. First, given the indifferent attitude on the part of France and Britain, it allows for the real possibility of a 'war among empires'. How it goes and ends seems vaguely up in the air, but a victory for Germany and Austria seem broadly plausible. However, the long-term consequences for the Russians, Turks, and the Balkan States seem largely up in the air. Italy here could find itself in a rather interesting position too.
 
The reason I was interested in this topic is because it would result in a Russo-Ottoman alliance of convenience, something that is otherwise very hard to get in plausible alternate ww1 scenarios.
 
The reason I was interested in this topic is because it would result in a Russo-Ottoman alliance of convenience, something that is otherwise very hard to get in plausible alternate ww1 scenarios.

That is a very good point, and I suspect that the war could see the Turks changing sides before it's all done, especially if the Italians have joined the war on the side of Austria and Germany.
 
Top