No WWI in 1914

By most accounts FF was determined to remove Conrad von Hötzendorf, which was the likely outcome if FF had not been assassinated. Citing Conrad's outspoken opinions as A-H policy is not entirely honest. Do you have any evidence or references citing FF's explicit intent to wage war against both the Italy and Hungary, or are those more alternative facts...
While I agree that Conrad's opinions were largely not A-H policy (or else there would have been war with Serbia during the Balkan wars), I doubt FF wanted to remove von Hötzendorf. In fact, FF was the one to make sure that he got his job back as Chief of Staff before the war; as far as I know, the two were friends and political allies.
 
By most accounts FF was determined to remove Conrad von Hötzendorf, which was the likely outcome if FF had not been assassinated. Citing Conrad's outspoken opinions as A-H policy is not entirely honest. Do you have any evidence or references citing FF's explicit intent to wage war against both the Italy and Hungary, or are those more alternative facts...

"Our primary enemy is Italy, and one day we will have to wage war on her in order to win back Venice and Lombardy."
~Franz Ferdinand to von Hotzendorf, 1913.

In addition to Conrad, Theodor von Sosnosky also wrote about it in his Franz Ferdinand, der Erzherzog-Thronfolger.
So Franz Ferdinand's aggressive intentions against Italy were well known to his subordinates and friends. Other than conquering Venice and Lombardy, he also hoped to recreate the Papal State; and even considered restoring King Bomb's old throne, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Do you have a reference for the claim that FF was going to fire Conrad - his ally and protege, whose appointment he backed on both occasions? It sounds a bit like one of those baseless fairytales that constantly surround FF; how he was going to enact federalization, start a new golden age of peace and tolerance, and reunite the Beatles (if only he wasn't slain by those dastardly Bosnians).
Perhaps you have not read the ultimatum. For your information, the very first point of the ultimatum stated:

(1) To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the general tendency of which is directed against its territorial integrity;

In the years preceding WW1 Serbian irredentist propaganda, contributed to Serbia provoking a war with Bulgaria, Serbia initiating hostilities with Albania and the Ottoman empire, ongoing Serbian state sponsored terrorism and the Serbian asassination of the heir to the A-H empire. Some attempt by the Serbian leadership to limit publication of extremist publications was in everyone's best interest.

Thank you for posting the exact phrase; though I'm not sure why, as it just confirms what I said. The ultimatum was not merely out of bounds on one point, but completely ridiculous starting with the very first demand: "Wahhh, you have to ban criticism of our glorious regime" (never mind constitutional rights and procedures, the moral right to free speech and so on). The Comrade Supreme Leader says hello and gives it two thumbs up.

It was certainly in Vienna's best interest to ban any publications which might discuss the recent wave of state-sponsored pogroms it carried out; or its increasingly poor record in minority rights, land reform and other aspects of governance. It was not, however, in anyone else's "best interest".
In context, the most contentious parts of the A-H ultimatum were the demands A-H representatives be party to the investigation of the assasination and ultimately prosecutions relating thereto (point 5 & 6). You suggest those matters and the control of publications of hate speech within Serbia are more onerous than NATOs demand its military have unfettered rights roam throughout Serbian territory. Given on the above facts, I would concur with Professor Clark.

The term "hate speech" refers to speech directed against an ethnic, religious, etc. group; usually a minority. A government cannot be the victim of hate speech. The idea that criticism of a government constitutes hate speech is ridiculous and totalitarian (whether you agree with the specific piece of criticism or not).
You are just keep overflowing with alternative facts.

Józef Piłsudski (a Polish revolutionary leader) in 1901 escaped to Galicia a (Polish dominated) part of the A-H empire. His activities against the Russian empire in Poland in 1904 and 1905 appear to have been independent of the A-H empire. In 1906 Józef Piłsudski set up a military school [purportedly to support the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party] in Krakow, Galicia, purportedly with the "connivance" of Austrian authorities. In context, Krakow as part of the Austrian empire, which enjoyed significant autonomy including Polish as the language of government. As a consequence, Krakow was viewed as the center of Polish national revival and culture. Accordingly, it is likely any "connivance" was largely limited to the Galicia local government, which would have been more sympathetic to such causes.

From 1908 Józef Piłsudski transformed the membership to the ZMC. The ZWC's main purpose was to prepare Polish oficer cadres for a future Polish army for likely hostilities with Russia. From its inception, ZWC received crucial support in the highest circles of the Austria Empire which was preparing for war with Imperial Russia. As the Austro-Hungary government preferred to have more control over the secret paramilitary organizations, two legal organizations, subordinated to ZWC were created in 1910 with the approval of officials in Austria-Hungary, who would be able to supervise those legal organizations to a much larger extent then the secret ZWC - this indicates the precusor Polish groups were independent of the A-H administration.

So in summary, a Polish revolutionary organisation originating from Poland managed to establish a training base within the A-H empire, but within two years it had started its transformation into the basis of a formal Polish military. This can be contrasted with Serbia, where elements of its formal army continued to be routinely involved in acts of insurgency/ terrorism in neighbouring states.

At least two of the things you said here seem to be contradicting each other (underlined).

Moving on, "it is likely that connivance was limited"...? No. Austrian military intelligence was neck deep in it, too, and apparently so were "the highest circles" of the Habsburg monarchy.
Transformed into a "formal military", "within two years" no less? No, it wasn't (unless a "formal military" is a type of organization that robs trains and kills officials in neighboring countries).

Let's make a more meaningful summary: a Polish revolutionary group operated in Austria-Hungary, with the knowledge and support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence; and carried out waves of robberies, assassinations and murders (hundreds of them) across the border. Thus making their Serb counterparts look like complete amateurs.
 

BooNZ

Banned
"Our primary enemy is Italy, and one day we will have to wage war on her in order to win back Venice and Lombardy."
~Franz Ferdinand to von Hotzendorf, 1913.

Given the frequent suggestion FF disliked his Italian subjects, it seems odd he would advocate war (which he also disliked) to get even more Italian subjects. It does however sound like something Conrad would say. In an attempt to get context, I placed the above quote in Google, but this quote does not register, so I assume it is actually another one of your alternative facts...

In addition to Conrad, Theodor von Sosnosky also wrote about it in his Franz Ferdinand, der Erzherzog-Thronfolger.
So Franz Ferdinand's aggressive intentions against Italy were well known to his subordinates and friends. Other than conquering Venice and Lombardy, he also hoped to recreate the Papal State; and even considered restoring King Bomb's old throne, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Refer response above.

Do you have a reference for the claim that FF was going to fire Conrad - his ally and protege, whose appointment he backed on both occasions? It sounds a bit like one of those baseless fairytales that constantly surround FF; how he was going to enact federalization, start a new golden age of peace and tolerance, and reunite the Beatles (if only he wasn't slain by those dastardly Bosnians).

The fact FF was intending to remove Conrad appears regularly on the forum without debate, but for your benefit...

According to The Assassination of the Archduke, a recently published biography of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie sponsored by their descendants, Franz Ferdinand was actively pushing to remove Conrad from his post and was prepared to expose the general’s affair to achieve it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-never-was-why-World-War-I-was-NOT-inevitable

Full disclosure, while I have little doubt FF would have removed Conrad, Conrad may have needed a stake through the heart to stop him being reappointed at some future date...

Thank you for posting the exact phrase; though I'm not sure why, as it just confirms what I said. The ultimatum was not merely out of bounds on one point, but completely ridiculous starting with the very first demand: "Wahhh, you have to ban criticism of our glorious regime" (never mind constitutional rights and procedures, the moral right to free speech and so on). The Comrade Supreme Leader says hello and gives it two thumbs up.

Because there is a distinction between criticism and hate speech - something you do not appear to be able to grasp.

It was certainly in Vienna's best interest to ban any publications which might discuss the recent wave of state-sponsored pogroms it carried out; or its increasingly poor record in minority rights, land reform and other aspects of governance. It was not, however, in anyone else's "best interest".

More alternative facts? - references please.

The term "hate speech" refers to speech directed against an ethnic, religious, etc. group; usually a minority. A government cannot be the victim of hate speech. The idea that criticism of a government constitutes hate speech is ridiculous and totalitarian (whether you agree with the specific piece of criticism or not).

Serbian irredentist claims were frequently based on Serb ethnicity (and dubious historical claims) to the extent Serbian propaganda often sought to claim other ethnicities/cultures as Serbian, including Bosniaks, Croats, Bulgars and Macedonians. The Serb identity and leadership was promoted ahead of other ethnicities, for example the Serbian Crown Prince Alexander striking a 7 year old girl because she identified herself as a Bulgar instead of a Serb.

At least two of the things you said here seem to be contradicting each other (underlined).

Moving on, "it is likely that connivance was limited"...? No. Austrian military intelligence was neck deep in it, too, and apparently so were "the highest circles" of the Habsburg monarchy.
Transformed into a "formal military", "within two years" no less? No, it wasn't (unless a "formal military" is a type of organization that robs trains and kills officials in neighboring countries).

No contradiction. To restate what has already been said, Józef Piłsudski as a/the leader of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party (a revoluntionary/terrorist organisation) set up a training base in Galicia, close to the border with Russian Poland. There is a suggestion the creation of the training base required some level of contrivance with Austrian authorities. I am not aware of the extent of this contrivance (i.e. was it financial support, registration or simply looking the other way) or the level of authority. I am not aware of any involvement in of Austrian authorities outside Galicia or any Austrian involvement in the activieties of this organisation in Russian Poland (significant levels of terrorist activities predated the construction of the Training camp in Galicia).

From 1908 the above revoluntionary organisation converted to the ZWC, which had the stated purpose to prepare Polish forces for a future conventional war with Russia (i.e. not terrorsim). It is this reformed organisation that ultimately received the full support from the A-H administration, not the precursor revolutionary organisation. After 1908 the membership of the revolutionary organisaton declined rapidly. From what I understand, the activities of the ZWC were not of a terrorist nature, but details of its activities were still kept from the A-H authorities, so subsidiary organisations were set up that could be subject to improved A-H oversight.

Let's make a more meaningful summary: a Polish revolutionary group operated in Austria-Hungary, with the knowledge and support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence; and carried out waves of robberies, assassinations and murders (hundreds of them) across the border. Thus making their Serb counterparts look like complete amateurs.

Again, do you have references for all those alternative facts?
 
You sure throw the term 'alternative fact' around a lot. Considering he actually sourced one of those statements, it's rather disingeneous to dismiss it out of hand.

Plus, a recent biography from the Archduke's descendants? That sounds very suspicious and potentially very biased. Considering how much criticism in recent academic works and popular culture von Hötzendorf has been getting, it sounds like something to try and put Franz Ferdinand in a better life since he hasn't had good PR recently either. How convenient would it be for his descendent that oh, FF wasn't bad, he even wanted to sack Conrad! You know, despite the fact that the two were most definitely on cahoots.

From what I'm getting, your opinion on FF and von Hötzendorf sounds more like Alternative facts than Halagaz's.
 

BooNZ

Banned
You sure throw the term 'alternative fact' around a lot. Considering he actually sourced one of those statements, it's rather disingeneous to dismiss it out of hand.

Plus, a recent biography from the Archduke's descendants? That sounds very suspicious and potentially very biased. Considering how much criticism in recent academic works and popular culture von Hötzendorf has been getting, it sounds like something to try and put Franz Ferdinand in a better life since he hasn't had good PR recently either. How convenient would it be for his descendent that oh, FF wasn't bad, he even wanted to sack Conrad! You know, despite the fact that the two were most definitely on cahoots.

From what I'm getting, your opinion on FF and von Hötzendorf sounds more like Alternative facts than Halagaz's.

Sorry, I am not an original thinker...

No WW1: Austro-Hungarian -Italian War?
:confused:
Where did you read FF was anti-Italian? Conrad was pathologically anti-Italian, but he was on the way out IOTL before FF was assassinated. There is no way in hell Austria and Italy would fight because they had just renewed their defensive alliance in 1912, which means no war until 1922 at the earliest, plus Italy was too wary of fighting Austria on their own and A-H was too wary of fighting against Italy when Serbia and Russia were an issue; FF was a peacenik too because he understood what war would mean for the Empire. His assassination removed the strongest voice for peace in 1914; unless Italy attacks A-H there will not be war and Italy is not suicidal.

WI: Archduke Franz Ferdinand gets lucky
Very likely. FF and Conrad, who had once been one of the Archduke's premier protégés, had been on the outs for years; IIRC the final breach came when FF chewed out Conrad in public over a social misstep at a German-Austrian officers' party attended by the Kaiser himself. I personally think a lot depends on how much longer Franz Josef lives. OTL there had been a serious scare a few months previous when he came down with a bad case of bronchitis, so serious that Franz Ferdinand had actually been alerted to be ready to come to Vienna. FJ might last as long as he did OTL or longer, or on the other hand the stress of trying to decide between war and peace, or manage the war with the continual bickering between FF and Conrad, might finish him off earlier.

WI: Russia neutral in WW1 analogue
Said general had already been sacked at least once, and had Franz Ferdinand survived Sarajevo Conrad would have been sacked again, hopefully this time permanently. The Serbians wanted to conquer parts of Austria-Hungary. A-H wanted Serbia to piss off and leave it alone. Vienna does not want more cranky Slavs; it has more than enough already. But if war was the only way to get Serbia to shut up, then war is the only way for A-H to be left alone.

What about free speech that encourages people to commit assassination? Because that is what the Serbians were doing. You can injure a country's pride. You can't start murdering its officials.

As for the Serbian requests for clarifications, is the Serbian government so clueless and incompetent that it needed the Austrians to find those for it? It's called pretending ignorance to wiggle out of obligations.

Yes, in 1914 A-H was gunning for a fight. That I will not argue. A good faith, even if not entirely successful, effort by Serbia earlier to avoid encouraging acts of terrorism against A-H would have done wonders to nip such an attitude in the bud. In 1914 it was too late, nor did the Serbian government try.

WI: Gavrilo Prince failed to assassinate Franz Ferdinand?
Probably no war (at least not in 1914). IIRC Franz Ferdinand supported a war proposal only once, and opposed it numerous times.

Serbia unsupported in 1914
According to his fellow conspirators, Apis wasn't really worried with the Archduke's potential long-term plans, but with what (they thought) was going to happen in 1914. They believed Franz Ferdinand has converted to the pro-war faction and that he'll be leading Austrian troops in an attack on Serbia later that year. Of course, today we know FF wasn't actually planning that.
 
Given the frequent suggestion FF disliked his Italian subjects, it seems odd he would advocate war (which he also disliked) to get even more Italian subjects. It does however sound like something Conrad would say. In an attempt to get context, I placed the above quote in Google, but this quote does not register, so I assume it is actually another one of your alternative facts...

So let me get this straight:
1) It "seems odd" (to you) so it can't be true.
2) I posted two sources - Sosnosky's book and Conrad's memoirs. But since googling a quote didn't get you anywhere, you're going to pretend they don't exist.
The fact FF was intending to remove Conrad appears regularly on the forum without debate, but for your benefit...

According to The Assassination of the Archduke, a recently published biography of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie sponsored by their descendants, Franz Ferdinand was actively pushing to remove Conrad from his post and was prepared to expose the general’s affair to achieve it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-never-was-why-World-War-I-was-NOT-inevitable

Full disclosure, while I have little doubt FF would have removed Conrad, Conrad may have needed a stake through the heart to stop him being reappointed at some future date...

So, a "popular history" book, which doesn't use a single primary source, and instead relies on a random mixture of popular accounts with one or two respectable historical summaries; and also happens to be sponsored by the Archduke's descendants?

Not one of the major works by Jean-Paul Bled or Kann, not even Beatty's mediocre counterfactual (which, in spite of falling over itself to praise FF and predict a bright future for him, doesn't mention this alleged plan to fire Conrad at all).

I have to echo the doubts already expressed by Magyarorszag.
Because there is a distinction between criticism and hate speech - something you do not appear to be able to grasp.

Yes, there is, although you seem to have trouble acknowledging this distinction. Ethnic or religious groups suffer hate speech, governments suffer criticism. And this government was openly demanding the ban of any information that might inspire "contempt" or "hatred" of the government in question - or anything that potentially "might serve" (<=direct quote from the ultimatum) as "propaganda" against it.
More alternative facts? - references please.

Since you didn't specify what you're asking a reference for, I can only assume you're asking about the state-sponsored pogroms carried out by Austrian authorities against the Serbian population in several cities. Reference: Hans Hautmann - Princip in Theresienstadt.
(The events were referred to as "pogroms" even by elements of the Austro-Hungarian government, such as Leon Bilinski, and the Hungarian Prime Minister Tisza; unfortunately, Tisza was the only one in the government who actually didn't support them, and quite powerless against the rest.)
Serbian irredentist claims were frequently based on Serb ethnicity (and dubious historical claims) to the extent Serbian propaganda often sought to claim other ethnicities/cultures as Serbian, including Bosniaks, Croats, Bulgars and Macedonians. The Serb identity and leadership was promoted ahead of other ethnicities, for example the Serbian Crown Prince Alexander striking a 7 year old girl because she identified herself as a Bulgar instead of a Serb.

I was going to request a source for this alleged event, but I took the liberty of tracking it down myself. The alleged event is first mentioned in... Kiril Purlichev, Сръбският режим и революционната борба в Македония (Sofia, 1917). In other words, you're parroting a piece of literal Central Powers' wartime propaganda.
A book written by a card-carrying Bulgarian nationalist while the Tsarist-Radoslavov regime was was fighting the Entente (and trying to wipe out the Serb ethnic identity in the entire eastern half of Serbia by means of mass murder and forced assimilation).

If there is an actual reputable source predating this, please post it. Otherwise...lol.
No contradiction. To restate what has already been said, Józef Piłsudski as a/the leader of the Combat Organization of the Polish Socialist Party (a revoluntionary/terrorist organisation) set up a training base in Galicia, close to the border with Russian Poland. There is a suggestion the creation of the training base required some level of contrivance with Austrian authorities. I am not aware of the extent of this contrivance (i.e. was it financial support, registration or simply looking the other way) or the level of authority. I am not aware of any involvement in of Austrian authorities outside Galicia or any Austrian involvement in the activieties of this organisation in Russian Poland (significant levels of terrorist activities predated the construction of the Training camp in Galicia).

From 1908 the above revoluntionary organisation converted to the ZWC, which had the stated purpose to prepare Polish forces for a future conventional war with Russia (i.e. not terrorsim). It is this reformed organisation that ultimately received the full support from the A-H administration, not the precursor revolutionary organisation. After 1908 the membership of the revolutionary organisaton declined rapidly. From what I understand, the activities of the ZWC were not of a terrorist nature, but details of its activities were still kept from the A-H authorities, so subsidiary organisations were set up that could be subject to improved A-H oversight.

Again, do you have references for all those alternative facts?

No, the PPS Combat Organization and the ZWC (which was a split-off, not a direct successor, of the first organization) both operated with the support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence from 1906 onwards.
The purpose of the ZWC was not just conventional warfare, but also spying on behalf of Austria and preparing an uprising in Russian Poland when the opportunity arises. The ZWC and its daughter-organizations also developed cells in Russian Poland as well as other regions of the Russian Empire.

Reference: The History of Poland since 1863 by Leslie, Polonsky, Ciechanowski, Pelczynski. Alongside what can be found on Wikipedia.
 
None of the Great powers would be keen to weaken the Ottomans further following the Balkan wars, which probably visited greater attrocities against the Balkan muslim populations than any Greek grevance prior to WW1.

This must be one of those "alternative facts" we keep hearing so much about...
Thousands of Ottoman Greeks were killed and 150,000-200,000 forced to abandon their homes and flee to Greece in late 1913 and early 1914. The Bulgarian community of Ottoman Thrace suffered a similar fate, with over 15,000 killed and around 100,000 expelled. When it comes to atrocities, the Ottoman Empire gave as good as it got - even on its "good days".
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
While I agree that Conrad's opinions were largely not A-H policy (or else there would have been war with Serbia during the Balkan wars), I doubt FF wanted to remove von Hötzendorf. In fact, FF was the one to make sure that he got his job back as Chief of Staff before the war; as far as I know, the two were friends and political allies.

FF was displeased with Conrad's fixation on Serbia. While certainly FF wanted both Hungary humbled, and then (eventually) war with Italy, he apparently didn't care for invading Serbia; meanwhile, Conrad felt the Serbs were the threat to target.

Both men were belligerent, but they disagreed on where to target their belligerence and when to make the moves for war. Most of what I've read suggested that FF wanted first to break Hungary, consolidate his power, and only then, once he felt he had solid control of his country and could build up his army, turn towards Italy. Meanwhile, Conrad wanted war with Serbia sooner rather than later; his strongest critics among historians would have you believe it was entirely because of the affair he was having with a married woman, and his hopes of becoming a grand war hero and thus win her divorce from her husband. I'm not sure I subscribe wholly to that idea, but I've seen it mentioned by several authors. It's possible that if Conrad kept agitating for a Serbian war, absent an assassination, that FF would have taken stronger action against his protégé.

Admittedly: I'm restricted to the English language scholarship, and a lot of it does have a rather strong viewpoint one way or another.
 

BooNZ

Banned
This must be one of those "alternative facts" we keep hearing so much about...
Thousands of Ottoman Greeks were killed and 150,000-200,000 forced to abandon their homes and flee to Greece in late 1913 and early 1914. The Bulgarian community of Ottoman Thrace suffered a similar fate, with over 15,000 killed and around 100,000 expelled. When it comes to atrocities, the Ottoman Empire gave as good as it got - even on its "good days".
I stated the Balkan wars probably visited more atrocities against the Balkan muslim population than any Greek grievance prior to WW1.

The number of Muslim refugees following the First Balkan War (1912) is estimated at 400,000. Most had already been expelled from other regions.21 After the Second Balkan War (1913), around 135,000 refugees arrived in Salonika alone. More than one million refugees lost their lives in flight, either because they were murdered or died from starvation or epidemics.22 Even if at the time the First Balkan War was glorified by the leaders of the warring parties as a modern "crusade of the Balkan states" against "Asiatic barbarism",23 the front lines were in fact much more complicated than the dichotomy between Christianity and Islam suggests. For in the Second Balkan war the Christian Balkan states also fought one another: Thus, Greeks were expelled not only from Ottoman Asia Minor, but also from the expanded Serbia and enlarged Bulgaria.
http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe...nd-emigration-of-the-muslims-from-the-balkans

Even if we assume the lessor number of 400,000, this is substantially greater than the numbers you have cited for the Ottoman Greeks.
 
I was going to request a source for this alleged event, but I took the liberty of tracking it down myself. The alleged event is first mentioned in... Kiril Purlichev, Сръбският режим и революционната борба в Македония (Sofia, 1917). In other words, you're parroting a piece of literal Central Powers' wartime propaganda.
A book written by a card-carrying Bulgarian nationalist while the Tsarist-Radoslavov regime was was fighting the Entente (and trying to wipe out the Serb ethnic identity in the entire eastern half of Serbia by means of mass murder and forced assimilation).

If there is an actual reputable source predating this, please post it. Otherwise...lol.
The fact that a poem based on the incident appeared in April 1913 while Bulgaria and Serbia were still allies by an author who can hardly be considered anti-Serbian seems to be quite a good indication that it happened.

Oh, and Bulgaria trying to wipe out Serb identity in eastern Serbia by mass murder during WWI? Are you quite sure that you're not being influenced by propaganda yourself?
 
Last edited:
The fact that a poem based on the incident appeared in April 1913 while Bulgaria and Serbia were still allies by an author who can hardly be considered anti-Serbian seems to be quite a good indication that it happened.

Oh, and Bulgaria trying to wipe out Serb identity in eastern Serbia by mass murder during WWI? Are you quite sure that you're not being influenced by propaganda yourself?

I am quite sure, since I read about it in a Bulgarian historian's article based on Bulgarian sources (link).
Immediately after entering eastern Serbia, the Supreme Command issued an order to exterminate the Serbian intelligentsia in the occupied regions. So planned mass murder was indeed used alongside the more generic methods of forced assimilation.

In fairness, the idea didn't originate in Bulgaria. The Austrian Foreign Ministry proposed the extermination of the entire Serbian intelligentsia and middle class in 1914, so it's possible the Bulgarian orders were merely inspired by their western ally. I am not aware of any solid proof for this inspiration, however. Bulgaria's behavior in WWI was usually saner and more humane than Austria's bloody reign of terror in the south and east, but the Radoslavov regime still has quite a few atrocities on its hands.

As for the Vazov poem, it's a more credible source than the other one...but with a poem as its primary support, the event still constitutes little more than an anecdote.
 
If Russia gets too strong the alliances are likely to shift with the British siding with the Centrals, a terrible position for France to be in but at this point they would be lesser partner,
You are Probably going to end up with the Russian Bear and the German Eagle circling each other waiting to see who blinks first.
 

BooNZ

Banned
So let me get this straight:
1) It "seems odd" (to you) so it can't be true.
2) I posted two sources - Sosnosky's book and Conrad's memoirs. But since googling a quote didn't get you anywhere, you're going to pretend they don't exist.

If a statement seams odd, I often check for references to get some context. In this case I was unable to find anything on the "mainstream" internet about your 'facts'. Your are welcome to provide less obscure (easier to verify) support for your arguments.

So, a "popular history" book, which doesn't use a single primary source, and instead relies on a random mixture of popular accounts with one or two respectable historical summaries; and also happens to be sponsored by the Archduke's descendants?

I have to echo the doubts already expressed by Magyarorszag.

The probable demise of Conrad under FF is a recurring theme raised by other members on threads you have participated and I am not aware of it previously being challenged. Being outspoken, publically rebuked by the future boss and having professional advice consistently ignored are subtle clues Conrad's job security was not what it could be. The key fact is if FF lives, Conrad's influence on policy will be minimal, even if he somehow clung to power.

Yes, there is, although you seem to have trouble acknowledging this distinction. Ethnic or religious groups suffer hate speech, governments suffer criticism. And this government was openly demanding the ban of any information that might inspire "contempt" or "hatred" of the government in question - or anything that potentially "might serve" (<=direct quote from the ultimatum) as "propaganda" against it.

No. The first demand was the Serbian authorities prevent publications that incite hatred and contempt, with specific reference to Serbian territorial ambitions - not merely inspiring criticism. The third demand related to the Serbian education system ceasing to incorporate alternative facts to promote the concept of "making Serbia great again". In context, the third demand was referring to the Serbian teaching body, the methods of instruction and everything that serves to propagate propaganda in the education environment against Austria-Hungary.

Since you didn't specify what you're asking a reference for, I can only assume you're asking about the state-sponsored pogroms carried out by Austrian authorities against the Serbian population in several cities. Reference: Hans Hautmann - Princip in Theresienstadt.
(The events were referred to as "pogroms" even by elements of the Austro-Hungarian government, such as Leon Bilinski, and the Hungarian Prime Minister Tisza; unfortunately, Tisza was the only one in the government who actually didn't support them, and quite powerless against the rest.)

The only record I could find of any A-H pogroms (or similar) targeting the A-H Serbs was after FF was assassinated. Are you able to provide more information, because those appear small beer compared to the Serbian activities leading into WW1?

No, the PPS Combat Organization and the ZWC (which was a split-off, not a direct successor, of the first organization) both operated with the support of Austrian authorities and Austrian military intelligence from 1906 onwards.
The purpose of the ZWC was not just conventional warfare, but also spying on behalf of Austria and preparing an uprising in Russian Poland when the opportunity arises. The ZWC and its daughter-organizations also developed cells in Russian Poland as well as other regions of the Russian Empire.

Reference: The History of Poland since 1863 by Leslie, Polonsky, Ciechanowski, Pelczynski. Alongside what can be found on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your reference. I have taken the liberty of including a few extracts from your reference below:

The significance of Polish parties in Galicia for the future of Poland was slight, but Galicia did offer a refuge for those parties which did not enjoy legal existence in Russian Poland (pg 106).

As early as 29 September 2006 Jozef Pilsudski and his closest associate Dr Witold Judko Narkiewicz established contact with the intelligence officers of the Austrian 10th Corps stationed at the fortress of Przemysl. There is no doubt Austrian intelligence knew much about the activities of the Polish Socialist Party. (pg 107)

This paramilitary activity in Galicia [Polish organisations forming rifle clubs and similar] gave the Russian government considerable anxiety. ...Further protests were made on 1 September 1909, 26 November 1909, 7 October 1910, 21 December 1910, 27 July 1911 and 9 March 1912. The frequency of Russian protests is some indication of the laxity with which the Austrian government dealt with this aspect of Polish activity. The intelligence departments of the first, tenth and eleventh Corps, based upon Cracow, Przemysl and Lwow were prepared to accept the paramilitary organsations' existence with equianimity. Their armament was negligible, but the information they provided about Russian troop dispositions was useful (pg 108)

The real significance of paramilitary activity lay in its creation of a nucleus of political leaders with pretensions to military ability.(pg 109)


From the reference you have provided, it is clear the Austrian authorities neither funded nor directed activities in Russian Poland. The complicity exhibited by the Austrian authorities appears to be that of ambivalence and any intelligence garnered incidental.
 
I agree that the economic investments the Germans and French made in Greece were very small compared to the ones they made in the Ottoman Empire and that holds true for many of the other powers. Most the powers investments in Greece were of a military or political nature. And I also agree that Russia is really the only one who benefits massively from a Ottoman collapse. This is why I believe an arbitration is the more likely outcome then a war. Venizelos only wanted all the Great Powers to confirm and guarantee the status quo rather than just Britain recognizing the status quo. And I think this is a very accomplishable goal for Venizelos, he already has Britain guaranteeing the islands as Greek and most of the other powers weren't bothered by the Greek possession of the islands.

Unfortunately I do not yet find any tangible numbers as to how deeply invested Germany was in Greece, but the Greek King in addition to having German roots is married to the Kaiser's sister. But as far as I can tell his loyalty was to Greece and his wife was sympathetic to the British like his government. The Greek battleship Salamis was ordered from a German yard with American sourced guns. The British supplied expertise to its Navy and the French sold it arms and munitions. Thus I suspect that without a war beginning with the assassination of FF, this next "Balkan" war indeed cuts across the interests and sympathies of the British, French and Germans, each having an interest in the Ottomans too. Now the question is what does the Czar do in this boiling pot? I tend to agree that the Russians were over eager for a war to wash away the 1905 debacle and to divert the populace from reform towards patriotism; thus I am inclined to see a Russian misstep. And I am trying to second-guess how either Italy of A-H misstep in this scenario too. So I am not yet optimistic that this burns out, is contained or ends in a rationale conference.
 
If a statement seams odd, I often check for references to get some context. In this case I was unable to find anything on the "mainstream" internet about your 'facts'. Your are welcome to provide less obscure (easier to verify) support for your arguments.

I've already provided sources - you are welcome to look them up, if you doubt my statements. That's what sources are for.

If you can't be bothered to look something up, that's your prerogative...but don't expect anyone to waste their time scavenging for a second (third?), redundant source for it.
The probable demise of Conrad under FF is a recurring theme raised by other members on threads you have participated and I am not aware of it previously being challenged. Being outspoken, publically rebuked by the future boss and having professional advice consistently ignored are subtle clues Conrad's job security was not what it could be. The key fact is if FF lives, Conrad's influence on policy will be minimal, even if he somehow clung to power.

Where does this amusingly misnamed "key fact" come from? Wishful thinking? Someone's speculation on a forum, apparently? Sounds like a very "alternative" sort of "fact"...
No. The first demand was the Serbian authorities prevent publications that incite hatred and contempt, with specific reference to Serbian territorial ambitions - not merely inspiring criticism. The third demand related to the Serbian education system ceasing to incorporate alternative facts to promote the concept of "making Serbia great again". In context, the third demand was referring to the Serbian teaching body, the methods of instruction and everything that serves to propagate propaganda in the education environment against Austria-Hungary.
Just when I thought the CP apologist discourse couldn't sink any lower into sloppy emotional appeals to modern politics, here come the Trump references.

No. The first demand is to ban all publications that incite "hatred" or "contempt" against Vienna's regime (as well as anything which has a "tendency", whatever that exactly means, against its territorial integrity).
The third demand makes the nature of #1 even more clear (not that it wasn't clear already), by requesting the ban of anything that could possibly serve as "propaganda" or assist the "propaganda" against the Habsburg monarchy.
The only record I could find of any A-H pogroms (or similar) targeting the A-H Serbs was after FF was assassinated. Are you able to provide more information, because those appear small beer compared to the Serbian activities leading into WW1?
Yes, after FF was assassinated - and shortly before the ultimatum was crafted and sent.
Awfully convenient, how a government which sponsors pogroms doesn't want anyone to be allowed to criticize it - oops, to inspire "contempt" against it.

Indeed, it took several months of war before Austria's activities became unmistakably worse than those of Serbia before WWI. The pogroms were just a taste of things to come.
Thank you for your reference. I have taken the liberty of including a few extracts from your reference below:

The significance of Polish parties in Galicia for the future of Poland was slight, but Galicia did offer a refuge for those parties which did not enjoy legal existence in Russian Poland (pg 106).

As early as 29 September 2006 Jozef Pilsudski and his closest associate Dr Witold Judko Narkiewicz established contact with the intelligence officers of the Austrian 10th Corps stationed at the fortress of Przemysl. There is no doubt Austrian intelligence knew much about the activities of the Polish Socialist Party. (pg 107)

This paramilitary activity in Galicia [Polish organisations forming rifle clubs and similar] gave the Russian government considerable anxiety. ...Further protests were made on 1 September 1909, 26 November 1909, 7 October 1910, 21 December 1910, 27 July 1911 and 9 March 1912. The frequency of Russian protests is some indication of the laxity with which the Austrian government dealt with this aspect of Polish activity. The intelligence departments of the first, tenth and eleventh Corps, based upon Cracow, Przemysl and Lwow were prepared to accept the paramilitary organsations' existence with equianimity. Their armament was negligible, but the information they provided about Russian troop dispositions was useful (pg 108)

The real significance of paramilitary activity lay in its creation of a nucleus of political leaders with pretensions to military ability.(pg 109)


From the reference you have provided, it is clear the Austrian authorities neither funded nor directed activities in Russian Poland. The complicity exhibited by the Austrian authorities appears to be that of ambivalence and any intelligence garnered incidental.

So Austria nursed and sheltered terrorist organizations for years, in spite of repeated protests by a neighboring country? Alright, that's what we were trying to establish anyway.

Also, please provide a source for this allegedly "clear" statement, since your extracts don't mention anything of the sort. They only talk about the complicity of a specific branch of the authorities, the Austrian military intelligence.
 
Top