How to avoid WWI in Europe?

[Aphrodite]

1) the blank check doesn't have to lead to war. The Kaiser felt something had to be done but that doesn't make him in favor of war. He lets Austria decide how to deal with it. The Kaiser doesn't get cold feet in the end. He reads the Serbian response and decides that Austria's legitimate concerns were met. FJ on the other hand, has Willie trapped and wont let him off the hook

2) Austria's relations with Serbia ran hot and cold. Austria's interference with San Stefano that condemned half of Serbia to be ruled by the Turks for another 30 years is ground s enough for the Serbs to not like Austria

3) Why are we ending Austro-Serb relations at 1903? Austria's behavior from 1903-1914 isn't exemplary either (the pig war, the Bosnia annexation, the interference during the Balkan War)

4) For the Serbian government to be responsible, it would have to be a public act approved by the government The most that Austria alleged was that the Serbian government had allowed conditions that festered these elements. Its a rather thin reed

5) That Austria is the one going rogue is proven when no one thinks they are being reasonable- not even the Kaiser. Everybody but Austria finds the Serbian response acceptable. The Austrians? They tell Grey that even if the Serbs accepted their entire note, they would no longer find it acceptable.

It is FJ's desire for war that brings it about. Everyonne else is stuck on the runaway train

 

[BooNZ]

Sorry - are you suggesting that Franz Joseph killed Rudolph and Sissi?

no

"Partial mobilization" was much different than "general mobilization" What is referred to a "partial mobiliztion" is a series of steps common to all countries at the time. They are simple measures like calling up reservists in a border region, cancelling leaves, issuing ammo to the guns, clearing obstructions around fortresses, laying minefields in a harbor. ?

Apologies if English is not your first language, but you appear to be conflating "pre-mobilization" with "partial-mobilization". An example of partial mobilization is A-H, which in July 1914 initially mobilized against Serbia alone. Russian plans simply did not provide for a partial mobilization since there existed no separate schedule for a mobilization against Austria alone. You appear to be referring to Russian pre-mobilization, which in reality was 'part and parcel' of Russia's general mobilization plans.

They were rightfully seen by all countries as purely defensive measures and caused no alarm anywhere. The Germans, the French and the British are doing the same. Austria has gone much further- mobilizing offensive forces and declaring war

What are you smoking? The Russian attempt to distinguish a "pre-mobilization" with an actual mobilization was unique to Russia. During early German deliberations on the decision to support A-H, when asked, the German command confirmed no preparations for war were required (i.e. the pre-mobilization procedures were integral to the actual mobilization, not a different creature). The following details were noted by Sean McMeekin and/or Christopher Clark.

• On 25 July 1914 Maurice Paléologue [French Ambassador to Russia] and Izvolsky in St Petersburg observed the Russian "pre-mobilization" and concluded the "it's war this time". Later that day a telegram from Paléologue reported to Paris the Russian Council of Ministers had agreed ‘in principle’ the mobilization ‘of the 13 army corps that are destined to operate against Austria’ and the mobilization will be made public and effective only when the Austro-Hungarian government attempts to constrain Serbia by force of arms. However, secret preparations will begin from today.
  
• On 26 July 1914 the French military attaché General Laguiche, who reported ‘secret military dispositions’ were already underway in Warsaw, Vilna and St Petersburg
  
  
• On 26 July 1914 the Belgian military attaché in St Petersburg reported the Tsar had ordered the mobilization of ‘ten army corps in military circumscriptions of Kiev and Odessa’
  
  
• From Copenhagen on 26 July 1914, the Austrian minister Count Széchényi reported on 26 July that the Danish foreign minister Eric Scavenius had received news from St Petersburg suggesting Russia had already begun to mobilize
  
  
• On 27 July 1914, the Austrian Consul Hein in Kiev reported the recall of officers to garrisons and long lines of artillery units marching westwards out of the Kiev encampment, their destination unknown. Later on the same day, he reported sixteen trains loaded with artillery and Cossacks leaving Kiev and twenty-six military trains carrying artillery and sappers en route from Odessa, all bound for the Austrian border.
  
  
• From Szczakowa in the Polish salient came a coded report manoeuvres taking place in the area had been broken off and all troops concentrated in the city; a ‘large contingent’ of artillery had been loaded into wagons at the city’s Vienna station. During the previous night, seven trains full of sappers had passed out of the station

• From Moscow came reports the Russian Airforce, had pushed westwards, while a cavalry regiment had arrived in the city from far-off Ekaterinoslav
  
  
• From the Austrian authorities in Galicia, there were reports of ‘decidedly large’ masses of troops, including artillery and Cossacks, moving into positions just across the border.
  
  
• From Batum on the east coast of the Black Sea came news of regiments of infantry, Cossacks and dragoons on their way to Warsaw.
  
  
• Consular dispatches sent from across Russia to the German embassy in St Petersburg reported the mining of rivers, the seizure of rolling stock, an entire Russian artillery division seen marching westwards out of Kiev, the interdiction of German encrypted telegraphy through the Moscow telegraph office, troops on their way back from manoeuvres, infantry and cavalry units approaching Lublin and Kovel, the assembly of masses of horses at their points of concentration, large convoys of military vehicles on the move and other signs of a mass army preparing to make war.

General Dobrorolsky, head of the Russian army’s mobilization department, remarked in 1921 that after the St Petersburg meetings of 24 and 25 July ‘the war was already a decided thing, and all the flood of telegrams between the governments of Russia and Germany were nothing but the staging for an historical drama’

 

[Tibi088]

1) the blank check doesn't have to lead to war. The Kaiser felt something had to be done but that doesn't make him in favor of war. He lets Austria decide how to deal with it. The Kaiser doesn't get cold feet in the end. He reads the Serbian response and decides that Austria's legitimate concerns were met. FJ on the other hand, has Willie trapped and wont let him off the hook

2) Austria's relations with Serbia ran hot and cold. Austria's interference with San Stefano that condemned half of Serbia to be ruled by the Turks for another 30 years is ground s enough for the Serbs to not like Austria

3) Why are we ending Austro-Serb relations at 1903? Austria's behavior from 1903-1914 isn't exemplary either (the pig war, the Bosnia annexation, the interference during the Balkan War)

4) For the Serbian government to be responsible, it would have to be a public act approved by the government The most that Austria alleged was that the Serbian government had allowed conditions that festered these elements. Its a rather thin reed

5) That Austria is the one going rogue is proven when no one thinks they are being reasonable- not even the Kaiser. Everybody but Austria finds the Serbian response acceptable. The Austrians? They tell Grey that even if the Serbs accepted their entire note, they would no longer find it acceptable.

It is FJ's desire for war that brings it about. Everyonne else is stuck on the runaway train

1. Except if you check the diplomatic letters of the previous crises you can clearly see that it was Germany that held back Austria from war against Serbia. They were well aware that giving them a blank check means war.

2. Serbia acquired in San Stefano Nis and other territories. In Berlin it received additionaly Pirot. I dont see how Serbia could blame Austria for getting extra territory. Bulgaria could blame Austria however we arent speaking of that. And Austria couldnt alone force the revision of San Stefano. It needed the support of Berlin and London. Also Serbia had really good relations with Austria till 1903- thats 25 years after San Stefano.

3. Because before 1903 Austria had great relations with Serbia so its pointless to search reasons for the souring of relations decades before that. End the change of relations was caused mainly by Serbia, the murder of the Obrenovic king that was allied to Austria by a group of Serbian officers. And among this same officers that brought about the new regime are later members of the Black Hand including Apis who organized the asassination of FF. You are right I cant see how Serbia could be seen responsible.

Also the examples of Ustrian misbehaviour you brought up after 1903:
1. you are right Austria is responible for the Pig war
2. The bosnian annexation which following your logic prevented the ottomans commiting any atrocities there? Also why should that be an atrocity against Serbia? Because Serbia wanted those territories for themself? Im also somewhat reluctant to ask this but what do you suppose would have happened to the Bosniaks if Bosnia ended up Serbian? Because if the fate of muslims that ended up in Bulgaria is any indication they can be grateful to Austria.
3. By Austrian interference you mean when Austria prevented Serbia from annexing half of Albania? Please tell what right Serbia had on annexing fully Alban territories. Wasnt alban majority Kosovo enough? See how that turned out OTL.

4. This is wrong on so many levels its hard to decide were to begin. Governments are responsible for their country and citisens. If said citisens - army officers who are state employees - in said country form terror organisations and are starting to murder people abroad than yes, part of the responsibility lies with the State. If you cant accept even this than there is no point in continuing the discussion.

To close: I dont deny that Austria is responsible for the war with Serbia. But denying that Serbia did a lot to provoke that attack would be equally wrong. And i mean far more than the asassination of FF. For example they threatened Austria - supposedly a Great power - with war in 1908 and Austria had to swallow it because of the Russians. This at a time when France officially attacked Tunisia because the ambassador was swatted with a fan. You can also add the anti-Austrian propaganda on Serbian papers etc.

And as I said it wasnt Austria that turned this to a world war. That was Russia and Germany. Russia had no treaty obliging it to intervene on Serbia's side and Germany attacked Russia before Russia could declare war on anyone.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There was a large meeting of the Great Kings and princes etc of Europe at the Funeral of King Edward VII in May 1910

It did present one Photographer the opportunity to take a photo of 9 Kings

Now while in most cases they 'Ruled' in name only there did exist a unoffocial communication channel between them - A Royal Court level of communication

Lets suggest for a minute that while together these 9 Kings agree to some sort of regular contact to discuss at a high level the problems of Europe - including the use of Telephone etc especially after the earlier goings on in North Africa

During the Austro-Hungarian Crisis after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand - this 'improved' ability to talk to each other allows Willhelm after speaking directly with the likes of King George V and Tsar Nicholas II to keep the European powers from the Brink

 

[Aphrodite]

1. Except if you check the diplomatic letters of the previous crises you can clearly see that it was Germany that held back Austria from war against Serbia. They were well aware that giving them a blank check means war.

2. Serbia acquired in San Stefano Nis and other territories. In Berlin it received additionaly Pirot. I dont see how Serbia could blame Austria for getting extra territory. Bulgaria could blame Austria however we arent speaking of that. And Austria couldnt alone force the revision of San Stefano. It needed the support of Berlin and London. Also Serbia had really good relations with Austria till 1903- thats 25 years after San Stefano.

3. Because before 1903 Austria had great relations with Serbia so its pointless to search reasons for the souring of relations decades before that. End the change of relations was caused mainly by Serbia, the murder of the Obrenovic king that was allied to Austria by a group of Serbian officers. And among this same officers that brought about the new regime are later members of the Black Hand including Apis who organized the asassination of FF. You are right I cant see how Serbia could be seen responsible.

Also the examples of Ustrian misbehaviour you brought up after 1903:
1. you are right Austria is responible for the Pig war
2. The bosnian annexation which following your logic prevented the ottomans commiting any atrocities there? Also why should that be an atrocity against Serbia? Because Serbia wanted those territories for themself? Im also somewhat reluctant to ask this but what do you suppose would have happened to the Bosniaks if Bosnia ended up Serbian? Because if the fate of muslims that ended up in Bulgaria is any indication they can be grateful to Austria.
3. By Austrian interference you mean when Austria prevented Serbia from annexing half of Albania? Please tell what right Serbia had on annexing fully Alban territories. Wasnt alban majority Kosovo enough? See how that turned out OTL.

4. This is wrong on so many levels its hard to decide were to begin. Governments are responsible for their country and citisens. If said citisens - army officers who are state employees - in said country form terror organisations and are starting to murder people abroad than yes, part of the responsibility lies with the State. If you cant accept even this than there is no point in continuing the discussion.

To close: I dont deny that Austria is responsible for the war with Serbia. But denying that Serbia did a lot to provoke that attack would be equally wrong. And i mean far more than the asassination of FF. For example they threatened Austria - supposedly a Great power - with war in 1908 and Austria had to swallow it because of the Russians. This at a time when France officially attacked Tunisia because the ambassador was swatted with a fan. You can also add the anti-Austrian propaganda on Serbian papers etc.

And as I said it wasnt Austria that turned this to a world war. That was Russia and Germany. Russia had no treaty obliging it to intervene on Serbia's side and Germany attacked Russia before Russia could declare war on anyone.

You have gone from arguing that austria didn't start the war to arguing that Austria was justified. That is subjective and not really debatable. No one at the time outside of Austria felt that way

You can argue that the Germans should have known that Austria intended war but they didn't The Kaiser was willing to risk war but that doesn't mean he wanted it. When he sees the Serbian response, he no longer feels that war is necessary. Unfortunately, he can no longer reign FJ in.



As to the argument that the Serbian government was responsible for the rogue actions of its citizens, the argument cuts both ways. Austria is also responsible for the rogue actions of her citizens- the ones who murdered the Archduke on Austrian territory

 

[ShortsBelfast]

As to the argument that the Serbian government was responsible for the rogue actions of its citizens, the argument cuts both ways. Austria is also responsible for the rogue actions of her citizens- the ones who murdered the Archduke on Austrian territory

I'm sorry but that is just casuistry. The Black Hand armed and financed the assassins and the head of Serbian military intelligence was deeply involved to the extent that Crown Prince Alexander had him court-martialled and shot in 1916. Serbian intelligence was deeply implicated.
Furthermore the Russian Ambassador Nicholas Hartwig's behaviour was reckless in the extreme in egging on the Serbian nationalists.
Are you saying that if (for example and I am not asserting he was-just running a thought experiment) Lee Harvey Oswald was acting on behalf of Soviet or Cuban intelligence in assasinating John F Kennedy that America should be held equally responsible for the rogue action of one of its citizens on American territory? All states have minorities, dissidents etc. that does not absolve a foreign power of having committed a hostile act when it provides arms, training or financial support to the same.

 

[Tibi088]

You have gone from arguing that austria didn't start the war to arguing that Austria was justified. That is subjective and not really debatable. No one at the time outside of Austria felt that way

You can argue that the Germans should have known that Austria intended war but they didn't The Kaiser was willing to risk war but that doesn't mean he wanted it. When he sees the Serbian response, he no longer feels that war is necessary. Unfortunately, he can no longer reign FJ in.



As to the argument that the Serbian government was responsible for the rogue actions of its citizens, the argument cuts both ways. Austria is also responsible for the rogue actions of her citizens- the ones who murdered the Archduke on Austrian territory

It would be pretty dumb to argue Austria hadnt started the war with Serbia. Im arguing that that wasnt necesserily a world war - and thats what im interested in. How to prevent WWI not how to prevent Austria declaring war on Serbia. The 2 is not the same. Also I dont say the German should have know - they knew.

And I never said that the Austrians arent responsible for the asassinations success. The police did a horrid job et security etc. and those are the failing of the Austrian state. That doesnt absolve the Black Hand and Serbia.

 

[Halagaz]

3. Because before 1903 Austria had great relations with Serbia so its pointless to search reasons for the souring of relations decades before that. End the change of relations was caused mainly by Serbia, the murder of the Obrenovic king that was allied to Austria by a group of Serbian officers. And among this same officers that brought about the new regime are later members of the Black Hand including Apis who organized the asassination of FF. You are right I cant see how Serbia could be seen responsible.

You're off the mark there. "Great" relations between Austria and Serbia ended in 1900, three years before the coup against the Obrenovic regime. The Obrenovic King's killers in 1903 acted with the knowledge and support of the Austro-Hungarian government.

Also the examples of Ustrian misbehaviour you brought up after 1903:
1. you are right Austria is responible for the Pig war
2. The bosnian annexation which following your logic prevented the ottomans commiting any atrocities there? Also why should that be an atrocity against Serbia? Because Serbia wanted those territories for themself? Im also somewhat reluctant to ask this but what do you suppose would have happened to the Bosniaks if Bosnia ended up Serbian? Because if the fate of muslims that ended up in Bulgaria is any indication they can be grateful to Austria.
3. By Austrian interference you mean when Austria prevented Serbia from annexing half of Albania? Please tell what right Serbia had on annexing fully Alban territories. Wasnt alban majority Kosovo enough? See how that turned out OTL.

Regarding point 2: do you know how many Bosniaks (ie. Bosnian Muslims) immigrated from Austro-Hungarian rule to Ottoman lands? A lot of them. Around 150,000 if not even more. The Bosniaks felt so "grateful" to Austria that around 20% of the total Bosniak population left their homes during Austrian rule.
(In fact, a small number of Bosnian Muslims emigrated from Austrian rule to Serbia, of all places...)

As to what would have happened to the Bosniaks under Serbian rule...presumably, the same thing that happened to them in Royal Yugoslavia (1918-1941): political marginalization and mid-level repression while strategically co-opting parts of the Bosniak elite. What would not have happened is some kind of genocide campaign.

This whole narrative of "savage" Serbia * vs. "civilized" Austria-Hungary is common enough, so I can't really blame you for adopting it...but is a simplistic, absurd and grossly inaccurate narrative.

As to point 3: True. In 1912, demographics gave Serbia no right whatsoever to try and annex Albania (Kosovo was more of a mixed bag). "No right whatsoever" is the same right Austria had on occupying and annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina.


* and "savage" Bulgaria, apparently

 

[Halagaz]

I'm sorry but that is just casuistry. The Black Hand armed and financed the assassins and the head of Serbian military intelligence was deeply involved to the extent that Crown Prince Alexander had him court-martialled and shot in 1916.

Minor correction: it was in 1917.

Furthermore the Russian Ambassador Nicholas Hartwig's behaviour was reckless in the extreme in egging on the Serbian nationalists.

The ambassador Hartwig was one of the major political enemies of the "Black Hand" and its affiliates (many of whom were hardcore pro-Germans, and some of whom even became wartime quislings for the Central Powers). So I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that if (for example and I am not asserting he was-just running a thought experiment) Lee Harvey Oswald was acting on behalf of Soviet or Cuban intelligence in assasinating John F Kennedy that America should be held equally responsible for the rogue action of one of its citizens on American territory? All states have minorities, dissidents etc. that does not absolve a foreign power of having committed a hostile act when it provides arms, training or financial support to the same.

Here's a very incomplete list of countries that were engaged in such hostile acts in the years leading up to 1914: Austria. Germany. The Ottoman Empire. The Russian Empire. Bulgaria. Greece. Montenegro.

It's a long (and still extremely complete) list, and Austria - whose government was involved in hostile actions against at least three of its neighbors - has a prominent place on it.

 

[Tibi088]

You're off the mark there. "Great" relations between Austria and Serbia ended in 1900, three years before the coup against the Obrenovic regime. The Obrenovic King's killers in 1903 acted with the knowledge and support of the Austro-Hungarian government.

Regarding point 2: do you know how many Bosniaks (ie. Bosnian Muslims) immigrated from Austro-Hungarian rule to Ottoman lands? A lot of them. Around 150,000 if not even more. The Bosniaks felt so "grateful" to Austria that around 20% of the total Bosniak population left their homes during Austrian rule.
(In fact, a small number of Bosnian Muslims emigrated from Austrian rule to Serbia, of all places...)

As to what would have happened to the Bosniaks under Serbian rule...presumably, the same thing that happened to them in Royal Yugoslavia (1918-1941): political marginalization and mid-level repression while strategically co-opting parts of the Bosniak elite. What would not have happened is some kind of genocide campaign.

This whole narrative of "savage" Serbia * vs. "civilized" Austria-Hungary is common enough, so I can't really blame you for adopting it...but is a simplistic, absurd and grossly inaccurate narrative.

As to point 3: True. In 1912, demographics gave Serbia no right whatsoever to try and annex Albania (Kosovo was more of a mixed bag). "No right whatsoever" is the same right Austria had on occupying and annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina.


* and "savage" Bulgaria, apparently

And when did I say Austria had any right to Bosnia? And I still believe if the options are only Austria and Serbia the bosniaks were better of under the austrians.
Also this as the first time I hear of Austria orchestrating the murder of Alexander I. It seems extremly unlikely to me. What would they gain? They also refused to acknowledge his sucessor for years - like most of Europe. Serbia also pretty much right away went on to try to gain economical independence from Austria which caused the pig war. In regards of this it seems extremly unlikely to me that Austria was behind the asassination.

And I do believe Austria was more civilised. For example I simply cant imagine a group of Austrian officers murdering the emperor and replacing him with someone else. Even when there was a change of ruler it was handled in a much more civilized way and without bloodshed. This happened not even at the collapse of the Empire. It simply wasnt done.

 

[jeandebueil]

One way to avoid WW1 (or at least remove one of its main indirect causes): French Diplomacy, following Jaurès and Caillaux's ideas, decides that Alsace-Moselle can be retaken to Germany with a long-term strategy and peaceful means, meaning money and colonies to Germany in exchange for the "lost provinces". Of course, Germany would have to accept the very principle of this policy (and this will be quite difficult). So ulikely but nonetheless possible. But Moselle has iron, and a lot of it, so France would have at the very least to agree to sell at a very cheap price to Germany.
After this, WW1 could still happen but it's possible that France just says: "nope. Your problem. Not going to intervene in this mess".

 

[Halagaz]

And I still believe if the options are only Austria and Serbia the bosniaks were better of under the austrians.

Possibly. But as we can see, the difference between the "savage" Balkanites and "civilized" Vienna was not nearly as spectacular as some might think.

Also this as the first time I hear of Austria orchestrating the murder of Alexander I. It seems extremly unlikely to me. What would they gain?

Unlikely or not, it is what it is.

And it's not at all unlikely, when we consider the events of 1900-1903. Vienna believed that Alexander has become a Russophile after his unexpected marriage and political changes in 1900. Vienna also believed that Peter Karadjordjevic would be an Austrophile King, since his father was Austrophile. Guided by these two (mostly wrong) beliefs, the Austrian government approved and supported the conspiracy against Alexander.

They also refused to acknowledge his sucessor for years - like most of Europe.

Err, what? This is factually wrong. Аustria-Hungary was literally the first country to acknowledge Alexander's successor and the new Serbian government in 1903, shortly after the coup.

And the other countries of Europe soon followed Austria's example with their own acknowledgement; the only one who refused to recognize Karadjordjevic and the new Serbian government was Britain (until 1906).

And I do believe Austria was more civilised. For example I simply cant imagine a group of Austrian officers murdering the emperor and replacing him with someone else. Even when there was a change of ruler it was handled in a much more civilized way and without bloodshed. This happened not even at the collapse of the Empire. It simply wasnt done.

The concept of being "civilized" means a lot more things than the sanctity of crowns and thrones.