WI:The Serbian government really did assassinate Franz Ferdinand?

BooNZ

Banned
And shortly thereafter, look for yet another sea change in France's government. Poincare would most likely be out on his butt and a more strident/nationalistic bunch would be in charge. Then you have the interesting situation in which it's France as the prime nation spoiling for an excuse to go to war, rather than the Russian Empire.
typo corrected
 

BooNZ

Banned
Apis might have been a military higher up, but he was not the whole Serbian Government. Nikola Pašić, the actual Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Serbia at the time, was notified about the attempt and tried to stop it from happening, ordering the would-be assassins arrested before they left the country (which failed to happen). The assassination of Austrian leaders (first a failed crack at Franz Joseph in 1911, then Ferdinand in 1914) was something that only could have been cooked up by ultra-nationalist groups like the Black Hand.

So the leader of the Serbian administration was aware of operational details of a terrorist act before it took place, but failed to stop it? Would that be some sort of defence or a plea for clemency?
 
We aren't too fond of revisionists around here. It is one thing to hypothesize something ludicrous, but to actually say it?

What do you mean "we". This place is full of revisionists from all sides on just about every historical topic. And as for direct Serbian government complicity in the assassination, that is a legitimate topic for open discussion.
 

JAG88

Banned
Yeah, when people are annexed and oppressed by a state they usually want to join some other state.

Lol at the oppressed! They were terrorists, hang them!

So, you really do believe that when the USA annexed Native American territories, the Native Americans stopped being natives?

People X are native to territory Y -> country Z annexes territory Y -> people X are now natives in country Z.
It's so simple anyone over 5 years old could understand it.

This level of stupidity in these "arguments" you're making is just too great for words. It's kinda funny, but not funny enough, and I sure as hell am not going to waste any more time trying to correct it.

It so, so funny to see you squirm and twist in this way just to try and avoid admitting the terrorists were SERBS armed and trained by SERBIA, that is the gist of your absurd and idiotic argument isnt it? That a passport makes it right? lol!
 

JAG88

Banned
So the leader of the Serbian administration was aware of operational details of a terrorist act before it took place, but failed to stop it? Would that be some sort of defence or a plea for clemency?

Yeah, they are claiming incompetence, being bad at your job as a defense, that might get you some slightly reduced sentence... in the real world, between European countries in early 20th century that got you shit. Which is why the Serbians never said so, IF it is even true that they tried to stop it to begin with.

Supposedly they even tried to warn the Austrians...
 
Lol at the oppressed! They were terrorists, hang them!



It so, so funny to see you squirm and twist in this way just to try and avoid admitting the terrorists were SERBS armed and trained by SERBIA, that is the gist of your absurd and idiotic argument isnt it? That a passport makes it right? lol!

No, they (the assassins) were Serbian nationalists, armed by other Serbian nationalists (Black Hand), who wanted to assassinate the leaders of the empire (first Emperor Franz Joseph, then heir Franz Ferdinand) which forcefully held Bosnia (which was filled with other Serbians). The actual Serbian government (ie Nikola Pašić) tried to stop the Black Hands attempts, as I've mentioned before, and failed.
 

JAG88

Banned
No, they (the assassins) were Serbian nationalists, armed by other Serbian nationalists (Black Hand), who wanted to assassinate the leaders of the empire (first Emperor Franz Joseph, then heir Franz Ferdinand) which forcefully held Bosnia (which was filled with other Serbians). The actual Serbian government (ie Nikola Pašić) tried to stop the Black Hands attempts, as I've mentioned before, and failed.

They were SERBS, armed and trained by other SERBS that also happened to be SERBIANS, that the SERBIAN government FAILED to prevent it own officials to carry out a terrorist attack on the government of a neighbor is such a lame excuse that the SERBIANS never tried to make the point on account that no one would take it as anything else than an admission of at the very least complicity or complacency.

"It wasnt me you see, it was all rogue intelligence officials operating without official sanction..."

Who would buy that?

"It wasnt my, it was my hand!" See? I know its hitting you on the face again, but its not me! I swear!!!!!!"

If you can claim that, a government could ALWAYS claim that NOTHING is EVER their fault.
 

Cook

Banned
I am not asking for whether the Serbian government ordering the assassination of FF is plausible or not(let's just assume they were stupidly enough to do it),I just want to ask how would the great powers act differently if the Serbian Government really did assassinate FF and there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt that they really did it?

Is this meant to be a DBWI?
 
Any state that would promise not to oppress them would do, I suppose.

True. Which is why the Austro-Hungarian leadership was terrified that, even if they win WWI, Bulgaria might simply replace Serbia as the "Piedmont"/general attraction to Serbs and other south Slavs. (and they were quite possibly right to be afraid of that, although we'll never know for sure)

External aggression and jingoism can't solve internal problems, only delay their resolution. (in A-H's case, maybe not even that)
 
If this hypothetical Austro-Serbian war breaks out, I wonder what happens to Serbia. Do the Austrians do a small partition of Serbia and give Macedonia to Bulgaria to help weaken it further?
 

BooNZ

Banned
True. Which is why the Austro-Hungarian leadership was terrified that, even if they win WWI, Bulgaria might simply replace Serbia as the "Piedmont"/general attraction to Serbs and other south Slavs. (and they were quite possibly right to be afraid of that, although we'll never know for sure)

That's original - Russia tried that concept (marrying Serbia and Bulgaria to undermine A-H and the Ottomans circa 1904 onward, but Bulgaria broke the leash. Bulgaria simply did not covert what A-H had - its focus was on Macedonia and Constantinople.

External aggression and jingoism can't solve internal problems, only delay their resolution. (in Serbia's case, maybe not even that)

Fixed that for you...

...and yes, Serbia was aggressive and militaristic. Since rising to power on the back of a brutal regicide in 1903, the Serbian administration and Tsarist Russia worked hard together to undermine A-H and the Ottomans. The Serbian administration involved itself in wars with the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Albanians. Only one of those wars could be considered to be defensive and that arose because Serbia/Russia reneged on an earlier agreement. When not actively at war, Serbian military personal were often actively participating or supporting insurgency on foreign soil, notably Mesopotamia.

At home Serbia had the lowest literacy rate in Europe (outside Russia and the Ottomans), very limited medical resources (evidenced by the impact of disease on Serbian civilian population in WW1), poor infrastructure, almost non-existent industry (aside from farming) and declining rural productivity. French loans might have improved some of those internal problems, but those funds were instead spent mainly on the military. In summary, Serbia was a failed state being propped up by Russia and France for use as a proxy against A-H.

Meanwhile A-H had been at peace for decades and focused its spending on administration rather than military matters...
 

JAG88

Banned
That's original - Russia tried that concept (marrying Serbia and Bulgaria to undermine A-H and the Ottomans circa 1904 onward, but Bulgaria broke the leash. Bulgaria simply did not covert what A-H had - its focus was on Macedonia and Constantinople.



Fixed that for you...

...and yes, Serbia was aggressive and militaristic. Since rising to power on the back of a brutal regicide in 1903, the Serbian administration and Tsarist Russia worked hard together to undermine A-H and the Ottomans. The Serbian administration involved itself in wars with the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Albanians. Only one of those wars could be considered to be defensive and that arose because Serbia/Russia reneged on an earlier agreement. When not actively at war, Serbian military personal were often actively participating or supporting insurgency on foreign soil, notably Mesopotamia.

At home Serbia had the lowest literacy rate in Europe (outside Russia and the Ottomans), very limited medical resources (evidenced by the impact of disease on Serbian civilian population in WW1), poor infrastructure, almost non-existent industry (aside from farming) and declining rural productivity. French loans might have improved some of those internal problems, but those funds were instead spent mainly on the military. In summary, Serbia was a failed state being propped up by Russia and France for use as a proxy against A-H.

Meanwhile A-H had been at peace for decades and focused its spending on administration rather than military matters...

Please just pretend I found a clapping smilie...:(
 
That's original - Russia tried that concept (marrying Serbia and Bulgaria to undermine A-H and the Ottomans circa 1904 onward, but Bulgaria broke the leash. Bulgaria simply did not covert what A-H had - its focus was on Macedonia and Constantinople.

...and yes, Serbia was aggressive and militaristic. Since rising to power on the back of a brutal regicide in 1903, the Serbian administration and Tsarist Russia worked hard together to undermine A-H and the Ottomans. The Serbian administration involved itself in wars with the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Albanians. Only one of those wars could be considered to be defensive and that arose because Serbia/Russia reneged on an earlier agreement. When not actively at war, Serbian military personal were often actively participating or supporting insurgency on foreign soil, notably Mesopotamia.

At home Serbia had the lowest literacy rate in Europe (outside Russia and the Ottomans), very limited medical resources (evidenced by the impact of disease on Serbian civilian population in WW1), poor infrastructure, almost non-existent industry (aside from farming) and declining rural productivity. French loans might have improved some of those internal problems, but those funds were instead spent mainly on the military. In summary, Serbia was a failed state being propped up by Russia and France for use as a proxy against A-H.

Meanwhile A-H had been at peace for decades and focused its spending on administration rather than military matters...

Too much Whataboutism and changing the goalposts for my taste. And you may need to look up the definition of a "failed state".

Neither A-H nor the Ottomans needed any help undermining themselves - we've already discussed at length the Habsburg monarchy's pathetic and widely despised colonial venture in Bosnia, where the population still suffered under a system of serfdom and Habsburg authorities intentionally screwed up education so much it was barely half of Serbia's level.

The simple fact that Austro-Hungarian elites feared Bulgaria might replace Serbia speaks volumes about how unpopular their regime was in certain provinces, by their own implicit admission. Whether their fears would have been proven true - like I said, we'll never know.

The Bulgarian government was pro-German, but it was also very ambitious. And with the Habsburg monarchy's descent from pre-1914 moderate oppression into full-blown mass murder of undesirables, they're going to be less internally stable than in a very long time.

Vienna didn't neglect military spending because they were peace-loving unicorns, but because of Hungarian obstruction. The Habsburgs were equally expansionist as any of the Balkan states, but without any of the benefits (land reform, democracy etc.) that Serbia and the other Balkan states were occasionally able to offer.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Too much Whataboutism and changing the goalposts for my taste. And you may need to look up the definition of a "failed state"..

A regular explanation on this thread is the Serbian Government was innocent because it was members of the Serbian military that arranged the assassination of FF. This was not an isolated incident and the inability (or lack of motivation) to halt terrorist activity within (or without) Serbia is a symptom of a failed state. Serbia's literacy rate of 20% could only be described as a failure and likewise, the unprecedented collapse of its medical system during WW1 another failure. Warmongering and prioritising military spending above funding of failing core infrastructure are facts and clearly illustrate the pattern of behaviour of a failed state.

Neither A-H nor the Ottomans needed any help undermining themselves - we've already discussed at length the Habsburg monarchy's pathetic and widely despised colonial venture in Bosnia, where the population still suffered under a system of serfdom and Habsburg authorities intentionally screwed up education so much it was barely half of Serbia's level.

There is no evidence that A-H sought to deliberately stupefy the state of Bosnia, but the education in that state of A-H was poor. Conversely, the industrial output of Bosnia-Herzegovina averaged double digit annual growth for the three decades of A-H administration.

Surfdom was a hangover from the Ottoman administration and in 1914 there remained around 90,000 surfs in Bosnia (about 5% of the total Bosnia-Herzegovina population), with another 40,000 having been emancipated since the A-H occupation. This issue should be kept in perspective (i.e. scarcely material), but I guess that is probably ASB.

The simple fact that Austro-Hungarian elites feared Bulgaria might replace Serbia speaks volumes about how unpopular their regime was in certain provinces, by their own implicit admission. Whether their fears would have been proven true - like I said, we'll never know.

I have never heard of Bulgaria being a significant threat to A-H. Serbia, Romania and Italy all converted A-H territory sure, but I am not aware of any significant Bulgarian claims? Care to substantiate where you may have sourced these fears of Bulgaria?

The Bulgarian government was pro-German, but it was also very ambitious. And with the Habsburg monarchy's descent from pre-1914 moderate oppression into full-blown mass murder of undesirables, they're going to be less internally stable than in a very long time. .

I suspect the Bulgarian government was (ultimately) more anti Serb and anti Russian that pro German... and I would not describe Serbs as undesirable, that's kind of racist! I do however note Serbia kicked off contemporary atrocities in the Balkan wars...

Vienna didn't neglect military spending because they were peace-loving unicorns, but because of Hungarian obstruction. The Habsburgs were equally expansionist as any of the Balkan states, but without any of the benefits (land reform, democracy etc.) that Serbia and the other Balkan states were occasionally able to offer.

Aside from good timing in formalising its control over Bosnia-Herzegovina, which A-H had effectively (pun intended) administered for 3 decades, A-H had been more-or-less inert. If it had a expansionist bone in its metaphorical body, AH's military was more than capable of crushing its rivals (simultaneously) while the metaphorical bear (Russia) was hibernating (circa 1905-1910).

I outlined some of the dubious outcomes of the Serbian administration above. No benefits identified...

As an aside, I am in no way anti-Serb or anti-Russian, but believe the Serbian regime of that time was fundamentally toxic. Conversely, Tesla for example, was clearly one of the most gifted minds of his time - or any other time.

I guess we can at least agree about the unicorns...
 

BooNZ

Banned
Demographics

No, they (the assassins) were Serbian nationalists, armed by other Serbian nationalists (Black Hand), who wanted to assassinate the leaders of the empire (first Emperor Franz Joseph, then heir Franz Ferdinand) which forcefully held Bosnia (which was filled with other Serbians). The actual Serbian government (ie Nikola Pašić) tried to stop the Black Hands attempts, as I've mentioned before, and failed.

Serbs made up around 43.49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1910, so technically it could not even be half full of other Serbians. Curiously, the proportion of Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina had been stable for approximately 35 years with around 42.88% in 1879. Clearly those Serbs preferred A-H rule to the alternative across the border...
 
The simple fact that Austro-Hungarian elites feared Bulgaria might replace Serbia speaks volumes about how unpopular their regime was in certain provinces, by their own implicit admission. Whether their fears would have been proven true - like I said, we'll never know.

The Bulgarian government was pro-German, but it was also very ambitious. And with the Habsburg monarchy's descent from pre-1914 moderate oppression into full-blown mass murder of undesirables, they're going to be less internally stable than in a very long time.
I'm very skeptical about you claims regarding Bulgaria. The aims of Bulgarian nationalists were very ambitious at times but they were confined to territories populated by Bulgarians (or people who could be considered Bulgarians, however dubious this was, like in the Morava valley) and occasionally economically important adjacent territories. But there was no popularity at all for taking over all of Serbia, let alone expanding towards Austria or any desire for unifying the Southern Slavs.
Of course it's possible that the Austro-Hungarian elites did really think so, even if it was completely groundless. Which would only confirm how deluded these elites were at the time.
 
There is no evidence that A-H sought to deliberately stupefy the state of Bosnia, but the education in that state of A-H was poor. Conversely, the industrial output of Bosnia-Herzegovina averaged double digit annual growth for the three decades of A-H administration.

Education in Habsburg Bosnia was not just overlooked; plans and proposals to improve it were constantly rejected. For example, in 1894 the A-H governor vetoed a plan that would have nearly doubled the number of schools. A-H most certainly didn't lack the funds to improve the education in this province - I'm not sure how we can call its behavior anything other than deliberate neglect.
Surfdom was a hangover from the Ottoman administration and in 1914 there remained around 90,000 surfs in Bosnia (about 5% of the total Bosnia-Herzegovina population), with another 40,000 having been emancipated since the A-H occupation. This issue should be kept in perspective (i.e. scarcely material), but I guess that is probably ASB.

That's a mistake: around 90,000 was not the number of serfs in Bosnia. It was the approximate number of adult males of this class. The total number of serfs was 445,000 (as in, a quarter of the population).

(if you need a source for those numbers: Lampe, Jackson - Balkan Economic History)
I have never heard of Bulgaria being a significant threat to A-H. Serbia, Romania and Italy all converted A-H territory sure, but I am not aware of any significant Bulgarian claims? Care to substantiate where you may have sourced these fears of Bulgaria?

There were numerous instances of Austro-Hungarian officials expressing fear over Bulgaria's potential strength and potential pull over A-H's south Slavs in the event of CP victory, and trying to reduce its share of the spoils. Burian, Tisza, and various other officials all subscribed to that fear and tried to limit Bulgaria's post-war power and influence in various ways: keeping it off the Adriatic, propping up a rump Romania as a buffer state to protect A-H from Bulgaria...Szilassy was one of the examples which directly and explicitly feared that A-H's Serbs might turn towards Bulgaria if it becomes strong enough.

For its part, Bulgaria didn't do much to inflame those fears - they were based more on the Habsburg elites' acknowledgement of their own inability to win the loyalty of certain parts of the population. Although Bulgaria did lay claims to certain parts of western and north-eastern Serbia that A-H considered within her own sphere. And A-H and Bulgarian troops nearly came to blows over jurisdiction in occupied Kachanik.
I suspect the Bulgarian government was (ultimately) more anti Serb and anti Russian that pro German... and I would not describe Serbs as undesirable, that's kind of racist! I do however note Serbia kicked off contemporary atrocities in the Balkan wars...

It's nice to know that neither you nor me are, apparently, racist. Unfortunately the Habsburg monarchy did not shy away from massacring tens of thousands of Serb civilians, with the poor and racist justification of their alleged "cultural inferiority".
Aside from good timing in formalising its control over Bosnia-Herzegovina, which A-H had effectively (pun intended) administered for 3 decades, A-H had been more-or-less inert. If it had a expansionist bone in its metaphorical body, AH's military was more than capable of crushing its rivals (simultaneously) while the metaphorical bear (Russia) was hibernating (circa 1905-1910).

One can treat the 1908 annexation as a simple formality, but it still leaves the question of what A-H was doing in Bosnia in the first place. There was at least one unmistakeably expansionist bone in the Habsburg monarchy's body: the one with which it reached out and expanded into Bosnia.
I outlined some of the dubious outcomes of the Serbian administration above. No benefits identified...

Long-overdue land reform and at least a vaguely democratic system would be the first benefits that come to mind.
As an aside, I am in no way anti-Serb or anti-Russian, but believe the Serbian regime of that time was fundamentally toxic. Conversely, Tesla for example, was clearly one of the most gifted minds of his time - or any other time.

I guess we can at least agree about the unicorns...

Criticizing a government certainly doesn't make you or anyone else a racist, and there are more than a few valid criticisms that can be directed against the pre-WWI Serbian regime. Still, I think it's important to keep perspective - it was far from the only one or the worst one of its time.
I believe that the A-H regime was at least as toxic as those in Serbia and the other Balkan states, and probably even more in some ways.
 
I'm very skeptical about you claims regarding Bulgaria. The aims of Bulgarian nationalists were very ambitious at times but they were confined to territories populated by Bulgarians (or people who could be considered Bulgarians, however dubious this was, like in the Morava valley) and occasionally economically important adjacent territories. But there was no popularity at all for taking over all of Serbia, let alone expanding towards Austria or any desire for unifying the Southern Slavs.
Of course it's possible that the Austro-Hungarian elites did really think so, even if it was completely groundless. Which would only confirm how deluded these elites were at the time.

Well, that's exactly what my claims regarding Bulgaria are - it's a fact that the Austro-Hungarian elites were afraid of her potential expansionism and her potential to influence and attract the Serbs and other south Slavs.

Whether or not Bulgaria's future actions would have justified those fears is a different question; I'm inclined to agree that they probably wouldn't have.
 

JAG88

Banned
No, they (the assassins) were Serbian nationalists, armed by other Serbian nationalists (Black Hand), who wanted to assassinate the leaders of the empire (first Emperor Franz Joseph, then heir Franz Ferdinand) which forcefully held Bosnia (which was filled with other Serbians). The actual Serbian government (ie Nikola Pašić) tried to stop the Black Hands attempts, as I've mentioned before, and failed.

The other guy's absurd argument was that since the assassins were citizens of AH the Serbians were clear of any guilt... dumbest argument ever.

AS a government you cant claim innocence for the actions of your own officials and expect other people to buy it, specially when those officials are the ones in charge of sending armed people into other countries. It would be impossible to prove either way since orders for such a mission would never be in writing for obvious reasons.

So it is all about the relation between the countries and the credibility of the government... which for the Serbian one was nil...

And even if for some miracle it can be categorically established that the Serbian govt tried to stop it... it only proves that it has no control over its own officials and is incapable of preventing them from undertaking terrorist acts against its neighbors.

So, they have to go...
 
Top