Who caused WW1 - revisited

[Orm]

Sorry, I might be a bit slow. Are you saying that Germany went to war with Serbia alongside AH?

I've always thought that the "blank cheque" was that Germany promised to support AH against Russia regardless of what AH did with the Serbian situation.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Sorry, I might be a bit slow. Are you saying that Germany went to war with Serbia alongside AH?

I've always thought that the "blank cheque" was that Germany promised to support AH against Russia regardless of what AH did with the Serbian situation.

warspite1

No. I guess that is where the word support can have different meanings. Germany did not go to war with AH against Serbia. They gave the required support in terms of the blank cheque; that Whatever action AH takes, Germany will support them. As said, in giving this Wilhelm expected AH would move immediately - no one on the general staff appeared to have disabused him of this notion....

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Well that makes for a very bleak outlook for the world doesn't it? What you are saying is that if an event of a certain magnitude happens, then people - world leaders, politicians, the military - do not think, the Germans, the Russians, the French etc didn't think they simply acted out their moves according to alliances - formal or informal....

I'm sure each state thought about what their respective allies would think if they didn't fulfill their obligations and that whatever happened it would all be over by Christmas.

warspite1

Except as I've said there was no obligation that had to be fulfilled by Germany (the blank cheque) to AH or Russia to Serbia or the UK to France (apart from guarding the channel ports).

Recall that the secret Sykes-Picot accord at the end of the war was just a "gentlemen's agreement" sent by letter.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the ... ement-1916

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




I'm sure each state thought about what their respective allies would think if they didn't fulfill their obligations and that whatever happened it would all be over by Christmas.

warspite1

Except as I've said there was no obligation that had to be fulfilled by Germany (the blank cheque) to AH or Russia to Serbia or the UK to France (apart from guarding the channel ports).

Recall that the secret Sykes-Picot accord at the end of the war was just a "gentlemen's agreement" sent by letter.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the ... ement-1916

warspite1

Sorry what has this agreement, formulated during World War I about the carving up of the Near East got to do with the subject at hand please?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Except as I've said there was no obligation that had to be fulfilled by Germany (the blank cheque) to AH or Russia to Serbia or the UK to France (apart from guarding the channel ports).

Recall that the secret Sykes-Picot accord at the end of the war was just a "gentlemen's agreement" sent by letter.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the ... ement-1916

warspite1

Sorry what has this agreement, formulated during World War I about the carving up of the Near East got to do with the subject at hand please?

warspite1

Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. I recommend Lawrence in Arabia (Anderson).

[Aurelian]

I think Austria bears a larger share than Serbia. Much larger. Why? Because after A-H sent their ultimatum to Serbia, Serbia's response was almost entirely placatory. Certainly the Kaiser thought so. "Now that Serbia has given in, all grounds for war have disappeared." (That same day, A-H declared war.) But A-H wasn't satisfied. She was determined to go to war. A-H felt threatened by Serbian ambitions in the Balkans as it was.

And what happened in 1993 has *nothing* to do with 1914.


http://firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm may be worth a read.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I think Austria bears a larger share than Serbia. Much larger. Why? Because after A-H sent their ultimatum to Serbia, Serbia's response was almost entirely placatory. Certainly the Kaiser thought so. "Now that Serbia has given in, all grounds for war have disappeared." (That same day, A-H declared war.) But A-H wasn't satisfied. She was determined to go to war. A-H felt threatened by Serbian ambitions in the Balkans as it was.

And what happened in 1993 has *nothing* to do with 1914.


http://firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm may be worth a read.

warspite1

Indeed and the key here is that AH could take that stance ONLY because of the blank cheque.

[Jagdtiger14]

This is already a long thread, so perhaps I am re-hashing here, but there are some facts I would like to present/remind:

1. The Serbian Prime Minister Pasic knew of the assignation beforehand and assisted it.
2. Two days after the assassination Germany and A-H advised Serbia to open an investigation, Serbian government refused.
3. After that refusal: Take a look at the ultimatum. An innocent government in my opinion would have no problem accepting every one of those points. Germany/A-H knew it would not be accepted by that particular belligerent military government, and also considering previous actions/statements such as #2 above (not because the ultimatum was unjustifiable). Serbia had 48 hours to accept it...the penalty if they did not?: recalling the Ambassador.
4. Prior to the end of the 48 hours, Russia sends a telegram of support to Serbia (blank check anyone?), Serbia mobilizes its army (in those days mobilization of the military was considered akin to a declaration of war). After Serbia rejects the vast majority of the ultimatum...A-H response? Breaking of diplomatic relations.
5. 24 hours later recently mobilized Serbian troops are seen crossing the Danube into the A-H side of the river and skirmish with A-H troops.
6. A-H then declared war and mobilized its army.
7. The Franco-Russo secret treaty of 1892 was revealed, in which France and Russia mobilized their military.

If anyone disputes facts above, I can provide sourcing.

If Germany gets the majority of the blame by some here because of its "blank check" to A-H, then why not Russia equally so for its "blank check" to Serbia? Once again I turn attention to the French with its desire for conflict with Germany under the right circumstances for revenge over a war they started and lost...and on top of that having a SECRET treaty with Russia that if it were known by Germany and A-H might have altered their calculations.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

This is already a long thread, so perhaps I am re-hashing here, but there are some facts I would like to present/remind:

1. The Serbian Prime Minister Pasic knew of the assignation beforehand and assisted it.
2. Two days after the assassination Germany and A-H advised Serbia to open an investigation, Serbian government refused.
3. After that refusal: Take a look at the ultimatum. An innocent government in my opinion would have no problem accepting every one of those points. Germany/A-H knew it would not be accepted by that particular belligerent military government, and also considering previous actions/statements such as #2 above (not because the ultimatum was unjustifiable). Serbia had 48 hours to accept it...the penalty if they did not?: recalling the Ambassador.
4. Prior to the end of the 48 hours, Russia sends a telegram of support to Serbia (blank check anyone?), Serbia mobilizes its army (in those days mobilization of the military was considered akin to a declaration of war). After Serbia rejects the vast majority of the ultimatum...A-H response? Breaking of diplomatic relations.
5. 24 hours later recently mobilized Serbian troops are seen crossing the Danube into the A-H side of the river and skirmish with A-H troops.
6. A-H then declared war and mobilized its army.
7. The Franco-Russo secret treaty of 1892 was revealed, in which France and Russia mobilized their military.

If anyone disputes facts above, I can provide sourcing.

If Germany gets the majority of the blame by some here because of its "blank check" to A-H, then why not Russia equally so for its "blank check" to Serbia? Once again I turn attention to the French with its desire for conflict with Germany under the right circumstances for revenge over a war they started and lost...and on top of that having a SECRET treaty with Russia that if it were known by Germany and A-H might have altered their calculations.

warspite1

Yes please, I would be grateful if you could provide the sources for each point. Thank-you.

[Jagdtiger14]

warspite1 Yes please, I would be grateful if you could provide the sources for each point. Thank-you.

Points 1-7:

1. - Dedijer, Vladamir (1966) The Road to Sarajevo, p. 298 and p. 388-389
- Owings, W.A. Dolph. (1984) The Sarajevo Trial, p. 61-64
- Albertini, Luigi (1953) Origins of the war of 1914, p. 90 and p. 99

2. Albertini, Luigi (1953) Origins of the war of 1914, p. 273
3. No need to source since you can find it on Wikipedia, but I will be happy to outline it point for point if need be.
4. Albertini, Luigi (1953) Origins of the war of 1914, p. 373
5. Albertini, Luigi (1953) Origins of the war of 1914, p. 461-462; p. 465
6. No need to source since the fact and date of A-H mobilization is common knowledge. I put this on the list to show they mobilized AFTER the Serbs and Serb action on the Danube.
7. No need to source since you can find the details easily on Wikipedia.

I will also add another point:
8. Russia was aware of the plot prior to June 14th. The Russian Military Attache promised Russia's protection from A-H if Serbia's intel op became exposed and that Russia had funded the assassination. The assistant attache admitted the involvement of his office and then fell silent on the subject.
- Trydar-Burzinski, louis (1926) Le Crepuscule d'une Autocratie p. 128
- De Schelking, Eugene (1918) Recollections of a Russian Diplomat, the suicide of Monarchies p.194-195

[altipueri]

LATE NEWS: Archduke Franz Ferdinand found alive. World War One all a mistake.

[Hotschi]

As I wrote earlier in another thread, it was the Habsburgian Austro-Hungarian Empire who started the whole bloody war. A "blank-cheque" by any other power, in this case by Germany, does not mean that A-H MUST go to war against Serbia.

It was "Kaiser" Franz-Joseph's bloody own decision to do so, and the resulting break-up and dissolution of this A-H Empire was definitely a good thing.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




Recall that the secret Sykes-Picot accord at the end of the war was just a "gentlemen's agreement" sent by letter.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the ... ement-1916

warspite1

Sorry what has this agreement, formulated during World War I about the carving up of the Near East got to do with the subject at hand please?

warspite1

Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. I recommend Lawrence in Arabia (Anderson).

I actually read that book.

And I see you answered your own question.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Sorry what has this agreement, formulated during World War I about the carving up of the Near East got to do with the subject at hand please?

warspite1

Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. I recommend Lawrence in Arabia (Anderson).

I actually read that book.

And I see you answered your own question.

warspite1

No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. I recommend Lawrence in Arabia (Anderson).

I actually read that book.

And I see you answered your own question.

warspite1

No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




I actually read that book.

And I see you answered your own question.

warspite1

No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

warspite1

So you are 'setting some kind of store by the fact it was a gentleman's agreement'? Why? If you've read the book you will know what a rubbish agreement it was.

What is the point you are making?

[Jagdtiger14]

and the resulting break-up and dissolution of this A-H Empire was definitely a good thing.

I agree with this statement, and it could have been accomplished by Bismarck in mid-1870's. Germany would not only have gotten prime real estate, but thankful and loyal allies (Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia), and secured a long-term peace with Russia+Serbia (giving Russia East Galacia, and eastern West Galacia; Serbia and Croatia splitting Bosnia along ethnic lines). Bismarck was asked about this, but he declined stating he didn't want to assume the ethnic problems of A-H. Here I assume Bismarck was thinking Germany would annex all of A-H...or maybe that was what he assumed the question was.

Imagine a German Empire looking like this from about 1875 on (splitting Europe in half, major Med port, additional national resources):

[warspite1]

Jagdtiger14

This is already a long thread, so perhaps I am re-hashing here, but there are some facts I would like to present/remind:

1. The Serbian Prime Minister Pasic knew of the assignation beforehand and assisted it.

That Pasic knew of the plot seems to be no longer in dispute – as told by Jovanovic, the Minister for Education - Sleepwalkers (Clark). But you say he assisted the plot. Clark does not believe this and makes a compelling case for the fact that, far from assisting the plot, Pasic tried to stop it and indeed warn Vienna (albeit that his attempts in both cases were not as strong as they perhaps could have been due to his own weak position). Pasic had good reason to seek to avoid a war – he knew just how poor the country’s position was following the Balkan Wars. Clark also makes clear that Pasic’s position was probably not strong enough to bring down the Black Hand and he had to walk a fine line. So according to your sources how did Pasic actually assist the plotters?

There remains the not insignificant question of to what extent did Austria-Hungary ‘know’ of Belgrade’s involvement – a somewhat important point as Austria-Hungary were about to declare war on a Sovereign nation. The wording of the ultimatum suggests that they were still unaware. “Perhaps the most interesting feature of this text……..is that it does not assert direct complicity on the part of the Serbian State in the murders at Sarajevo” - Sleepwalkers (Clark).

2. Two days after the assassination Germany and A-H advised Serbia to open an investigation, Serbian government refused.

Your wording here is designed to make the situation appear more black and white than it probably was. Serbia did not refuse, but equally it has to be said that Serbian investigations were not thorough and there appeared little chance that – prior to the Ultimatum – that Serbia were going to be of much help to Austria-Hungary (Clark)

3. After that refusal: Take a look at the ultimatum. An innocent government in my opinion would have no problem accepting every one of those points. Germany/A-H knew it would not be accepted by that particular belligerent military government, and also considering previous actions/statements such as #2 above (not because the ultimatum was unjustifiable).

This is a very strange comment. Have you read what the document says? Just about every source I have ever come across states that Serbia, if they accepted this Ultimatum, would be effectively handing over sovereignty to Vienna – although Clark is the one person who seem a little less bullish on this.

But your comment regarding an innocent country? Why would an innocent government have no problem with this? Whether innocent or guilty no government is going to give up its sovereignty in this way. But please tell me which parts do you think any country would be happy to accede to – and then imagine anyone asking the US to do the same?

Serbia had 48 hours to accept it...the penalty if they did not?: recalling the Ambassador.

I don’t understand the point about the penalty if Serbia refused. You say the penalty was to recall the Ambassador. Seriously? You are genuinely stating that had Russia not intervened, had Serbia not mobilised (both of which we’ll come to later) that all the Austrians would have done is recalled their Ambassador if the Serbians had refused?? There would have been no war?? The ultimatum was all about agree or we recall the Ambassador???

4. Prior to the end of the 48 hours, Russia sends a telegram of support to Serbia (blank check anyone?),

NO. In Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) the author makes clear this is no blank cheque. The Russian Ambassador Sazanov confirms that Russia will protect Serbia’s independence but in so doing urges Serbia to accept most of the Austro-Hungarian terms. So while still trying to get a peaceful solution the Russians were agreeing to protect a little independent nation from a bullying oppressor.

Serbia mobilizes its army (in those days mobilization of the military was considered akin to a declaration of war). After Serbia rejects the vast majority of the ultimatum...A-H response? Breaking of diplomatic relations.

Again is this serious? You said a failure to accept would mean a recall of the Ambassador. Now you are saying that because Russia have shown support the penalty is…. a break in diplomatic relations? That is all? This is bizarre.

But why did Serbia mobilise first? Well understandably realising that the ultimatum is not designed to be accepted, Serbia orders mobilisation on the 25th July 1914 just a few hours before they had to give their response to the Austro-Hungarians.

But effectively you are saying the only reason the Austro-Hungarian declared war is:

5. 24 hours later recently mobilized Serbian troops are seen crossing the Danube into the A-H side of the river and skirmish with A-H troops.

Well that is convenient! No other source I have read seems to believe this. “Next morning Berchtold informed his Emperor – mendaciously – that the Serbs had fired on Austria’s Danube Steamers - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings)

6. A-H then declared war and mobilized its army.

The way you have written this makes it sound like you are saying the Austro-Hungarians declared war and mobilised 24 hours after Serbia mobilised. Not true. Austria-Hungary declared war at 19:23 on the 25th (about an hour and a half after the expiry of the Ultimatum) and ordered mobilisation the same day – although Austria-Hungary being Austria-Hungary, the order did not actually take effect for two days -
(https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2 ... -mobilize/)

There was only going to be one outcome – and the Austrian Ambassador to Serbia was ordered to leave Serbia that evening - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings)

“On the evening 28th July Russian military intelligence reported that three-quarters of the Austrian Army was being mobilised, 12 out of 16 Corps – many more than were needed to tackle Serbia” - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings)

Russia mobilised on the 30th July - (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2 ... -mobilize/). Remember the partial mobilisation she had carried out previously was nothing different to what she had done in the winter of 1912-13 – without provoking hostilities - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings)

7. The Franco-Russo secret treaty of 1892 was revealed, in which France and Russia mobilized their military.

I will let someone else look at this if they so which as I have made my position clear. The key to why the Balkan crisis developed into WWI starts with A-H, Serbia, Russia and Germany.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

warspite1

So you are 'setting some kind of store by the fact it was a gentleman's agreement'? Why? If you've read the book you will know what a rubbish agreement it was.

What is the point you are making?

It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon.

[warspite1]

Removed posts as this was becoming unreadable

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon.

warspite1

And the point is in reference to who started WWI?