WWI guiltys?

...

If it's a secret body within the government, which, correct me if I'm wrong, means it's made up by higher-ranking government officials, isn't it still the government?

I'm not sure that Serbian Prime Minister was involved, nor do I know how many of his cabinet were involved. As far as I know the Black Hand was operating secretly within the Serbian Army - they technically would not be the government and it appears that only a select group of officers within the General Staff were members of the Black Hand.
 
I think Niall Ferguson madde some interesting points in his book 'The Pity of War'. Basically, he blames British diplomacy, or lack thereoff, for WW1. If the British had announced their intentions earlier one of two scenarios would have been made clear:

1) "Not our problem". France would have backed down because they wouldn't go to war with Germany which would have spanked them like a red-haired stepchild. Maybe a Germano-Russian war would have still taken place but we all know how that would have ended given the historical context.

2) "We'll side with France". I know everyone will fall over the Belgium invasion, but GB never gave any assurances to Belgium. (I'll refer you to Herman Koch's excellent books on WW1) If the Brits would have been more supportive of France not Even Wilhelm II would have dared to escalate this mess.

In the end I must say that AH's beligerance must be the main reason for 'a war' but that Britains dallying is the biggest reason for turning it in a World War.

Well, a World War as opposed to a CP curbstomp, perhaps - but by the time the British got into things it was far, faar too late to be stopped by the British saying things either way. The Germans weren't going to be scared off by the Brits (they could bring what? five divisions over by the time Von Kluck is marching through Paris?) and the French were equally confident in victory, with or without the British.

As for guilt? Ugh, it's an ugly question, since the whole mess was really like a big, ugly train pileup: sure, there are points where various people could have tired to brake but really once they get up to speed heading for each other (which I would put at around 1911 at the latest) it's more or less a question of how nasty the collision is going to be.

If I had to name someone, I'd say Conrad and Stuergkh, for pushing the whole thing into a war, and Von Moltke (jr) and Bethmann-Holweg for making sure it turned into a general war. That said, the idea of blaming it on anything less than "it was coming" seems a bit "Great Man" to me.
 
Military officers of a foreign state aided with the killing of the heir to the throne and his wife. Wars had been started over far less. Said involvement was also de facto proof that you couldn't trust them to actually run the investigation or do anything useful with the information it might turn up. This said the Hapsburgs didn’t care they crafted a note designed to be rejected from the get go.

As to Serbia its track record after the murder of the Obrenović’s and including it was fairly clear. They were an aggressive little state with Serbian newspapers openly calling for the dismemberment of the Hapsburg Empire, seizing Albania and the creation of a Serbian Empire in the Balkans. The bloodshed in Sarajevo was the solo responsibility of Belgrade and the Serbs; well the ArchDuke should have taken the hint after the first botched attempt and went home but that aside.

As to when to take them out… 1908 would have been better but a cause was needed and there was none other than the writing on the wall.

When the war was declared there was no proof that Serbian officers had any involvement in the assassination. That's equivalent to the WMD excuse for invading Iraq.

As for the aggressive little state, I'm not sure I understand the point here. More aggressive than Austria-Hungary itself, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, et. al.? I'm no fan of Serbia, but after Serbia accepted the ultimatum, the casus belli was gone. At the least, even with the reservation of the single point, it was more than adequate basis for negotiation.
 
Last edited:
That one thing they denied being the right fo austrian investigator sto investigate in Serbia. So, in fact, they still tried to obscure the issue, they rejected the ultimatum in its most important point. AH was perfectly justified in its actions, while Russia and France supported a criminal, terrorism supporting rogue state.


Serbia did not, and it was proven the man belonged to the Blakc Hand terrorist group, and it was known the Blakc Hand was supported and funded by the Serbian government. Really, its exactly the same as with Taleban Afghanistan and El Kaida after 9/11!

The 10 points of the ultimatum, all of which were accepted except #6, were:

1. Suppress publications which incite hatred and contempt of the Austrian Monarchy;

2. Dissolve Narodna Odbrana (National Defence) and similar societies, confiscate their means of propaganda, and prevent the societies from reforming under new names;

3. Eliminate from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and the methods of instruction, all that serves or might serve to foment propaganda against Austria-Hungary;

4. Remove from the military service and the administration in general all officers guilty of propaganda against Austria-Hungary, names of which Austria-Hungary reserved the right to provide;

5. Accept the collaboration in Serbia of organs of the Austro-Hungarian government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the monarchy;

6. Begin a judicial inquiry against the accessories to the plot of June 28th who are on Serbian territory, with organs delegated by the Austro-Hungarian government participating in the investigation; (Serbia agreed to keep AH informed of the results of proceedings)

7. Immediately arrest Major Vojislav Tankosić and Milan Ciganović who were implicated by the preliminary investigation undertaken by Austria-Hungary;

8. Prevent by effective measures the cooperation of Serbian authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier and to dismiss and severely punish those in the Serbian Frontiers Service who assisted the authors of the Sarajevo outrage;

9. Furnish Austria-Hungary with explanations regarding statements from high Serbian officials both in Serbia and abroad, who have expressed hostility towards Austria-Hungary; and

10. Notify Austria-Hungary without delay of the execution of these measures.

Agreeing to those nine points was an enormous capitulation of one sovereign state to another. That the Hapsburg ambassador rejected the Serbian response and left the country without consulting Vienna indicates that his instructions were to reject the response no matter what it was.

That is in no way comparable to Afghanistan and 9-11 where the Taliban wouldn't do anything at all. Read especially points 4 & 5 - these are very major concessions, and I'm not sure how #6 is "the main point" in comparison to these. The Serbians agreed to remove from their military and government all personnel that AH wanted!

The Serbian response to the ultimatum was more than enough basis for negotiation, and could have led to an international tribunal or some other solution to #6. Wilhelm himself was convinced that the Serbian capitulation had avoided war.

Even beyond that, even if you do reject the Serbian capitulation, it certainly doesn't justify invading Belgium, let alone France!
 

Susano

Banned
Agreeing to those nine points was an enormous capitulation of one sovereign state to another. That the Hapsburg ambassador rejected the Serbian response and left the country without consulting Vienna indicates that his instructions were to reject the response no matter what it was.
Or that he would only accept the entire plan being accepetd by teh Serbian government.

That is in no way comparable to Afghanistan and 9-11 where the Taliban wouldn't do anything at all. Read especially points 4 & 5 - these are very major concessions, and I'm not sure how #6 is "the main point" in comparison to these. The Serbians agreed to remove from their military and government all personnel that AH wanted!
Which apparently was kinda neccessary, seeing what just happened. The Taleban, for that matter, said they were ready to ehject El Kaida if America showed enough proof. In the end they did nothing, yes, but they did try to neogotiate. And in the end, both Serbia and Taleban Afghanistan decided not to let the Austrian respectively American courts do their work.

Even beyond that, even if you do reject the Serbian capitulation, it certainly doesn't justify invading Belgium, let alone France!
France already had made it clear it would join the war. Who attacked first was a matter of formality. Belgium, okay, but that didnt start the war.
 
Or that he would only accept the entire plan being accepetd by teh Serbian government.


Which apparently was kinda neccessary, seeing what just happened. The Taleban, for that matter, said they were ready to ehject El Kaida if America showed enough proof. In the end they did nothing, yes, but they did try to neogotiate. And in the end, both Serbia and Taleban Afghanistan decided not to let the Austrian respectively American courts do their work.


France already had made it clear it would join the war. Who attacked first was a matter of formality. Belgium, okay, but that didnt start the war.

The Taliban were being evasive and noncooperative. The Serbians made gigantic concessions and only refused to completely surrender their sovereignty. These are just not comparable situations - the Taliban rejected ALL the US demands.

In any case, you're ignoring the point that the Serbian capitulation was adequate basis for a negotiated settlement. The Hapsburgs deliberately started an avoidable war based on a flimsy excuse.

They didn't declare war on Italy after an Italian officer assassinated the actual regnant empress of Austria-Hungary...
 
Well, a World War as opposed to a CP curbstomp, perhaps - but by the time the British got into things it was far, faar too late to be stopped by the British saying things either way. The Germans weren't going to be scared off by the Brits (they could bring what? five divisions over by the time Von Kluck is marching through Paris?) and the French were equally confident in victory, with or without the British.

I really don't think the French would have started the war without the British, could you maybe source that opinion? Also the diplomatic wheels were turning for almost a month before AH invaded Serbia and the British kept quite uncomitted during this time. There was some hubris amongst the Germans but Moltke had a breakdown when the war started so I'm not quite convinced.

As for guilt? Ugh, it's an ugly question, since the whole mess was really like a big, ugly train pileup: sure, there are points where various people could have tired to brake but really once they get up to speed heading for each other (which I would put at around 1911 at the latest) it's more or less a question of how nasty the collision is going to be.

If I had to name someone, I'd say Conrad and Stuergkh, for pushing the whole thing into a war, and Von Moltke (jr) and Bethmann-Holweg for making sure it turned into a general war. That said, the idea of blaming it on anything less than "it was coming" seems a bit "Great Man" to me.

Ofcourse, WW1 was a culmination of idiotic decisions/misunderstandings/hubris/false assumptions/arrogance etc....
 
I think Niall Ferguson madde some interesting points in his book 'The Pity of War'. Basically, he blames British diplomacy, or lack thereoff, for WW1. If the British had announced their intentions earlier one of two scenarios would have been made clear:

1) "Not our problem". France would have backed down because they wouldn't go to war with Germany which would have spanked them like a red-haired stepchild. Maybe a Germano-Russian war would have still taken place but we all know how that would have ended given the historical context.

2) "We'll side with France". I know everyone will fall over the Belgium invasion, but GB never gave any assurances to Belgium. (I'll refer you to Herman Koch's excellent books on WW1) If the Brits would have been more supportive of France not Even Wilhelm II would have dared to escalate this mess.

In the end I must say that AH's beligerance must be the main reason for 'a war' but that Britains dallying is the biggest reason for turning it in a World War.



Susano, I don't think you can equate the AH's demands to 'just some visiting investigators'. The Ultimatum was explicitly tailored to be unacceptable to any nation at the time. The thing they disagreed with would have, at the very least, have cost a temporary loss of sovreignty. The AH-empire and Serbia were, since Serbia's inception, always at odds over territory. (I will refer you to John Keegan here.)

Regards,
Rhysz
1- France wanted revenge. I believe that they would go to war with Russia in their side. I don´t think that the french knowed where is Serbia but they want a cassius belli.
2- A-H would never allow a country as insignificant as Serbia leaving without scratch after the murder. That would mean A-H dead. Germany would support that ever without Uk or against Uk, Russia and France together because they would never defeat Germany. They only could tie the game. USA was the key.

The question is: was Serbia an "Afganistan", a paradise of terrorists or an Irak, a nation that hate A-H but that can´t accept the ultimatum.
 

Susano

Banned
In any case, you're ignoring the point that the Serbian capitulation was adequate basis for a negotiated settlement. The Hapsburgs deliberately started an avoidable war based on a flimsy excuse.
Granted about the possibiliyt of negotiations, but it was no "flimsy excuse". The assassination of a crown prince was reason enough to act... less than diplomatic.

They didn't declare war on Italy after an Italian officer assassinated the actual regnant empress of Austria-Hungary...
...Empress (Consort) you mean, surely? In any case, that was by a lone guy and not by a group funded by the Italian Government. Whereas the Black Hand WAS funded by Serbia!
 

maverick

Banned
They didn't declare war on Italy after an Italian officer assassinated the actual regnant empress of Austria-Hungary...

Sissi? wasn't she killed by an anarchist? who wanted to actually kill the King of Italy?
 
I really don't think the French would have started the war without the British, could you maybe source that opinion? Also the diplomatic wheels were turning for almost a month before AH invaded Serbia and the British kept quite uncomitted during this time. There was some hubris amongst the Germans but Moltke had a breakdown when the war started so I'm not quite convinced.

As stated above France didn't start a war without Britain. The German plan they committed to involved attacking France whether France was openly supporting Russia or not. [True it would have been difficult for France to leave its only ally to be destroyed by Germany and Austria and leaving it isolated but Germany plans made that point irrelevant].

It might be that Germany would have refraimed from war if Britain had openly committed to France in the event of a German attack. [Although that seems a bit of a strange attitude since you claim France and Russia were wrong to oppose German/Austria plans]. The evidence doesn't seem to support this as Germany seems to have concluded that it must strike 1st and win a two front war quickly and also that it could win in the west before Britain could intervene.

The other, more crictical problem with the idea is that Britain is a democracy and was not committed formally to an alliance. It was worried about the behaviour of Germany but knew that public opinion was divided on the issue. As such, it was only when Germany initiated the war in the west, by the invasions that breached international agreements both British and German governments had signed, that public opinion was moblised enough for Britain to actually commit to war.

Of course, WW1 was a culmination of idiotic decisions/misunderstandings/hubris/false assumptions/arrogance etc....

On that we're in full agreement.:)

Steve
 
Top