BooNZ
Banned
A bombardment and occupation of Belgrade? A hefty trade embargo? A demand to form an international commission to find the true killers? Any and possibly all of the possible solutions suggested to A-H at one time or another during the July Crisis short of going to War?
How exactly is the A-H military supposed to occupy the Serbian capital without going to war?
As the July crisis developed, French and Russian authorities made it perfectly clear to their A-H contemporaries that Serbia would not be held responsible for the assassination of FF. Coupled with the habitual German diplomatic flip-flopping, A-H had a vested interest to act while it still had the full support of Germany. From a A-H perspective Serbia needed to take a knee or get the bash.
Nothing happened in A-H without Franz-Joseph's permission, he always reviewed and approved diplomatic manoeuvres.
...and nothing much happened in A-H for decades. FJ was clearly the head of the empire, but I was responding to Aphrodite's claim Wilhelm and FJ were driving the CP diplomacy during the July crisis, when in reality, both were often out of the loop on holiday for most of July 1914.
Serbia acquiesced to all but surrendering her sovereignty, almost any other nation on earth at any other time would have been satisfied with the response. In fact, the Serbian response triggered a minor crisis in Berlin when many thought the "opportunity" for war had slipped past.
Could you clarify who those persons in Berlin were? The reason I ask is because the initial German support for A-H (i.e. the blank cheque) was in respect of A-H dealings with Serbia, not necessarily contemplating a widespread war. Further, people often cite the belligerence of military leaders, who ordinarily do not make the decisions in peacetime.
We aren't interested in your intepretation of what the germans could do. We are nterested in what the Germans and British thought. Here Zuber and everyone is clear: The Germans have no East first plan. The Kaiser makes it clear, Moltke makes it clear, Falkenhayn makes it clear. The Kaiser isn't sending his army East unless France turns over Verdun and Toul or the British guarantee French neutrality. Its not an option
In Moltke's own words “My protest that it would be impossible to maintain peace between France and Germany while both countries were mobilized made no impression. Everybody got more and more excited and I was alone in my opinion.” This does not paint a convincing picture of a consensus among the German decision makers that west was best.
The 1912/13 Aufmarsch II Ost plan was not an 'east first plan', but a deployment plan substantially based on well established German mobility/ counter attack doctrine. Wilhelm had wanted Moltke to go East if there was a reasonable chance Britain would remain neutral. General Von Staabs (head of German railway division) subsequently confirmed four German armies could have been deployed in the east within two weeks. Matthias Erzberger (German propaganda chief) claims Moltke himself confessed in January 1915 that heading west had been a mistake and Germany should have instead gone east.
A-H was indeed determined to resolve the ongoing Serbian problem while it had the full support of Germany and military action was one potential tool to achieve such a resolution. At the same time the Kaiser observed "the Serbs are Orientals, therefore liars, tricksters, and masters of evasion," and was advocating a temporary Austrian occupation, which goes beyond the parts of the ultimatum rejected by Serbia, so in context, the Serbian response was not actually acceptable to the Kaiser either.Not relevant to the issues. The British are right in that the Austrians and Germans are the ones pressing for war not France, Russia and Serbia. The Austrians are so far out there that even the Kaiser is trying to reign them in. Trying to deny that it is Austria that is seeking the war is silly.
Serbia spent money on its military. Really, everybody was spending on arms rather than other means. No, the Serbian govenrment wasn't behind the assassination and FJ didn't even allege it
Serbia was a small, poor and backward state, which borrowed heavily to maintain a military disproportionate to its size. This misplaced priority on military spending was illustrated in part by the total collapse of its health infrastructure in the opening months of the war.
On 1 July 1914 the French Ambassador to Serbia confirmed with Paris the Serbian military party were involved in the assassination of FF, so from the start of the French recognized the Serb hands were not clean.
How much FJ took part in it is clear: No such ultimatium could have been delivered without his ok. He was in on it and he was the one who started the war.
FJ Rubber stamping a decision he had limited involvement in formulating is very different from the picture you are attempting to paint of Wilhelm and FJ driving the July crisis. FF did not die of natural causes.
And again, all of this doesn't matter. What matters is how the British saw the crisis
The British were disinterested in the Balkans and Serbia was more-or-less viewed as a rogue vassal of Britain's traditional rival, Russia. Britain would have been relieved if A-H had promptly crushed Serbia without the need for Britain to be dragged into a continental war.
Pathetic. Austria is not going to send the ultimatium to Serbia without fj approval. The "couldn't enforce" argument is crap as well. Both Grey and the Kaiser were advocating the stop in Belgrade formula. Autria rejected. The Kaiser also thought the Serbian response sufficient that all cause for war disappeared. Your attempt to excuse Austria is getting beyond convoluted
As outlined above, the Kaiser thought the Serbian response needed to be coupled with the occupation of Belgrade, to keep those Serbs honest. An assassination of a head of state (or similar) is a perfectly acceptable casus belli - certainly as robust as those used by the USA and/or Britain around 1900 with the Spanish and the Boers. How would the remaining parts of the ultimatum be enforced when Serbia inevitably reneged on its promises and commitments? Pinky swears?
What blank cheque? Serbia was told to comply with every demand as far as their sovereignty allowed. That's not a blank cheque, its telling them they are taking it on the chin. To say that Bosnia was the only "sign of pulse" for AUstria is untrue and dishonest. Austria had been heavily involved in the Balkans and limiting Serbian power was one of the prime objectives. That the Serbs would have to suffer horribly under the Turks mattered not to the Austrians.
The A-H empire extended into the Balkans, so to that extent it was heavily involved. By limiting Serbia's power I assume you mean formalizing existing A-H control of Bosnia Herzegovina and diplomatically thwarting an unprovoked Serbian invasion of Albania? The treatment of the Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Turks in occupied territories under the Serb rule even before WW1 was already horrific.
On that we agree. Where we differ is on the need for A-H to address and correct the cause of state sponsored terrorism.Do we really need to rehash Austro-Serb relations from the Pig War? To say that Austria had anything but the weakening of Serbia as objective is simply wrong.