Sane German response to the Sarajovo murder in July 1914

This is again a double standard, when Germany threatens to fight France and Russia on behalf of AH it them trying de-escalate things, but when France and Russia threaten to fight Germany in response to that it's because they sought a wider conflict?

On top of that Germany's actions bring Britain into the war!
It seems to me that both "sides" of the conversation are employing double standards. France backing Russia to the hilt is no more acceptable than Germany backing Austria to the hilt. Either they are both fine or neither is. Now, the invasion of Belgium was precisely the kind of insane German military move done with no regard for consequences - but Grey *had* warned the Germans that British intervention would happen out of any German attack on France. However as we know, France only became involved after Germany was forced to react to Russian mobilisation (and we have the records that Nicky and his generals perfectly knew what such mobilisation would entail for Germany) so why is it okay for Russia to do this, and not okay for Germany to react?
I'll be the last person to defend Imperial German diplomacy. They largely backed themselves into this corner, and especially violating Belgian neutrality was always going to end in one way only. But if the idea is that Britain is "the good cop" trying to maintain the status quo in Europe, then they failed by not issuing warnings to all parties. And if the idea instead is that Britain was doing its interest by protecting the weaker continental power (France) against the stronger (Germany) then it is yet another example of the Great Powers of the time being "Great Irresponsibles" and Britain too would share a part of the blame for the conflagration. Tertium non datur.

Now, to go back to the OP (which has been severely neglected after this tangent, I feel) the issue is that Germany (or any other country individually) playing nice does not mean things will turn out alright. Even if Germany magically gets its act together, prevents leaks or diplomats sitting on messages because they went against their agenda etc, they will still need to react to what everybody else is doing. You need fundamental changes in Austrian and Russian diplomacy especially if you want a different outcome in the July Crisis. What Germany can do is play the game more responsibly and honestly... and likely end up at war anyway.
 
I wouldn’t trust those maps too much. They’re incorrect.
Are they which bits? (I agree they're not very high quality).

TBH I just googled Balkan map 1907 and 1914, my intent was to show when AH annexed Bosnia they were increasingly cutting Serbia off. AH had been trying to get Serbia to be as dependent and thus subservient to AH as possible (and it not like the Serbians hadn't been causing AH problems or didn't have their own ideas about Bosnia as well!)
 
Last edited:
Maybe because those were all in what today are called 'Lone Wolves' and not members of a secret society that had already obliterated one Serbian Royal Dynasty that was friendly towards the Austrians?
Firstly while they acted as lone wolves, Anarchism at the time was noticeably popular to the point where you had various national and international federations of anarchists and anarchist congresses (there was one in Amsterdam in 1907 for instance). It would not have been hard at the time to cast general blame on a group of anarchists and claim that X government or Y government wasn't doing enough in X or Y country about the anarchists in its midst.

Secondly, didn't the structure of the said same secret society mean that quite often persons were operating as independent cells to ensure that exposure of one cell didn't expose all the other cells?

Thirdly, that didn't seem to matter to the Viennese who were calling on the Austrian government to enact reprisals against Italy in 1898 did it? Yet the Austro-Italian War of 1898 is not one we talk about.

Fourthly, are we to take it that the appropriate response to a secret society of terrorists is to bomb unrelated civilians? That's going to do what exactly? Bring back King Alexander Obrenović from the dead? Ensure that the same Belgrade civilians rise up and rally around a new Obrenović dynasty and ensure stable Austrian hegemony over Serbia?

Because Austria's policies in the Balkans after 1903 were generally counterproductive towards their aims. Even they began to realize this for example in how they related to Montenegro as while they wanted to prevent Montenegro from getting closer to Serbia they kept alienating Montenegro and thereby pushing them towards Serbia. In 1906 they could for instance not have seen the Serbo-Bulgarian customs union of 1905 as provocative (and perhaps even a good thing as it could have weakened Serbia's desire for sea access via the Adriatic coast since goods would come through Bulgaria's ports tariff free as if they had landed in theoretical Serbian ports (transport costs might have been an issue though), and not started the 1906 Austro-Serbian tariff war on pork. But instituting policies that backfired seemed to be an Austrian specialty after 1900.

I'm not saying that Austria should have simply done nothing in 1914. In fact I think that they missed a golden opportunity for some smart diplomacy to achieve some of their objectives when they didn't seize upon the Serbian response as a basis for pushing for the other Great Powers to get behind him (however reluctantly) precisely on the basis of obtaining justice for an assassination. They wouldn't turn back the clock to December 31, 1902 when there was an Austrian-friendly dynasty in Serbia, but coupled with their moves to back off of Montenegro and Serbia's acceptance of many points of the ultimatum they could in fact have held an upper hand against Serbia for a few years even as Serbia remained Russian aligned and if they were being cognizant they could have taken it as an opportunity to weaken Serbian support for Bosnian Serb activists, terrorists and anti-Austrian organizations. So even if they did nothing differently right up to July 23rd, had they acted differently on July 24th in response to the Serbian reply they might have made some progress without having to bombard and occupy Belgrade.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that both "sides" of the conversation are employing double standards. France backing Russia to the hilt is no more acceptable than Germany backing Austria to the hilt. Either they are both fine or neither is.
That's not the double standard I was referring too. Yes both were adhering to their treaties, but to describe Germany as doing so in an attempt to nobly de-escalate war, but France doing so out of a desire to escalate to general war is a joke. And that was the claim that I was responding to.

In terms adhering to treaties in abstract than yes Germany and France are doing the same thing I agree (I've actually said the same in earlier posts). However abstract only takes us so far we also have to look at the context of what their guaranteed partners are doing with that guarantee.

It's why I quoted the Kaiser when he wrote The entente are unfairly using out treaty with AH to trap us. As if the actions of AH and Germany are somehow unrelated to where they and everyone else is standing as of the 30th July. Because the similarity in underlying attitude made me laugh.

Now, the invasion of Belgium was precisely the kind of insane German military move done with no regard for consequences - but Grey *had* warned the Germans that British intervention would happen out of any German attack on France. However as we know, France only became involved after Germany was forced to react to Russian mobilisation (and we have the records that Nicky and his generals perfectly knew what such mobilisation would entail for Germany) so why is it okay for Russia to do this, and not okay for Germany to react?
I'll be the last person to defend Imperial German diplomacy. They largely backed themselves into this corner, and especially violating Belgian neutrality was always going to end in one way only.
yep I agree

But if the idea is that Britain is "the good cop" trying to maintain the status quo in Europe, then they failed by not issuing warnings to all parties.

Well I wouldn't say they were the good cop, they were pursuing their policy when it came to Europe and they didn't like Germany as potential challenger in other areas e.g. on the seas. But I'd also say they were pretty clear in their warnings!

And if the idea instead is that Britain was doing its interest by protecting the weaker continental power (France) against the stronger (Germany) then it is yet another example of the Great Powers of the time being "Great Irresponsibles" and Britain too would share a part of the blame for the conflagration. Tertium non datur.
Again I don't think it was out of offending any great sense of British fairness in terms of protecting little France against big Germany, but rather they didn't want to see big Germany getting any bigger especially not at the expense of the two counterweights to Germany on the continent.

Now, to go back to the OP (which has been severely neglected after this tangent, I feel) the issue is that Germany (or any other country individually) playing nice does not mean things will turn out alright. Even if Germany magically gets its act together, prevents leaks or diplomats sitting on messages because they went against their agenda etc, they will still need to react to what everybody else is doing. You need fundamental changes in Austrian and Russian diplomacy especially if you want a different outcome in the July Crisis. What Germany can do is play the game more responsibly and honestly... and likely end up at war anyway.
TBH all it really takes is AH accepting Serbia's all but one acceptance of their demands and international mediation. Yeah no one going to get entirely what they want, and yes it gives everyone a chance to act in their own interests. but it's better than war.

No guarantee there's no war next year though, but there were changes on that front as well IMO.
 
Last edited:

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
All of the continental powers war plans involved invading another power's territory: -
Austria-Hungary - Serbia & Poland (& knowing Conrad probably Italy too);
Germany - France & Belgium;
Russia - East Prussia & Galicia;
France - Alsace-Lorraine.

Britain didn't - instead they hoped that Germany's colonies would drop into their lap.

That they did have offensive plans in itself is not proof of an intention to go to war, but all believed they could only win on the offensive.
 
Like with Afghanistan in 2001?
Only unlike the Taliban in 2001 the Serbian Government accepted pretty much all the AH demands and was looking to go with Intentional mediation. On top of that AH stanchest and strongest ally upon seeing this wrote:

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",

That's Kaiser bill himself, no friend of the Serbs, and no shy retiring violet when it comes to waving German military might!


The Germans then tried to get AH to accept the Serbian position.

Bit hard to put that bit in "2001 Afghanistan" terms as there's no Germany to the US's AH. Also hard to work into the metaphor that the terrorist group got most of its funding and from secret factions within the KSA and then support from factions within Pakistan who we continued to treat as allies.
 
Last edited:
Like with Afghanistan in 2001?
If I recall correctly Bush did offer not to intervene in/bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban leader gave up Osama no? Are you suggesting that even if Osama was given up that the US was going to bomb them anyway as Austria intended to do with Serbia? You have any sources for that?

Also, I think its stretching things a bit to compare the US air campaign in 2001 (which did not intend to deliberate target an entire city) with the Austria's intended campaign in Belgrade in 1914 (where they did intend to bombard the city, not just military sites or Taliban government sites), especially as it wasn't like in 1914 that there was any care taken to avoid collateral damage (a very different era in terms of military weaponry).

But I guess just shelling Belgrade was fine regardless of whether Serbia complied with the ultimatum, yes?
 
Last edited:

Stenz

Monthly Donor
Are they which bits? (I agree they're not very high quality).

TBH I just googled Balkan map 1907 and 1914,
Serbian had nothing north of the Danube (Belgrade sat on the river) until after WWI. Montenegro was independent until after WWI (not part of Serbia then independent at the outbreak of the War) and in 1907 the Ottomans still held large parts of European Balkan territory. Romania seems wrong in the ‘1907’ map but better in the 1914 one. If anything, the 1907 map seems more like a bad 1917/1918 map to be honest.

Edit: What the heck is Macedonia doing on the map in 1907? That map is garbage. Where did you get it from? It’s all over the place!
 
Last edited:
Only unlike the Taliban in 2001 the Serbian Government accepted pretty much all the AH demands and was looking to go with Intentional mediation. On top of that AH stanchest and strongest ally upon seeing this wrote:

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",

That's Kaiser bill himself, no friend of the Serbs, and no shy retiring violet when it comes to waving German military might!


The Germans then tried to get AH to accept the Serbian position.

Bit hard to put that bit in "2001 Afghanistan" terms as there's no Germany to the US's AH. Also hard to work into the metaphor that the terrorist group got most of its funding and from secret factions within the KSA and then support from factions within Pakistan who we continued to treat as allies.
Besides which I'm almost certain that Bush in 2001 genuinely meant to not bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban complied with the September 20th ultimatum to hand over those responsible, close down the training camps, release foreign nationals and allow the US to inspect the training camps. Austria's leaders on the other hand are documented to have intended to bombard Belgrade anyway.
 
Firstly while they acted as lone wolves, Anarchism at the time was noticeably popular to the point where you had various national and international federations of anarchists and anarchist congresses (there was one in Amsterdam in 1907 for instance). It would not have been hard at the time to cast general blame on a group of anarchists and claim that X government or Y government wasn't doing enough in X or Y country about the anarchists in its midst.

Secondly, didn't the structure of the said same secret society mean that quite often persons were operating as independent cells to ensure that exposure of one cell didn't expose all the other cells?

Thirdly, that didn't seem to matter to the Viennese who were calling on the Austrian government to enact reprisals against Italy in 1898 did it? Yet the Austro-Italian War of 1898 is not one we talk about.

Fourthly, are we to take it that the appropriate response to a secret society of terrorists is to bomb unrelated civilians? That's going to do what exactly? Bring back King Alexander Obrenović from the dead? Ensure that the same Belgrade civilians rise up and rally around a new Obrenović dynasty and ensure stable Austrian hegemony over Serbia?

Because Austria's policies in the Balkans after 1903 were generally counterproductive towards their aims. Even they began to realize this for example in how they related to Montenegro as while they wanted to prevent Montenegro from getting closer to Serbia they kept alienating Montenegro and thereby pushing them towards Serbia. In 1906 they could for instance not have seen the Serbo-Bulgarian customs union of 1905 as provocative (and perhaps even a good thing as it could have weakened Serbia's desire for sea access via the Adriatic coast since goods would come through Bulgaria's ports tariff free as if they had landed in theoretical Serbian ports (transport costs might have been an issue though), and not started the 1906 Austro-Serbian tariff war on pork. But instituting policies that backfired seemed to be an Austrian specialty after 1900.

I'm not saying that Austria should have simply done nothing in 1914. In fact I think that they missed a golden opportunity for some smart diplomacy to achieve some of their objectives when they didn't seize upon the Serbian response as a basis for pushing for the other Great Powers to get behind him (however reluctantly) precisely on the basis of obtaining justice for an assassination. They wouldn't turn back the clock to December 31, 1902 when there was an Austrian-friendly dynasty in Serbia, but coupled with their moves to back off of Montenegro and Serbia's acceptance of many points of the ultimatum they could in fact have held an upper hand against Serbia for a few years even as Serbia remained Russian aligned and if they were being cognizant they could have taken it as an opportunity to weaken Serbian support for Bosnian Serb activists, terrorists and anti-Austrian organizations. So even if they did nothing differently right up to July 23rd, had they acted differently on July 24th in response to the Serbian reply they might have made some progress without having to bombard and occupy Belgrade.
I agree that Austria handled the crisis badly - evidenced by the resulting great war that led to its destruction. But I dont believe that Russia would have allowed the truth to stand between them and Serbia. I know that this is only my opinion and is based solely on the impression i get from the russian standpoint vis-a-vis the assassination and any allegation that Serbia might be responsible OTL. You assume that they would be ready to deal fairly - and as we are in AH territory i cant prove your assumptions are wrong - but I also havent read anything from you that would have changed my assumptions.

I think France and Germany both gave orders to mobilise at the same time (1st Aug)

Russia started mobilising earlier (25th in the Balkans, 31st in General). Not that it mattered because:


At 9:00 p.m. on July 30, Bethmann Hollweg gave in to Moltke and Falkenhayn's repeated demands and promised them that Germany would issue a proclamation of "imminent danger of war" at noon the next day regardless of whether Russia began a general mobilization or not.


TBH all this is worrying about who mobilised first is fine so long as remember that while it is an escalation if known about it was being done in response to what was already happening and not out the blue!
The point was the distinction between what mobilisation ment for Russia and France. Their agreement stated that on the 15th day of mobilization they would simultanously attack Germany. This is important because OTL both started mobilization without declaring war. So in a sense when they started mobilization both were already bound to attacking germany by international agreement even without being in war with Germany.

AFAIK Germany had no international agreement that required of him anything similar. That ment mobilization in germany did not equal a declaration of war - in france and Russia in effect it equaled a declaration of war.
 
I think a key aspect is the expectation of what war would be like which turned out to be far removed from the reality though that reality had been evident in the Balkan Wars had anyone in power chosen to recognise it.

The mindset of war was still rooted in the 19th Century - gallant and colourful cavalry riding out to battle, great armies manoeuvring round the countryside and a series of decisive battles - a Solferino, a Sadowa, a Waterloo after which terms would be negotiated and life would return quickly to normal. The Austro-Prussian War had lasted seven weeks, the Franco-Prussian War had lasted 6 months, the Franco-Austrian War had lasted two months. The notion of a prolonged conflict made no sense - instead there would be a series of decisive engagements and then peace.

If that's what you think war is, that conditions your diplomatic response and military preparation. The Germans probably thought it would be 1870 Mark 2 - strike quickly, knock over the French and then take down the Russians and seek peace. Perhaps there would be a decisive naval battle which would break the British Navy and Germany would emerge master of Europe.

Mobilisation was getting the huge armies in place so they could manoeuvre just as they always had - there was no notion of a prolonged campaign, no logistical infrastructure to provide for a long war. Instead, there would be two or three great battles and that would be it.

The Entente probably hoped they could draw the Germans and Austrians into battle - the French and British would halt the former, the Russians would defeat the latter and the Central Powers would seek terms.

As an aside, it was the same in 1938-39, many thought war would start with mass air raids on cities using poison gas. There was no such illusion over World War 3 - everyone worked out how it would start and where it would end.
 
Are they which bits? (I agree they're not very high quality).

TBH I just googled Balkan map 1907 and 1914, my intent was to show when AH annexed Bosnia they were increasingly cutting Serbia off. AH had been trying to get Serbia to be as dependent and thus subservient to AH as possible (and it not like the Serbians hadn't been causing AH problems or didn't have their own ideas about Bosnia as well!)
This is an excellent opportunity to refer to this site with contemporary maps. The Austrians till 1908 occupied the villayet Novi Pazar. Your point is actually better served by the outcome of the balkan wars and the creation of Albania. Austria wanted to deny the expanding Serbia an outlet to the sea by this.

somehow the linking doesn't work. So i'm going to give the adress as text to copy:

Edit:It did work, but i couldn't see it working. I leave it like this.
 
I think 1915 is the safer bet. Viviani's government would be ferociously reluctant to admit it had lost, especially in a scenario where virtually all of its territory remained unoccupied. That said, a calamity like the one under consideration in Lorraine would result in Viviani being out of power a lot sooner than October 1915.
British neutrality, a clear French aggression against germany and a French catastrophe on alsace almost certainly triggers Italian intervention on the german side. The Triple Alliance navies vs Frqnce ends predictably in a curbstomp. France is going to lose control of her African colonies very quickly and there will be a real risk of an italian landing in Provence turning the flank of the front in lorraine via an offensive up the Rhone. This is before we consider a wildcard scenario like Japan opportunistically deciding to correct the "mutilated victory" of 1905 or even make a play for Indochina. Absent British intervention France can't survive more than a year IMO.
 
This is an excellent opportunity to refer to this site with contemporary maps. The Austrians till 1908 occupied the villayet Novi Pazar. Your point is actually better served by the outcome of the balkan wars and the creation of Albania. Austria wanted to deny the expanding Serbia an outlet to the sea by this.

somehow the linking doesn't work. So i'm going to give the adress as text to copy:

Edit:It did work, but i couldn't see it working. I leave it like this.
Nice, cheers I know about the idea of denying teh sea access, and I agree my linked map didn't show that very well! I was more going for Belgrade ending up right in AH's Balkan armpit.
 
1904 Language map before the 1st and 2nd Balkan War
1596151014214.png
1596151125060.png


political map of same area, just before 1st Balkan War and its ethnic cleansings


after
 
This is an excellent opportunity to refer to this site with contemporary maps. The Austrians till 1908 occupied the villayet Novi Pazar. Your point is actually better served by the outcome of the balkan wars and the creation of Albania. Austria wanted to deny the expanding Serbia an outlet to the sea by this.

somehow the linking doesn't work. So i'm going to give the adress as text to copy:

Edit:It did work, but i couldn't see it working. I leave it like this.
Excellent map collection!
 
Nice, cheers I know about the idea of denying teh sea access, and I agree my linked map didn't show that very well! I was more going for Belgrade ending up right in AH's Balkan armpit.
Well, the thing about Belgrade winding up in AH's armpit - it was sort of already there, especially after 1908.
As far as "access to the sea for Serbia"... even Wilson trotted this one out in the 14 Points. Again, whose territory were they going to steal for said "access to the sea"? They had attempted it with northern Albania, despite the dearth of ethnic Serbs there or in Kosovo for that matter. The taking of Vardar Macedonia was itself just part of a grand southward thrust with the intent of taking Thessaloniki... again, no Serbs anywhere in the vicinity. The only "logical" outlet would be Kotor, which had been an old Venetian port... and getting Kotor would depend upon union with Montenegro (which, incidentally, required a bit of bullying and cajoling after WWI to make that happen - after all, the Montenegrins had been more or less independent for what, 500 years?). The Bribe er I mean Treaty of London even promised Serbia some Adriatic coastline north of Kotor... all Croat and all Catholic AFAIK.
 

BooNZ

Kicked
Kick
Sure they discouraged any escalation by assuring AH they had their back no matter what, even after suggesting AH accept the Serbian response. :rolleyes:
I'm not familiar with this recommendation - can you please provide a reference?

I'll honest in years of seeing this debate I think that's the first time I seen anyone attempt to argue Germany was overall a de-escalating actor in all this!
No one said Germany was a de-escalating actor. I think containment is a more accurate description of German motivations.

also if you mean the Russian partial mobilisation on the 25th that was in the Balkans
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.

No I wasn't ignoring the German/AH treaties I was pointing out others (including you) of ignoring British and French treaties and commitments. In fact you are still ignoring them or pretending they didn't exist above France had treaty with Russia, they had extended it to include backing Russia in the Balkans. as per my previous links.
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.

well no one else is doing any invading?
As previously mentioned, Imperial Russia mobilised against both Germany and A-H, before CP powers had made a move.

I have addressed Serbian terrorist action several times now.

Of course Serbia responded to the AH ultimatum before AH invaded!? That's really not some proof of evil doing just proof we we live in a universe of cause and effect not effect and cause, after all even the Serbians had not developed time travel at this point!

Only they didn't reject the ultimatum did they? They accept all but one clause thus fucking up AH's cunning plan and even the German Kaiser recognises AH has been out played

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"
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%E2%80%9325_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.

OK without getting into the detail Bosnian Crisis I'm sure the AH foreign office would agree with your description, it's just many others didn't thus triggering the Bosnian Crisis. AH had been hip deep in the Balkan wars in general. as had Russia. You can pretend that AH had not been making moves or trying to extend in influence in the area (want's an Adriatic port, want's to contain pan-slavism post Ottoman retreat etc) if you want but you are kidding yourself. The thing is I'm not even saying they were worse than the other GPs in the area (Russian/Ottomans), just that you have accept that they were there.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbia_and_Austria_mobilise,_France_takes_preparatory_steps_(24%E2%80%9325_July)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbia_and_Austria_mobilise,_France_takes_preparatory_steps_(24%E2%80%9325_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.

Finally if you really are wondering why Serbia (and thus Russia) might have had some worries about AH's next move after absorbing Bosnia, I suggest you look at a couple of maps of the Balkans

1907:



1914

Others have already pointed out those maps are not helpful and detailed the many reasons why.
Seems to be a great deal of real estate changed colour in those 7 years.

The word 'powder keg' was often used to describe the region - no wonder the Serbs had a grievance!
Thank you for illustrating how alternative facts and/or propaganda can mislead
 
Top