WW1 western front alternatives to Schlieffen Plan

I bet Serbia DID suffer morale failure, even if it didn't suffer a change in regime. And, people have SOME patience; it takes time for evidence to surface and a pattern of insufficiency to become clear.

And, being in the nominal winners' circle isn't enough to stop discontent. Consistent pursuit of an unpopular war in a mediocre manner led to the Italian coup. There was also vast radicalization in most Entente democracies because there was a well-founded feeling that generals had thoughtlessly fed soldiers by the million to the shredder of the machine gun.
 
Bor

And finaly someone said the truth.
A-H was a saturated country. Even oversaturated with Slavs. They were >50% of population and both Hungarians and Austrians were keen to avoid further enlargement of number of Slavs.
General voting right was a Damoclos sword for Hungarians. If all population of Hungaria get a right to wote ( and that should happen sooner or later ) then bye bye Hungarian hegemonism...
;)
And parliament of Austrian half was allready blocked with slavic majority there, so Emperor had to rule by decree.

While I agree with this in general principle, I would point out that one of the richest copper mines in Europe was at Bor in the northeast corner of Serbia so I would expect that patch of Serbia to get annexed. Likewise with the coastal strip of Montenegro incl. Mount Lovcen.
 
I bet Serbia DID suffer morale failure, even if it didn't suffer a change in regime.

Obviously regime-change in the normal way is impossible when the country is impossible when the country is occupied and the government in exile; but the Serbian army continued to fight (well, against the Slavic Bulgarians and not the Austrian or Turkish occupier) despite the total occupation of the country and was a major component of the forced that recaptured Belgrade in 1918. The Serbians people endured food shortages and partisan war that cost a huge portion of the population.

Some morale, some failure.

Also noteworthy are the Romanian army, which, after most of Romania was occupied, was the only Entente army on the eastern front to make gains in 1917, IIRC; and, of course, the Belgians.

And, people have SOME patience; it takes time for evidence to surface and a pattern of insufficiency to become clear.

What pattern? What insufficiency? Germany had, shortly before the final collapse, made dramatic gains in the west causing a last outbreak of triumphalism. Before that, she had occupied vast parts of Russia.

The reality was of course that the German army was in an untenable position; but during the Spring, people had been declaring public holidays and victory had supposedly been in sight.

And, being in the nominal winners' circle isn't enough to stop discontent.

Did I say it did? I would rather think I said the opposite.

Consistent pursuit of an unpopular war in a mediocre manner led to the Italian coup.

Signifying?

There was also vast radicalization in most Entente democracies because there was a well-founded feeling that generals had thoughtlessly fed soldiers by the million to the shredder of the machine gun.

That's a simplification, born of ignoring both the very considerable unrest which had taken place before the war and the reverent attitude that prevailed for most of the 20s about the "war for civilisation".
 

Cook

Banned
While I agree with this in general principle, I would point out that one of the richest copper mines in Europe was at Bor in the northeast corner of Serbia so I would expect that patch of Serbia to get annexed. Likewise with the coastal strip of Montenegro incl. Mount Lovcen.

This is baseless speculation since no territorial demands were made by Austria-Hungary in 1914 or plans ever made for such permanent acquisitions.

The reality is that the First World War was a train smash; it came without warning and was an entirely unplanned event. None of the great Powers had territorial ambitions in 1914; their actions were dictated by self-defence and a fear that their neighbours were moving against them.
 

Deleted member 1487

The reality is that the First World War was a train smash; it came without warning and was entirely unplanned.

I wouldn't say that; Germany was pressing for war because it saw its window of opportunity to best its foes militarily closing. AH wanted just about the same thing, which is why it sent the intolerable ultimatum that took about a month to craft. There were certainly desires for war, but the level to grew to was much more than what was planned by anyone.
 

Cook

Banned
Germany was pressing for war because it saw its window of opportunity to best its foes militarily closing. AH wanted just about the same thing.



No. This is assertion made in the Treaty of Versailles and is baseless. The desperate diplomatic efforts by all parties, particularly Germany make it plain that no-one wanted a war. Unfortunately the governments of each of the great powers were flailing about in an information vacuum, desperately nervous about the orders being issued in the other capital cities and terrified of being overtaken unprepared.

Austria-Hungary, as said before, had no plans for expansion or ambitions to do so. The demands made on Serbia were not unreasonable given that the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire had just been assassinated by an organisation with links to the Serbian Military.

Most likely the Austrians would have satisfied themselves with punishing Serbia militarily and required Serbia to resign the agreement of 1881 whereby Serbia agreed not to negotiate or sign any treaty with a third party without Austria’s approval, not to allow foreign forces on Serbia territory and to renounce permanently all claims to Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Serbian population living there. Article 2 of the 1881 treaty actually specifically said: ‘Serbia will not tolerate political, religious or other intrigues which, taking its territory as a point of departure, might be directed against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.’ The Serbian representatives had been happy to sign because in return the Habsburgs backed Prince Milan Obrenovic’s claim to the Serbian throne.

The Obrenovics were assassinated in 1903 by a group consisting of ultra-nationalists and members of the military who shot the royal family, hacked their bodies to pieces and threw the parts into the courtyard of the palace. One of the leaders of the coup was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijvic, who in 1913 because the head of Serbian Military Intelligence. By 1914 he was also one of the leaders of Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Union or Death), a Serbian organisation sworn to achieve ‘Greater Serbia’ by uniting Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia and Dalmatia with the Kingdom of Serbia. The Coup leaders supported Prince Petar Karadjordjevic as the new king and in return he supported Serb nationalist dreams.

Colonel Dimitrijvic probably imagined the Bosnian conspirators would just stir up trouble in Bosnia for the Habsburgs, at best possibly ferment a rebellion that expelled the Austro-Hungarians from Bosnia and led to a call for union with Serbia. The only people who seem to have had any hopes for a war were Gavrilo Princip and the other members of the Ujedinjenje ili Smrt who carried out the assasination and even then it’s doubtful, certainly they could not have imagined the war speading beyond the Balkans.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

No. This is assertion made in the Treaty of Versailles and is baseless. The desperate diplomatic efforts by all parties, particularly Germany make it plain that no-one wanted a war. Unfortunately the governments of each of the great powers were flailing about in an information vacuum, desperately nervous about the orders being issued in the other capital cities and terrified of being overtaken unprepared.

Austria-Hungary, as said before, had no plans for expansion or ambitions to do so. The demands made on Serbia were not unreasonable given that the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire had just been assassinated by an organisation with links to the Serbian Military.

Most likely the Austrians would have satisfied themselves with punishing Serbia militarily and required Serbia to resign the agreement of 1881 whereby Serbia agreed not to negotiate or sign any treaty with a third party without Austria’s approval, not to allow foreign forces on Serbia territory and to renounce permanently all claims to Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Serbian population living there. Article 2 of the 1881 treaty actually specifically said: ‘Serbia will not tolerate political, religious or other intrigues which, taking its territory as a point of departure, might be directed against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.’ The Serbian representatives had been happy to sign because in return the Habsburgs backed Prince Milan Obrenovic’s claim to the Serbian throne.

The Obrenovics were assassinated in 1903 by a group consisting of ultra-nationalists and members of the military who shot the royal family, hacked their bodies to pieces and threw the parts into the courtyard of the palace. One of the leaders of the coup was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijvic, who in 1913 because the head of Serbian Military Intelligence. By 1914 he was also one of the leaders of Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Union or Death), a Serbian organisation sworn to achieve ‘Greater Serbia’ by uniting Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia and Dalmatia with the Kingdom of Serbia. The Coup leaders supported Prince Petar Karadjordjevic as the new king and in return he supported Serb nationalist dreams.

Colonel Dimitrijvic probably imagined the Bosnian conspirators would just stir up trouble in Bosnia for the Habsburgs, at best possibly ferment a rebellion that expelled the Austro-Hungarians from Bosnia and led to a call for union with Serbia. The only people who seem to have had any hopes for a war were Gavrilo Princip and the other members of the Ujedinjenje ili Smrt who carried out the assasination and even then it’s doubtful, certainly they could not have imagined the war speading beyond the Balkans.

Then by your own admission AH wanted war, though no annexations.
I'm willing to admit that Germany would have preferred her ally gain a political victory without war, but the 'blank cheque' was offered with war in mind. Most modern historians are willing to admit Germany went to war willingly and were hoping it would come to war to break the iron ring around them. David Herrmann, Hew Strachan, John Keegan: all English language authors with little reason to blame Germany for the war all state that Germany sought war in 1914. Even Holger Herwig, one of the foremost historians on Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW1 states that German military leadership was hoping for war and pressuring everyone else in the government to go along with it. The Kaiser waffled, Bethman-Holweg saw a chance to redeem his political career, and the German nobility saw a chance to reinforce their dying system of political control over the Prussian government. "Germany" may not have wanted war, but the leadership all saw something to gain from it and ultimately pulled the trigger by declaring war on Russia and France instead of trying to negotiate.
 
I Blame Communism wrote
Obviously regime-change in the normal way is impossible when the country is impossible when the country is occupied and the government in exile; but the Serbian army continued to fight . . .
I got around to reading wiki on the subject. I believe the Serbians must've had good generalship, erspeciallly in the second half of the war. After all, it even brought Yugoslavia into being. That's what makes the biggest differences both in wins and general morale.

There's a famous case from our ACW of our General Grant taking over from a mediocrity in mountain Tennessee who'd let himself be beat and isolated; his men were starving and convinced they were beat. Not too much longer after, they'd revised that opinion enough to get food and win an important victory.
 
Austria-Hungary had just had the heir to the throne assassinated by an organisation of Serbians who, while all citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had been armed in Serbia and smuggled into Bosnia by a Serbian nationalist organisation, the Black Hand, which had links to Serbia’s Military Intelligence; the Austro-Hungarian Empire was out for vengeance.

The last thing the Austrians wanted was Serbian territory because Serbian territory came with Serbs, and there were too many Serbs in the Empire already, the incorporation of more would inevitably have led to further demands for political concessions, perhaps even a modification of the ‘dualism’ of political domination of the Empire by the ethnic Germans and Hungarians, on which the Empire rested. More Serbs may have resulted in the ‘dualism’ being diluted to a ‘trialism’ at the expense of the Hungarians whose political status was not justified by their numbers in the Empire; this was certainly the concern of Count Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister.

The Dual Monarchy was already evolving into a Triple Monarchy. The Galician Poles were given leeway to exercise their dominance over the Ukrainian, Slovak, and Ruthenian subject minorities. Chances are, a Serbia annexed entirely into the Dual Monarchy would've turned it into a Quad Monarchy, with Croatia exercising the same perogatives with the Serbs as the Galician Poles were enjoying.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Dual Monarchy was already evolving into a Triple Monarchy. The Galician Poles were given leeway to exercise their dominance over the Ukrainian, Slovak, and Ruthenian subject minorities. Chances are, a Serbia annexed entirely into the Dual Monarchy would've turned it into a Quad Monarchy, with Croatia exercising the same perogatives with the Serbs as the Galician Poles were enjoying.

Not really. What it was doing was devolving into federalism. At least in the Austrian half of the Empire. The triple crown idea had died out in 1907 when Franz Ferdinand rejected it and settled on reforming the Dual Monarchy, if not roll back the clock to an absolute monarchy. Kaiser Karl was still trying to figure out what to do and couldn't make up his mind (triple monarchy with all of Poland, separate Poland, federalize), but settled on doing nothing, that is until events forced him to recognize federalization after it was already too late. A victory would probably see Hungary get universal suffrage, and intense pressure for a triple monarchy based on Croatia. Galicia probably goes to Poland with a Habsburg monarch, who promptly gets marginalized. The AH army wanted Serbia annexed to prevent it becoming a source of instability outside the empire, but the Hungarians were blocking it. If they get unseated through violence, which is probably likely in the wake of victory and the political troubles in the Ausgleich of 1917, then Hungary will lose a LOT of territory to the 3rd crown of Yugoslavia...
 
Top