Russia resolves the July Crisis

the minimum requirement of Austria is the de facto renunciation of Serbia's allied relations with Russia and France. For Russia, this means the loss of 300 thousand Serbian troops.
This is the same as being defeated in a medium intensity war.
Beats losing your country to revolution.
And a shortage of manpower never was a Russian problem
 
The British thought that claim to be protectors of all Slavs to be ludicrous
True but they recognised Russia was making it, thus making this recurring point that Russia's support for Serbia came out of the blue to the complete surprise of everyone and throwing everyone's carefully laid plans into chaos a bit odd.
 
True but they recognised Russia was making it, thus making this recurring point that Russia's support for Serbia came out of the blue to the complete surprise of everyone and throwing everyone's carefully laid plans into chaos a bit odd.
Russia also told the serbs to agree to the ultimatum.
There is a world where Russia simply doesn't mobilise and tell the serbs, we told you to accept.
 
Russia also told the serbs to agree to the ultimatum.
Subject to Russia pushing for international mediation and all the rest (which is exactly what AH didn't want of course)

And Russia backed the Serbs when they made their response

There is a world where Russia simply doesn't mobilise and tell the serbs, we told you to accept.
There is, but it would mean Russia reversing it pan-Slavic policy / political interests in the area and for some reason allowing AH to pursue it interests in the area that were counter to Russia's, why would Russia do that?

so equally there's a world were AH doesn't mobilise and accepts teh Serbs response (and Russia overt protection of Serbia to ensure AH doesn't accidently annex them while carrying out it's investigation)
 
As I see it Serbia had much bigger internal problems than Austria before WWI. The serbian state was heavily interwoven with the terrorist organization of the Black Hand, Gavrilo PRincip received the weapons he used to kill FF from a serbian army depot from officers of the serbian army. But thats completely fine, Austria is the problem, how dare it take an issue with serbia deciding to transfer its terrorcampaign from macedonia to bosnia.
Serbia's internal problem wasn't about the organization of the State, it was about foreign policy. What they thought was the greatest threat was Austrian aggression against Serbs inside, and outside of the country. The fight was over how to deal with it.
 
I like how you just put that they annexed 30 years later at the end of the sentence like it was a natural follow up of the treaty.

But when they did so it triggered the Bosnian crisis and brought condemnation from most of the signatories of the treaty of Berlin!
Yeah, lets very convniently forget that before Austria did anything to Bosnia they actually went and reached an agreement in regards of it with Russia. Than when it turned out that the russian nationalist press was out for blood and Izvolsky's calculation of their entent partners agreeing to modify the status of the straits to be wrong the russians pretended it never happened and decried the austrians as the bad guys - and were made to back down by an austrian threat of releasing the diplomatic papers of the discussions and the agreement.
 
Last edited:
Serbia's internal problem wasn't about the organization of the State, it was about foreign policy. What they thought was the greatest threat was Austrian aggression against Serbs inside, and outside of the country. The fight was over how to deal with it.
Serbian foreign policy was wildly agressive with vast demands of territory on basically all of their neighbours. They did not shrink from conducting state sponsored terror champaigns on their neighbours territories and starting multiple wars of conquests (also worth mentioning some ethnic cleansing on the conquered territories). The difference between Pasic and the Black Hand was not that one of the 2 did not want or planned a war of conquest against Austria - because both did, the difference was the timing. The black hand wanted it now and Pasic wanted it later, when they are ready.

Austria did have agresssive intentions towards Serbia but lets not pretend that Serbia was peaceful or any kind of good neigbour or a victim.
 
Last edited:
Serbian foreign policy was wildly agressive with vast demands of territory on basically all of their neighbours. They did not shrink from conducting state sponsored terror champaigns on their neighbours territories and starting multiple wars of conquests (also worth mentioning some ethnic cleansing on the conquered territories). The difference between Pasic and the Black Hand was not that one of the 2 did not want or planned a war of conquest against Austria - because both did, the difference was the timing. The black hand wanted it now and Pasic wanted it later, when they are ready.

Austria did have agresssive intentions towards Serbia but lets not pretend that Serbia was peaceful or any kind of good neigbour or a victim.
I never said Serbia wasn't aggressive. But it was a small State, that didn't threaten the existence of Austria Hungry. Austria wanted to destroy the Serbian State, and wipe it off the map. Odd that Austria's problem was it's inability to pacify it majority, minority populations, but the solution was to conquer more minorities. Did they really think adding Serbia as a new province would help their minorities problem?
 
They didn't want to add it to the empire directly. What they wanted was a puppet state that didn't go assassinating people and being a symbol for Slavs in the empire to rally round. The problem was that they didn't see Serbia doing that willing.
 
I never said Serbia wasn't aggressive. But it was a small State, that didn't threaten the existence of Austria Hungry. Austria wanted to destroy the Serbian State, and wipe it off the map. Odd that Austria's problem was it's inability to pacify it majority, minority populations, but the solution was to conquer more minorities. Did they really think adding Serbia as a new province would help their minorities problem?
No, they just wanted to conquer about 1/4 of the Austria's territory, including all of its coastlines. Nothing lifethreatening at that. They also transferred the terror champaign they have been conducting previously in Ottoman Macedonia - transforming it to a nightmarish hellhole - to Bosnia. I would add that just because the serbian backed terror champaign in Bosnia did not threaten the very existence of Austria it absolutely demanded an answer as allowing it to continue was unfathomable. I will also note that I seriously doubt Serbian ability and willingness to disentangle the state from the Black Hand - these guys have already gotten away with the brutal murder of the serbian royal family and according to some the only thing keeping them from murdering Pasic and seizing control of the country was the Russians demand they dont do that. Its also very telling that Gavrilo Princip was hailed as a national hero in serbian led Jugoslavia after WWI.

As for the problem of austrian minorities: I for some reason fail to see this minorities demanding in any significant number the dissolution of the Empire. What I see is a strong desire to reform it. Without the hell of WWI acting as an incredibly strong catalyst Austria would have most likely survived. But one thing is for sure: in 1914 Austria was not - at very least not yet - on the brink of collapse because of inner instability. Further even if that was the case - as it isn't - that in no way gives Serbia the right or validates its actual action to assassinate the heir of the austrian throne and organize terror on austrian territory.

Im also not sure what Austria would have done with Serbia after a successful war - but I'm far from sure about them annexing it.
 
Yeah, lets very convniently forget that before Austria did anything to Bosnia they actually went and reached an agreement in regards of it with Russia. Than when it turned out that the russian nationalist press was out for blood and Izvolsky's calculation of their entent partners agreeing to modify the status of the straits to be wrong the russians pretended it never happened and decried the austrians as the bad guys - and were made to back down by an austrian threat of releasing the diplomatic papers of the discussions and the agreement.
Yes there were discussions but you are taking a rather one sided perspective of them

On 2 July 1908, Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky sent a letter to Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Alois Aehrenthal and proposed a discussion of reciprocal changes to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin in favour of the Russian interest in the Straits of Constantinople and Austro-Hungarian interests in the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. On 14 July Aehrenthal responded with guarded acceptance of the proposed discussions.[22] On 10 September, after long and complex discussions within the Imperial Government discussing the Izvolsky proposals to Austria-Hungary, Aehrenthal outlined a slightly different set of counter-proposals to him: he proposed that in exchange for a friendly Russian attitude when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, Austria-Hungary would then withdraw its troops from the Sanjak. The letter then went on to offer to discuss, as a separate matter, the Straits question, on a friendly basis. Aehrenthal proposed that should agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina be reached, his Government would not – should the Russians subsequently propose to assert a right of their Black Sea fleet to both use and protect their access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus – automatically decide with the other powers to support collectively the Ottoman Empire's opposition (up to and including war) to such a proposal.[23]

Aehrenthal’s version of the agreement[edit]

By Aehrenthal's account given by Albertini, Izvolsky agreed that Russia would maintain "a friendly and benevolent attitude" if Austria-Hungary were to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina. Reciprocally, should Russia move to open "the Straits to single ships of war", Austria-Hungary would maintain a benevolent attitude. The two agreed that a likely consequence of the annexation was that Bulgaria, which was de facto independent since 1878, would declare its formal independence from the Ottoman Empire. Austria-Hungary would offer no territorial concessions to Serbia or Montenegro, but if they supported the annexation then Austria-Hungary would not oppose Serbian expansion in the Balkans, and would support the Russian demand to revise Article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin which restricted Montenegrin sovereignty. The parties agreed that "these changes could receive sanction after negotiation with the Porte and the Powers", but "there would be no more talk of Bosnia-Herzegovina." Annexation would probably take place at the beginning of October.[25] The original of Aehrenthal's account has not been found and so historians have had to make do with an undated office copy of the document.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Crisis

Izvolsky’s version[edit]

On 30 September, Austria-Hungary informed Izvolsky, who was in Paris at the time, that the annexation would take place on 7 October. On 4 October, Izvolsky prepared a report at the request of the British Ambassador to France, Francis Bertie. Izvolsky stated that his position was that annexation was a matter to be settled between the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin. With the compensation of Austro-Hungarian withdrawal from the Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Russia would not consider the annexation as reason to go to war, but Russia and other governments would insist on changes to the Treaty favorable to themselves, including opening the Straits (Russia's interest), Bulgarian independence, territorial concessions to Serbia, and abolition of restrictions on Montenegrin sovereignty under article 29.[27] Bertie told British Foreign Minister Grey that he felt Izvolsky was not being completely honest about the context whereby these understandings had come to be reached through his "diplomacy."

So conflicting views. However what is not in doubt is the reaction of the international community to teh annexation by AH, they were not happy

on the letters AH threatened to release yes they existed and yes they were embarrassing but they existed within a wider context of AH and Russia both having interests in the area, both recognising that and more importantly working together to accommodate both's interests . Only This entire affair pissed all over that, and actaully pretty well illustrates why Russia felt antagonised by AH's moves here! Something that becomes pretty damn important over the next 6 years.
 
Last edited:
No, they just wanted to conquer about 1/4 of the Austria's territory, including all of its coastlines. Nothing lifethreatening at that. They also transferred the terror champaign they have been conducting previously in Ottoman Macedonia - transforming it to a nightmarish hellhole - to Bosnia. I would add that just because the serbian backed terror champaign in Bosnia did not threaten the very existence of Austria it absolutely demanded an answer as allowing it to continue was unfathomable. I will also note that I seriously doubt Serbian ability and willingness to disentangle the state from the Black Hand - these guys have already gotten away with the brutal murder of the serbian royal family and according to some the only thing keeping them from murdering Pasic and seizing control of the country was the Russians demand they dont do that. Its also very telling that Gavrilo Princip was hailed as a national hero in serbian led Jugoslavia after WWI.

As for the problem of austrian minorities: I for some reason fail to see this minorities demanding in any significant number the dissolution of the Empire. What I see is a strong desire to reform it. Without the hell of WWI acting as an incredibly strong catalyst Austria would have most likely survived. But one thing is for sure: in 1914 Austria was not - at very least not yet - on the brink of collapse because of inner instability. Further even if that was the case - as it isn't - that in no way gives Serbia the right or validates its actual action to assassinate the heir of the austrian throne and organize terror on austrian territory.

Im also not sure what Austria would have done with Serbia after a successful war - but I'm far from sure about them annexing it.
So Austria didn't feel threatened by domestic unrest, among minorities, but by the power of the Serbian Army? In 1914 Serbia had 4.6 million people, vs. AH 52 million. The Serbian Army, after mobilization had 260,000 men. AH had 3.2 million troops. You really think they thought the Serbs could invade, and conquer 1/4 of AH? It's interesting that the German & AH Armies seemed to have no interest in defending their territory, only in destroying potential enemies, through offensive operations. When AH annexed Bosnia, Herzegovina how did they think the Serbs would react? Most of the people in those territories were Serbs, and this was the age of Nationalism.

So the situation in the Balkans was that in the wake of the collapse if Ottoman Power the now independent small powers were fighting among themselves for advantage over each other. Into this you have AH expanding it's imperial power, and Russia supporting Pan Slavism. You have a conflict between the Serbs & AH, over Serb Nationalism, vs. AH Imperialism. Serbian factions were using terrorism, so how did AH respond? All out war. So how did that work out? Not too well. Did AH think Russia would intervene? It would seem not, they only had some vague promise from the Germans that they would prevent it. What they didn't understand was Germany was using them to go war with Russia. Did AH have any other options in 1914? I would say yes, they had many. The option of all out war was about the worst they could've chosen.
 
Yes there were discussions but you are taking a rather one sided perspective of them

On 2 July 1908, Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Izvolsky sent a letter to Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Alois Aehrenthal and proposed a discussion of reciprocal changes to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin in favour of the Russian interest in the Straits of Constantinople and Austro-Hungarian interests in the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. On 14 July Aehrenthal responded with guarded acceptance of the proposed discussions.[22] On 10 September, after long and complex discussions within the Imperial Government discussing the Izvolsky proposals to Austria-Hungary, Aehrenthal outlined a slightly different set of counter-proposals to him: he proposed that in exchange for a friendly Russian attitude when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, Austria-Hungary would then withdraw its troops from the Sanjak. The letter then went on to offer to discuss, as a separate matter, the Straits question, on a friendly basis. Aehrenthal proposed that should agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina be reached, his Government would not – should the Russians subsequently propose to assert a right of their Black Sea fleet to both use and protect their access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus – automatically decide with the other powers to support collectively the Ottoman Empire's opposition (up to and including war) to such a proposal.[23]

Aehrenthal’s version of the agreement[edit]

By Aehrenthal's account given by Albertini, Izvolsky agreed that Russia would maintain "a friendly and benevolent attitude" if Austria-Hungary were to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina. Reciprocally, should Russia move to open "the Straits to single ships of war", Austria-Hungary would maintain a benevolent attitude. The two agreed that a likely consequence of the annexation was that Bulgaria, which was de facto independent since 1878, would declare its formal independence from the Ottoman Empire. Austria-Hungary would offer no territorial concessions to Serbia or Montenegro, but if they supported the annexation then Austria-Hungary would not oppose Serbian expansion in the Balkans, and would support the Russian demand to revise Article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin which restricted Montenegrin sovereignty. The parties agreed that "these changes could receive sanction after negotiation with the Porte and the Powers", but "there would be no more talk of Bosnia-Herzegovina." Annexation would probably take place at the beginning of October.[25] The original of Aehrenthal's account has not been found and so historians have had to make do with an undated office copy of the document.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Crisis

Izvolsky’s version[edit]

On 30 September, Austria-Hungary informed Izvolsky, who was in Paris at the time, that the annexation would take place on 7 October. On 4 October, Izvolsky prepared a report at the request of the British Ambassador to France, Francis Bertie. Izvolsky stated that his position was that annexation was a matter to be settled between the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin. With the compensation of Austro-Hungarian withdrawal from the Sanjak of Novi Pazar, Russia would not consider the annexation as reason to go to war, but Russia and other governments would insist on changes to the Treaty favorable to themselves, including opening the Straits (Russia's interest), Bulgarian independence, territorial concessions to Serbia, and abolition of restrictions on Montenegrin sovereignty under article 29.[27] Bertie told British Foreign Minister Grey that he felt Izvolsky was not being completely honest about the context whereby these understandings had come to be reached through his "diplomacy."

So conflicting views. However what is not in doubt is the reaction of the international community to teh annexation by AH, they were not happy

on the letters AH threatened to release yes they existed and yes they were embarrassing but they existed within a wider context of AH and Russia both having interests in the area, both recognising that and more importantly working together to accommodate both's interests . Only This entire affair pissed all over that, and actaully pretty well illustrates why Russia felt antagonised by AH's moves here! Something that becomes pretty damn important over the next 6 years.
Say what you want if one side completely backs down by the threat of releasing the documents of their talks that side is probably the one lying. The austrians did not fear to reveal what they talked about - the russians did.

And about the international community: it was Sebia that mobilized its forces and threatened Austria with war - because they wanted Bosnia themselves. That and Izvolsky's miscalculations that he tried to cover up by lying are what mainly caused the crisis. Also worth to note that the whole talks were proposed by Russia - not Austria.
 
So Austria didn't feel threatened by domestic unrest, among minorities, but by the power of the Serbian Army? In 1914 Serbia had 4.6 million people, vs. AH 52 million. The Serbian Army, after mobilization had 260,000 men. AH had 3.2 million troops. You really think they thought the Serbs could invade, and conquer 1/4 of AH? It's interesting that the German & AH Armies seemed to have no interest in defending their territory, only in destroying potential enemies, through offensive operations.
And Serbia had an increasingly close relation with Russia - that was much stronger then Austria. Surely it should be ignored.
Also if someone is out to kill you and does not even make a secret about it you should ignore it just because he is in no position to do so at the moment? Because Serbia made no secret of its goals.
And than they went further and started a terror champaign on Austrian territory murdering the heir of the throne... Sure they can't destroy Austria but they can and actually did hurt Austria.

When AH annexed Bosnia, Herzegovina how did they think the Serbs would react? Most of the people in those territories were Serbs, and this was the age of Nationalism.
Bosnia was very mixed enthnically.
According to wiki and the 1910 cenzus:
Eastern Orthodox825,918 (43.49%)
Muslims612,137 (32.25%)
Roman Catholics434,061 (22.87%)
others26,428 (1.39%)

If we assume that eastern orthodox means serb than no, you are wrong, most of the people on those territories were not serbs.
Further if we look at serbian behaviour (athrocities bordering on ethnic cleansing) towards muslims in other conquered and occupied territories (Macedonia and northern Albania)and the choices are serbian or austrian rule im pretty sure the local populace was way better off under Austria.

So the situation in the Balkans was that in the wake of the collapse if Ottoman Power the now independent small powers were fighting among themselves for advantage over each other. Into this you have AH expanding it's imperial power, and Russia supporting Pan Slavism. You have a conflict between the Serbs & AH, over Serb Nationalism, vs. AH Imperialism. Serbian factions were using terrorism, so how did AH respond? All out war. So how did that work out? Not too well. Did AH think Russia would intervene? It would seem not, they only had some vague promise from the Germans that they would prevent it. What they didn't understand was Germany was using them to go war with Russia. Did AH have any other options in 1914? I would say yes, they had many. The option of all out war was about the worst they could've chosen.
The Austrians absolutely needed to put an end to serbian terrorism on their territory. This was a challenge that demanded an answer.

The answer given by Austria - seeing the end result - was clearly wrong. This however does not validate or excuse serbian terrorism.
 
Say what you want if one side completely backs down by the threat of releasing the documents of their talks that side is probably the one lying. The austrians did not fear to reveal what they talked about - the russians did.
No it doesn't mean that at all, releasing the letters would obviously have been embarrassing to Russia in and of themselves given teh context fo pan Slavism and support for Serbia. Also you seem to to not understand what the documents were, they were a selection documents that had been written over decades in teh context of ongoing negotiations in the context I previously described. Not some smoking gun for Russia suddenly being fine with AH annexation in abstract in 1908.

The release of these letters would have been a bit like the wiki leaks documents, I.e. embarrassing because they showed the kind of moves going on in the background. But not actaully as indicative of policy as some with axes to grind might claim. However where it's different is instead of a independent actor releasing everyone's embarrassing docs it would be once side of the argument releasing specific ones to make them look good (so a bit of a dick move really and had the consequences I described in my last post) .

Of course AH didn't fear the release of the documents they were going to embarrass Russia with, it wouldn't have embarrassed them (because they were only going to release the letter that were embarrassing to Russia)

And about the international community: it was Sebia that mobilized its forces and threatened Austria with war - because they wanted Bosnia themselves.

How does that address teh point about the international community? I mean yes Serbia is part of teh community, but eh international community is considerably more than just them?


That and Izvolsky's miscalculations that he tried to cover up by lying are what mainly caused the crisis.

That makes no sense,. because as you pointed out Russia ended up acquiescing to the annexation, so explain larger communities reaction to it

Also worth to note that the whole talks were proposed by Russia - not Austria.

What are we noting? That Russia looked to deescalate the situation and avoid conflict by looking for international mediation, that's a good thing but you seem to presenting it as a bad thing or proof of their inequity? Even if we accept that Russia suggested that course of action because it figured it would get sympathetic reaction so it wasn't entirely altruistic that still doesn't support your claim
 
Beats losing your country to revolution.
And a shortage of manpower never was a Russian problem
if Russia leaves Serbia, then immediately Germany and Austria will demand the independence of Poland and Finland.
The war will still be, but without the help of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania.
 
No it doesn't mean that at all, releasing the letters would obviously have been embarrassing to Russia in and of themselves given teh context fo pan Slavism and support for Serbia. Also you seem to to not understand what the documents were, they were a selection documents that had been written over decades in teh context of ongoing negotiations in the context I previously described. Not some smoking gun for Russia suddenly being fine with AH annexation in abstract in 1908.

The release of these letters would have been a bit like the wiki leaks documents, I.e. embarrassing because they showed the kind of moves going on in the background. But not actaully as indicative of policy as some with axes to grind might claim. However where it's different is instead of a independent actor releasing everyone's embarrassing docs it would be once side of the argument releasing specific ones to make them look good (so a bit of a dick move really and had the consequences I described in my last post) .

Of course AH didn't fear the release of the documents they were going to embarrass Russia with, it wouldn't have embarrassed them (because they were only going to release the letter that were embarrassing to Russia)

Again if there were documents supporting the russian position and embarassing to Austria Russia could have easily replied to the austrian threats that "Than we will release your embarassing papers" instead of backing down.

How does that address teh point about the international community? I mean yes Serbia is part of teh community, but eh international community is considerably more than just them?

That makes no sense,. because as you pointed out Russia ended up acquiescing to the annexation, so explain larger communities reaction to it
If Serbia and especially Russia did not make an issue of this I highly doubt that London and Paris would have made much either.
What are we noting? That Russia looked to deescalate the situation and avoid conflict by looking for international mediation, that's a good thing but you seem to presenting it as a bad thing or proof of their inequity? Even if we accept that Russia suggested that course of action because it figured it would get sympathetic reaction so it wasn't entirely altruistic that still doesn't support your claim
That Russia approached Austria with the idea that Austria could annex Bosnia in exchange of support on the question of the traits. It was not Vienna knocking with the offer and the whole mess had started from a russian initiative to change the status quo.

Also suggesting a conference to settle the issue was not a honest move. At this point everyone was aware that the CP's would be isolated on any conference. France, Russia and Brittain would support each other, and Italy would likely join them. Germany and Austria would be isolated again like in the Morocco conference. Presenting the offer as a councillatory, altruistic move is simply false - it was a strategic move based on that knowledge. Neither Germany nor Austria can be faulted for refusing to willingly place themselves in such a disadvantageous position.
 
Again if there were documents supporting the russian position and embarassing to Austria Russia could have easily replied to the austrian threats that "Than we will release your embarassing papers" instead of backing down.

Or alternatively countries leaking each other private behind teh scenes communication is bad form, and it's in no one's interest to escalate doing that even if one country is being a dick

If Serbia and especially Russia did not make an issue of this I highly doubt that London and Paris would have made much either.

You are arguing against what actaully happened
That Russia approached Austria with the idea that Austria could annex Bosnia in exchange of support on the question of the traits. It was not Vienna knocking with the offer and the whole mess had started from a russian initiative to change the status quo.

You think Russia approached Austria and said would you like Bosnia?!


Also suggesting a conference to settle the issue was not a honest move. At this point everyone was aware that the CP's would be isolated on any conference. France, Russia and Brittain would support each other, and Italy would likely join them. Germany and Austria would be isolated again like in the Morocco conference. Presenting the offer as a councillatory, altruistic move is simply false - it was a strategic move based on that knowledge. Neither Germany nor Austria can be faulted for refusing to willingly place themselves in such a disadvantageous position.
Well I did say it wasn't fully altruistic,

But your bringing up Morocco as proof the CP being unfairly treated?

The Morocco crisis the one where the the Kaiser went to Morocco and declared he had come to support the sovereignty of the Sultan?

Yeah no shit the CP didn't get what they wanted out of the subsequent talks which involved several large colonial powers!

And this is the problem with trying to paint this as the poor CP being unfairly ganged up on by the international community the CP seemed to make a habit of making bonehead political moves that pissed people off
 
Last edited:
Or alternatively countries leaking each other private behind teh scenes communication is bad form, and it's in no one's interest to escalate doing that even if one country is being a dick
As is lying about what has actually happened because you massively miscalculated the effect of your moves and decide to blame it all on the otherside.
You are arguing against what actaully happened
Did Serbia not mobilize its forces? Did it not demand compenzation? Did Russia not make an issue about the Bosnian annexation which they had previously agreed upon? Which of these did not happen?
You think Russia approached Austria and said would you like Bosnia?!
Russia approached Austria - I dont pretend to know what the first offer was.
Well I did say it wasn't fully altruistic,

But your bringing up Morocco as proof the CP being unfairly treated?

The Morocco crisis the one where the the Kaiser went to Morocco and declared he had come to support the sovereignty of the Sultan?

Yeah no shit the CP didn't get whet they wanted out of the subsequent talks which involve several large colonial powers!

And this is the problem with trying to paint this as the poor CP being unfairly ganged up on by the international community the CP seemed to make a habit of making bonehead political moves that pissed people off
I was very clearly writing about the possibility of the CP's being outnumbered and ending up isolated on a conference - meaing its for sure because of the alliances. If you wanted to contest my point you should have answered that. But you again willfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I say and engage on a completely different topic. I only mentioned Morocco as the latest example of a conference where the CP's ended up being isolated. The powers there would be the same as would participate here - France, Russia and the UK would band together, Italy would most likely join them and Austria and Germany would end up isolated again. This is not about being fair or unfair, and stop putting words in my mouth - I never said anythin like "poor CP's". The reality is as they were outnumbered going to a conference could only end in their diplomatic defeat. Why then should they go to a conference instead of some other method?

This is far from being the first time you do this - more like your usual tactic. You are also ocassionally very rude. As I dont see you as able to lead a polite and civilized conversation I will ignore you.
 
Top