Sane German response to the Sarajovo murder in July 1914

This kind of makes me wonder what would have happened had Franz Ferdinand survived the attack, maybe especially if his wife still dies, and if he's still hit by the bullet. Move it a few inches towards his arm, say, and the scenario all plays out, but with the victim of the assassination being alive to drive the agenda, and in the process, preparing to become emperor himself.
That is a fascinating question, especially given the relations between FF and FJ and the latter's dislike and contempt towards Sophie. There's also the likely conflict between FF and Montenuovo and the friendship between FF and Wilhelm.
A very interesting situation.
 
Franz Ferdinand was actually wearing a primitive bulletproof vest made of layered silk, good enough to stop a low-calibre pistol round of the type Gavrilo Princip was using ... the bullet unfortunately struck him in the neck. In fact, the high, rigid collar he was wearing also interfered with efforts to save his life. There's also the fact that Gavrilo admitted to closing his eyes when shooting, there being a gendarme next to him and Gavrilo only running into the motorcade after the earlier assassination attempt (the one with the bomb) failed because he was hungry and went to a specific sandwich place.
Citation? While I'm aware that FF owned a Zeglen vest I know of no primary source that says he was wearing it that day. It's extremely unlikely give the summer heat.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
Citation? While I'm aware that FF owned a Zeglen vest I know of no primary source that says he was wearing it that day. It's extremely unlikely give the summer heat.
It would appear from this article in the Guardian that he was not wearing it at the time


Doesn't really matter either way, IMHO, as FF was hit in the neck and wouldn’t have been saved by a vest anyway.
 

BooNZ

Kicked
Really, i've been linking to it in posts all thread, the Kaiser upon reading the Serbian response
Wilhelm has second thoughts (26 July)[edit]
On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented, "But that eliminates any reason for war"[132] or "every cause for war falls to the ground".[133] Wilhelm noted that Serbia had made "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind",[133] that "the few reservations [that] Serbia has made with respect to certain points can in my opinion surely be cleared up by negotiation", and acting independently of Grey, made a similar "Stop in Belgrade" offer.[134] Wilhelm stated that because "the Serbs are Orientals, therefore liars, tricksters, and masters of evasion", a temporary Austrian occupation of Belgrade was required until Serbia kept its word.[133]


But you are right in a way the Kaiser ordered it but what actually happened:

Wilhelm's sudden change of mind about war enraged Bethmann Hollweg, the military, and the diplomatic service, who proceeded to sabotage Wilhelm's offer.[135]
A German general wrote: "unfortunately ... peaceful news. The Kaiser wants peace ... He even wants to influence Austria and to stop continuing further."[136]
Bethmann Hollweg sabotaged Wilhelm's proposal by instructing von Tschirschky to not restrain Austria.[note 21] In passing on Wilhelm's message, Bethmann Hollweg excluded the parts wherein the Emperor told the Austrians not to go to war.[136]
Jagow told his diplomats to disregard Wilhelm's peace offer, and continue to press for war.
General Falkenhayn told Wilhelm he "no longer had control of the affair in his own hands". Falkenhayn went on to imply that the military would stage a coup d'état, and depose Wilhelm in favour of the hawkish Crown Prince Wilhelm if he continued to work for peace.[136]


I've separated the lines out so that each one is clear
Thank you for the wiki dump. Although, I assume most members are already familiar with how google works and vagurely familiar with the broad relevent facts. You stated the Germans were suggesting AH accept the Serbian response (#149), which does not reflect reality or your wiki references.

and remember this came out of your assertion that Germany was seeking to de-escalate things
No, I explicitly said Germany was seeking containment. The suggestion Germany was seeking to de-escalate things was something you imagined - again.

Look at the lines above does that look like de-escalation to you?
No, because the claim Germany sought to de-escalate is something you have imagined, not something I have said. If I was claiming Germany was seeking to de-escalate, I would have made reference to later German pleas to Russia to cease its mobilisation, but in my opinion this was too little. too late, and more about avoiding war altogether.

I'll reply to the rest later (and yes I'm well aware the Kaiser though Belgrade would be occupied since he hadn't actually gone soft on the Serbs it's been in the same link above that I have cited several times, but it would temporary and would be done under the other provisions and international mediation).
The Kaiser's initial proposal implied an international mediation upon A-H occupation of Belgrade, but those aspects were not conveyed to A-H.
 

BooNZ

Kicked
It got a Germany destroyed, a weakened France dependent on Britain and a Russia in chaos. Not that these were expected results per se, but British policy was always to act to prevent any power dominating the continent of Europe.
Within 20 years Imperial Germany and Imperial Russia had been replaced by Nazi Germany and the Soviets with challenging new ideologies, both on target to rapidly eclipse the British Empire in terms of military and economy. Meanwhile, in the 21st century Britain was still repaying its discounted WW1 debts.
I’m not suggesting Winston was a model of reason and level-headedness, but between 1906 and 1914 you had:
The Tangier Crisis
The Bosnian Crisis
The Kaiser’s Telegraph Interview
The Agadir Crisis and
The von Sanders Affair
The Tangier Crisis (an unauthorised French colonial grab, backed by the British - Germany clumsily claimed compensation, which was otherwise an appropriate expectation)
The Bosnian Crisis (an opportunist move by A-H to formalise existing arrangements, timed when potential opponents were too weak to act decisively)
The Kaiser’s Telegraph Interview (British media draft a potential hit peace on the leader of a traditionally friendly great power?)
The Agadir Crisis and (was this substantially a rerun of the Tangier crisis?
The von Sanders Affair (Imperial Russia interferring in Ottoman sovereignty to attempt block them from appointing Germans to roles in the Ottoman Army, which were already being fulfilled by the British in respect of the Ottoman Navy.

It’s fairly easy to see why someone who in 1905 viewed France as Britain’s biggest worry could come round to a view that maybe it was Germany to be worried about.
It could just as easily be seen as Britain choosing to taunt and bully the socially inept new kid and impress its new BFFs. In respect of Churchil, I suspect he just loved a fight and would happily pivot against Russia or France if war against them became more likely.
 
Citation? While I'm aware that FF owned a Zeglen vest I know of no primary source that says he was wearing it that day. It's extremely unlikely give the summer heat.
Hmm, checking things more thoroughly, it seems you're right. I assumed he was wearing it, though I can't find any mention of it, just that he had one, as you say.
 
Hmm, checking things more thoroughly, it seems you're right. I assumed he was wearing it, though I can't find any mention of it, just that he had one, as you say.
I must dig it out (I can't remember where it was) but there was a reference to him having the vest with him, but not wearing it due to the summer heat. Quilted silk was extremely uncomfortable.
 
Perfidious Albion has done worse.
And would have dumped Belgium immediately if it had suited British interests. If the French had used Belgium to attack Germany the British response would have been very different; British interest in Belgian neutrality was only because whoever controlled its ports had a springboard to invade the British Isles.
 
Yeah, I think this is an interesting point. I think it's more relevant, honestly, in domestic German politics than foreign policy, because a militaristic society isn't necessarily the same thing as one which engages in aggressive foreign wars. In some ways, civilian leadership has been *more* blase about soldiers dying in battle to achieve whatever political objective they're after.
Britain: Third Anglo-Ashanti War, Perak War, Ninth Xhosa War, Second Anglo-Afghan War, Anglo-Zulu War, First Boer War, Mahdist War , Third Anglo-Burmese War, Sikkim Expedition, Anglo-Manipur War, First Matabele War, Fourth Anglo-Ashanti War, Anglo-Zanzibar War, Second Matabele War, Benin Expedition of 1897, Tirah Campaign, 1898 Baloch uprising, Boxer Rebellion, Second Boer War, War of the Golden Stool, Mat Salleh Rebellion, Zande resistance, Sudan revolts, Somaliland Campaign, Mahsud Waziri blockade, Agar Dinka uprising, Anglo-Aro War, 1901 Mapondera Rebellion, Kabul Khel expedition, Conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate, Conquest of the Kano Emirate, Sokoto Uprising of 1906
France: Kanak Revolt, French occupation of Tunisia, Mandingo Wars, First Madagascar expedition, Tonkin Campaign, Sino-French War, First Franco-Dahomean War, Second Franco-Dahomean War, Franco-Siamese War, First Sino-Japanese War, Menalamba rebellion, Voulet-Chanoine Mission, Rabih War, Boxer Rebellion, French conquest of Borno, Madagascar uprisings, Conquest of the Dendi, Holy Man's Rebellion
Russia: Khivan war of 1873, Russo-Turkish War, Vose Uprising, Andijan uprising, Boxer Rebellion , Invasion of Manchuria, Russo-Japanese War
Japan: Invasion of Taiwan (1874), Satsuma Rebellion, First Sino-Japanese War, Boxer Rebellion, Russo-Japanese War
USA: Red River War, Black Hills War, San Elizario Salt War, Cheyenne War , Hawaiian rebellions, Ghost Dance War, Cuban War of Independence, Philippine Revolution, Spanish–American War, Boxer Rebellion, Philippine–American War
Spain: Third Carlist War, Cantonal Revolution, Little War , First Melillan campaign, Cuban War of Independence, Philippine Revolution, Intentona de Yauco, Spanish–American War
Netherlands: Aceh war, Mandor Rebellion, Edi Expedition, Javanese Uprising, Subjugation of Jambi, Merauke uprising, Bantin Expeditions, Korintji Expeditions, Kerinci Expedition, Intervention in Bali
Ottomans: Yemeni Expedition of 1872, Razlovtsi insurrection, Russo-Turkish War, Kumanovo Uprising, Epirus Revolt, Brsjak Revolt, Hamawand revolts, Yemeni Rebellion of 1891, Macedonian Struggle, First Matabele War, Greek Macedonian rebellion, Hamawand revolt, Shoubak revolt, Rijal al-Ma rebellion, Shoubak Revolt of 1905, 1906 Mesopotamia uprising
Germany: Nauruan Civil War, Abushiri Revolt, Bafut Wars, Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion, Abushiri revolt , Fulbe war, Boxer Rebellion, Bastaard uprisings, Kavango uprising, Bondelswarts uprising, Herero Wars, Maji Maji Rebellion
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
It could just as easily be seen as Britain choosing to taunt and bully the socially inept new kid and impress its new BFFs. In respect of Churchil, I suspect he just loved a fight and would happily pivot against Russia or France if war against them became more likely.
It could easily be seen as such, yes. If one were looking at it from a German perspective, for example. Which is part of the problem. Everyone’s actions depended on their own biased view of the situation and everyone’s responses to those actions depended on their own biased view of those actions.
 
<snip military actions>
But most of those were seen by the Nation's populace as a sort of 'peacekeeping' operations against Native populations-- fully justified
How dare those Wogs rise up against their betters, who were just making sure the benefits of proper 'Civilization' were being applied? Damned Treaty Breakers.

Besides, as it went
"for we have the Maxim Gun, and they have not'

Of all that list, only the Russo-Japanese War had plentiful MGs and rapid fire artillery on both sides, foreshadowing what the future would be be like in place of one sided colonial massacres
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm not familiar with this recommendation - can you please provide a reference?

No one said Germany was a de-escalating actor. I think containment is a more accurate description of German motivations.

So in years of seeing this debate you remain oblivious to the fact the Russian 'partial' mobilisation was essentially a preliminary-mobilisation not limited to the Balkans and therefore a potential threat to Germany. It was mooted, but the partial mobilisation you imagine was deemed imprudent by those in Imperial Russia. In contrast, A-H initially mobilised against Serbia only, and paid the price.

There were no British Treaties or commitments. The French had a defensive treaty with the Russians, which would have easily been voidable on the basis Russia mobilised against both Germany and A-H first. Franch used its discretion to deliberately escalate the crisis, by encouraging Russia to back Serbia into a war, with whom it had no obligations. Again, you are imagining obligations that did not exist.

As previously mentioned, Imperial Russia mobilised against both Germany and A-H, before CP powers had made a move.

You're ignoring the fact the Kaiser also suggested A-H would need to occupy Belgrade in order to fulfil those obligations, so it is clear he understood the subtleties of the Serbian response - i.e. worthless unless it can be enforced. It should be noted the Russians had purportedly commenced their mobilisation prior to Serbia's reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbia_and_Austria_mobilise,_France_takes_preparatory_steps_(24–25_July)

As outlined above, A-H initially mobilised against Serbia only, whereas Russia mobilised against both Germany and A-H - prior to the ultimatum being rejected by Serbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbia_and_Austria_mobilise,_France_takes_preparatory_steps_(24–25_July)So, you could not find any examples to support your assertion "there's been plenty of AH adventurism in and destabilisation of the Balkans as well..." aside from a desire to curb the excesses of Serbia.

Others have already pointed out those maps are not helpful and detailed the many reasons why.
Thank you for illustrating how alternative facts and/or propaganda can mislead
I issued you a warning ON MONDAY about playing the man.

So you now wrap up this post with yet another direct shot at another member?

Okay.

Kicked for a week.

Might want to avoid these WW I threads if it isn't possible to avoid "you" statements employed as Parthian shots upon your return.
 
But most of those were seen by the Nation's populace as a sort of 'peacekeeping' operations against Native populations-- fully justified
How dare those Wogs rise up against their betters, who were just making sure the benefits of proper 'Civilization' were being applied? Damned Treaty Breakers.

Besides, as it went
"for we have the Maxim Gun, and they have not'

Of all that list, only the Russo-Japanese War had plentiful MGs and rapid fire artillery on both sides, foreshadowing what the future would be be like in place of one sided colonial massacres
But the original point was the supposed "Prussian Militarism". The actual history shows far fewer 'wars of expansion' by Germany compared to Britain and France.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
But the original point was the supposed "Prussian Militarism". The actual history shows far fewer 'wars of expansion' by Germany compared to Britain and France.
Prussian militarism was not about wars of expansion. It was about the makeup of German society and the threat that Germany posed.
 
Prussian militarism was not about wars of expansion. It was about the makeup of German society and the threat that Germany posed.
The threat to expand via war?

The spectre of Prussian militarism could be used in whatever way it suited antagonistic powers. When France breaks an established international treaty to expand in Morocco, it's just the natural expansion of a colonial power. When Germany tries to get in on it, it's expansionism, militarism, and proof of the nefarious Weltpolitik.

Not to mention, it rings kind of hollow when before the war both France and Russia had higher military expenditure as share of GDP, and France had more soldiers per capita in its standing army in 1914.
 
That list is good, but ignores that the German wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 (and Bismarck asking to cut France down in 1873-ish, but Russia/ UK said no) were the largest since Napoleon. Ignoring those 3 wars is like discussing the causes of WW2 starting in 1932- useful, but incomplete. Denmark made a de facto rule into a de jure rule, basically the same as A-H in 1908- yet Germany used it as a pretext for war. From a non-German perspective, German used a pretext to declare war in 1864, 1866, and Bismarck falsified the German reply to egg on the French, and used the threat of war in 1905 and 1908 to get its way, or to support A-H (probably missing a others).

One one the underlying issues is future German chancellors saw Bismarck's triumphant wars, and ignored/missed how he set the chessboard first (isolating enemies) as well as it was merely one tool in his arsenal- when the UK and Russia reacted strongly to his talk of another war with France, he did not try to bully them, or claim that Germany as a Great Power would do as it desired, but accepted it, and pulled Russia into an alliance to keep France isolated. I finished Castles of Steel about 2 months ago, and am reading Dreadnought now, and it is amazing how subpar German leadership was after Bismarck (such as Berlin officials ignoring all reports their embassies in London (the naval arms race) and Washington (USW), to pick the most egregious examples), picking bullying as the main tactic when a softer approach would have yielded far more.
Edit: And was it terrorism for Germany to ship weapons in July 1914 to Ireland- before war was declared, I might add- knowing that it would lead to civil unrest in the UK? If not, what is the exchange rate between the heir and civilians?
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
The threat to expand via war?
Just the threat to the balance of power, but the whole war thing is implied in a back hand way. The military in Germany was essentially free of political control. To politicians (who obviously think they’re better at these kinds of things than anyone else), this is a worrying thing.

The spectre of Prussian militarism could be used in whatever way it suited antagonistic powers. When France breaks an established international treaty to expand in Morocco, it's just the natural expansion of a colonial power. When Germany tries to get in on it, it's expansionism, militarism, and proof of the nefarious Weltpolitik.
Exactly.

Not to mention, it rings kind of hollow when before the war both France and Russia had higher military expenditure as share of GDP, and France had more soldiers per capita in its standing army in 1914.
Doesn’t “ring hollow” when you consider Germany had larger GDP than both and a larger population than France. From that point of view those are both completely understandable.
 
The threat to expand via war?

The spectre of Prussian militarism could be used in whatever way it suited antagonistic powers. When France breaks an established international treaty to expand in Morocco, it's just the natural expansion of a colonial power. When Germany tries to get in on it, it's expansionism, militarism, and proof of the nefarious Weltpolitik.

Not to mention, it rings kind of hollow when before the war both France and Russia had higher military expenditure as share of GDP, and France had more soldiers per capita in its standing army in 1914.
Bolding mine. France in 1905 and A-H/Russia in 1908 tried to break international treaties. Russia was left alone and failed, A-H succeeded since Germany backed it, and France got a partial victory, although it was viewed as a loss at the time. However, you paint a rather charitable version of Germany's role in 1905. They forced a high ranking French government official to resign under threat of war, and were trying to break the Entente Cordial, despite not having any objections to it a few months prior. Had they only been trying "to get in on it" they could and would have settle for less, like trade concessions or a treaty port. And considering the goal of Von Bulow in having the Kaiser stop by briefly solely to weaken/destroy the Entente, yes, it does count as Weltpolitik.
 
That list is good, but ignores that the German wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 (and Bismarck asking to cut France down in 1873-ish, but Russia/ UK said no) were the largest since Napoleon. Ignoring those 3 wars is like discussing the causes of WW2 starting in 1932- useful, but incomplete. Denmark made a de facto rule into a de jure rule, basically the same as A-H in 1908- yet Germany used it as a pretext for war. From a non-German perspective, German used a pretext to declare war in 1864, 1866, and Bismarck falsified the German reply to egg on the French, and used the threat of war in 1905 and 1908 to get its way, or to support A-H (probably missing a others).

One one the underlying issues is future German chancellors saw Bismarck's triumphant wars, and ignored/missed how he set the chessboard first (isolating enemies) as well as it was merely one tool in his arsenal- when the UK and Russia reacted strongly to his talk of another war with France, he did not try to bully them, or claim that Germany as a Great Power would do as it desired, but accepted it, and pulled Russia into an alliance to keep France isolated. I finished Castles of Steel about 2 months ago, and am reading Dreadnought now, and it is amazing how subpar German leadership was after Bismarck (such as Berlin officials ignoring all reports their embassies in London (the naval arms race) and Washington (USW), to pick the most egregious examples), picking bullying as the main tactic when a softer approach would have yielded far more.
Edit: And was it terrorism for Germany to ship weapons in July 1914 to Ireland- before war was declared, I might add- knowing that it would lead to civil unrest in the UK? If not, what is the exchange rate between the heir and civilians?
Someone seems forgetting at the very least the crimean war and the american civil war.
Not to mention that Germany did not exist during the time those wars you mentioned were fought and especially the danish war can not be regarded as a purely Prussian project - though Bismarck being Bismarck managed to use it to his advantage.

Also the ems telegram was not falsified by Bismarck. He did not change the essence of it - only made it more rude to infuriate the french. At a point mind you where the french have been more than unresonable after already scoring a diplomatic victory and pushing for even more.

And what exchange rates are you talking about? This does not work like that. Germany gave weapons to irish rebels so its ok to kill an Austrian archduke? Or Austria supporting Pilsudski's polish band of insurgents gives the serbs the right to murder the archduke?
The answer is simply in all chases: all of the actions listed above can and should be judged as crimes. But neither of them gives the right to terrorism to anyone. The british would have had every right to seek satisfaction and justice from Germany for the irish case, the russians from the austrians for the polish case and finally the austrians from the serbians for the sarajevo murders.

Though murdering an heir or any member of a royal family or the government will always be regarded as a more serious case by both sides. The british were able to settle the dogger bank incident relativly easily with Russia. Now if the victims were instead of fisherman members of the royal family, or even the heir that settlement would have been harder by magnitudes if not completly impossible. Lives are not regarded as worth the same - not today and especially not in the early 20th century.
 
Doesn’t “ring hollow” when you consider Germany had larger GDP than both and a larger population than France. From that point of view those are both completely understandable.
Yes it's understandable. But the accusation of one society being particularly militaristic rings hollow when other societies expend just as much if not more of their resources and manpower on the military.

Of course the German military having no political oversight (apart from the emperor) was an issue. Though again I see no real distinction to Russia in that regard.
 
Top