I don t think Germany really cared about an Austrian noble being killed, they just saw it as agood pretext for startibg a war and implementing their plan on dominating Europe.
My personal theory on WWI
I don t think Germany really cared about an Austrian noble being killed, they just saw it as agood pretext for startibg a war and implementing their plan on dominating Europe.
Very groundbreaking stuff, anon. It's not like most Entente leaders thought the same thing and Wilhelm II was seen as most responsible for WWI.
Thats really moronic because the Germans didnt have designs on England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, or The Balkans.
>honor an ancient formal alliance
>YOU ARE A WARMONGER
Britain in WWII
>half support a makeshift defensive pact with a corrupt rump state that you deny the legitimacy of to the UN
>so honorable King Arthurs ghost emerged to approve of the Polish-French anti-German treaty
no one thinks that and Russian mobilization is an act of aggression.
Countries today give out endless amounts of support and it is not seen as a pretext for war but rather something of a low level proxy war if that.
>Thats really moronic because the Germans didnt have designs on England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, or The Balkans.
they have design for eastern Europe
>Thats really moronic because the Germans didnt have designs on England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, or The Balkans.
But they did have designs on Russia and Belgium.
Scandinavia and Spain don't even have anything to do with this?
>Germans didnt have designs on England
>built a fleet that was literally only suitable for war against England
Brits are a mongrel people, don't expect logic from them unlike the Germans.
>Thats really moronic because the Germans didnt have designs on England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, or The Balkans.
And so what?
It was already a world war the moment they attacked Russia and France
>Thats really moronic because the Germans didnt have designs on England, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, or The Balkans.
Biggest moron
That's the postwar propoganda narrative and so everything you read will maintain that narrative. In reality Russia was threatening Austria and Germany because it wanted to support south Slavs and get them in their empire eventually. They started to mobilise troops on Germany's border first even before Austria and ignored all peace overtures from Wilhelm II. If Russia had won the war they wouldve conquered the Balkan states, of course they lost badly, but not before invading East Prussia etc. before Germany could even transfer troops there.
Sure.
Most historians do blame Germany for escalating it into a world war when it could have remained a regional conflict.
Russian moblization was meant as a deterrence, not to start a war. Same with the German 'Blank Cheque' to Austria wasnt meant to start a war between Germany and Russia, but as a deterrence against Russia to back off.
Germany tried to enable Austria to attack Serbia.
Russia tried to deny Austria to attack Serbia.
The mobilization was an answer to the German blank cheque.
The Russians however did not realize that their mobilization has consequently triggered German pre-war planning which demanded a victory in the west before Russia could mobilize, so the Germans felt compelled to attack. It was all a series of miscommunication from both Berlin and Petersburg trying to figure our each others intentions and calling each others bluffs. Just like ww2, no one wanted a major war and believed it would be a regional conflict.
It was also the Russians who immedately proposed to halt all hostilities and call for a peace conference once the Russian leadership realized what was happening, but the Germans were uninterested. The pendulum was already in full swing and Germany attacked France and Belgium.
That's absurd, and I sincerely doubt most historians, or really any historians, believe it. If Germany did not intervene Russia would have kicked Austria-Hungarys teeth in, which Germany naturally could not allow under any circumstances. The only way it could have remained a regional war is if Russia stayed out of it, and that's what both Germany and Austria-Hungary wanted.
You dont get it.
Yes Russia would have defeated Austria in a isolated war (this is in hindsight tho, not a general opinion shared by the people at the time)
That was the point. Russia was attempting to deter Austria from attacking. War was never the actual plan.
The mobilization was a response to Germanys assurances to Austria. Germany had raised the stakes and it emboldened Austria to continue.
When Russia realized that the Germans were preparing for war, they briefly cancelled the moblization (resumes it again because the Germans were continuing their preparations).
There was a flurry of telegrams from the Russian tsar urging Germany to de-escalate and resolve the issue at the Haag. The germans ultimately ignored this and proceeded to invade Belgium.
It was most certainly the general opinion of the time, infact the military strength of Russia tended to be overestimated rather than underestimated. And "good intentions" doesn't change the fact that it was the Russians who escalated a regional war, although you're partially wrong about those "good intentions". The mobilization was meant to deter Austria from punishing Serbia, but if need be the Russians were willing to go to war over it, which is why war broke out. Your claim that the Russians reissued the mobilization because of German military preparations is simply false as no such preparations took place until the 31st AFTER the Russians ordered total mobilization on the 30th and rejected German requests to once again rescind the order.
>It was most certainly the general opinion of the time
Nope it wasnt, and that was the reason UK aligned with the Entete. Doubts on Russias military capabilties were serious when they become the first European superpower to lose a war vs an Asian military, which was practically unheard of.
Again you are arguing in hindsight.
Also the Austrians believed they had the perfect plan to quickly defeat the Russians in the opening phase of the war. Series of miscommunication and organization errors in the opening month of the war caused this to not happen. The Austrians were confident they could eliminate Serbia quickly and then defeat the Russian army on the field.
This is why ww1 broke out, and why the Germans refused negotiations that the Russians suggested in their telegrams. They, and almost everyone else, were confident they had the perfect plan for a swift victory.
Youre still ignoring the fact that Russia briefly cancelled their mobilization in order to calm the situation, the mobilization wasnt meant to provoke a war, it was meant to deter it.
The exact same happened in ww2. Britains assurance to Poland wasnt to bait Germany into war, they British made it clear they would honor their agreement and Hitler must find other options or simply back down, not invade. The British believed by giving assurance Germany wouldnt invade, it would be too much of a gamble.
You're also ignoring the fact that Russian mobilization was only partial; it wasnt a full mobilization
And you are ultimately ignoring the fact that Russia tried in the last few days to urge Germany to agree to a convention in Haag to immediately cease the escalation. The Germans ignored it.
9 years had passed since the Russo-Japanese War, in those 9 years the Russian army had grown increasingly stronger and everyone knew it. Plus the war was fought in the far end of the Empire, connected to the rest of Russia only by a single railway line, which meant that the Russians could have never gone in full force against Japan as they could against their western neighbours. And the Austrians most certainly did not believe that they stood a chance against Russia on their own, which is why they ensured themselves of German support long before they took any measures. Their plan was that Germany would deter Russia so that it would only be a regional war.
The rescinding of the mobilization order wasn't an attempt at deescalation, it was a moment of indecisiveness, which should be obvious if you consider the fact that it took less than 24 hours for the Russians to change their minds again. And the mobilization that they finally implemented on the 30th wasn't a partial mobilization, it was a full mobilization, and they knew damn well that it was likely to lead to war, but since they had a promise of French support they were willing to take the risk.
I honestly haven't heard about this supposed Russian offer of taking it to the Hague, and seeing that you've gotten a number of other facts wrong I am not going to take your word for it.
Stronger how? What exactly are you talking about when you said they got increasingly stronger?
And why have they grown in strenght in portportion to everyone else? Shouldnt that statement be applied to virtually everyone? Including Japan?
It doesnt matter if it was fought in the far east of the country. Britain can fight on the far side of the world and still wouldnt lose. The fact that youre apologetic to the Russian defeat means there was flaws in the Russian military which made it difficult to fight over a wider campaign. Maybe logistics? Doesnt matter. The argument is the same, the world was shocked that Japan defeated Russia.
You call the halt order on the mobilization a moment of indecisiveness. Why was there any indecisiveness? Arent you just not arguing semantics now? It was cancelled for a reason, even if brief. If anything, it shows that the Russians were not committed to war as the Germans were. And it goes hand in hand with the fact that Russia tried to call for a peace conference in the Hague just days before the outbreak, knowing that world war was around the corner (the fact that you dont know about this proposed peace conference shows a great deal of misinformation on your part on this topic).
The Russians at first did a partial mobilization on the 29th of July. This mobilization was a response to the Austrian mobilization from 25th of July. It was this partial moblization which the Germans reacted on and began to mobilize. The Russian general mobilization happened on the 31st.
I dont know why you so vehemently defend Germany in this debate. It's quite clear they are the odd one out in this equation. Russia and Austria were still showing each others muscles and then Germany declares war on everyone.
>there was flaws in the Russian military which made it difficult to fight over a wider campaign. Maybe logistics?
NTA, but one major reason that the Russian fleet was defeated in the far east was because of British meddling. Britain mined the route Russia took with its ships as it exited the North Sea, causing damage to Russian ships. It also prevented Russia from using ports in neutral Ethiopia, Morocco, or Thailand, or the Dutch east indies, to restock and refuel en route to Japan. Britain also supplied the Japanese fleet. Whether this was decisive in the outcome I can’t speculate, but it certainly WAS the principle cause of the poor performance of the Russian fleet in battle.
You may very well be right, but it's somewhat in hindsight based on careful analysis. To the people at the time, a European 'great power' being defeated by an Asian nation was a major deal and did cast doubts on Russia.
Britain aligned itself with the entente because it believed Russia and France wouldnt be enough to defeat Germany and Austria.
>Britain mined the route Russia took with its ships as it exited the North Sea, causing damage to Russian ships.
That's an outright fricking lie. The only damage to the Russian ships was caused when they blundered into a group of unarmed British fishing trawlers, opened fire on them and managed to wind up lighting themselves up.
>That's an outright fricking lie
The rabbi has arrived to set the record straight
>they blundered into a group of unarmed British fishing trawlers, opened fire on them and managed to wind up lighting themselves up.
Oh okay thanks chaim. That’s DEFINITELY what happened
Yeah anon, the British totally mined their own commercial sea lanes just for the chance to screw up the powerful, completely competent Russian fleet. Then they let part of it pass through the Suez canal for reasons, I guess
If you accept the british version of events, then you might simply be mentally handicapped.
sound less moronic than accepting the version of events of an anonymous moron with no more evidence than dude trust me bro
>he accepted HRT from the ~~*doctor*~~
Many such cases.
>british come up with horseshit illogical story
>it’s brazenly fake
>100 years pass
>a troony appears
>he BELEIEVS it
Lol. LMAO even.
>Rabbi
/pol/homosexual detected. I always suspected this whenever there is a topic that even slightly involves Germany.
>the Russo-Japanese war involves Germany
You alright there noser?
it was nip torpedo boats that attacked poor russian warships
Russia was industrializing, their western neighbours were already industrialized, and they were greatly expanding the size and capability of their army. Infact when people blame the war on Germany they will usually claim that the Germans thought that they had to go to war before Russia became too strong, and that's because it is true that Russia was growing at an alarming rate (but it is not true that the Germans orchestrated the war because of it), so it is a bit strange you're oblivious to this.
It most certainly matters that it was fought in the Russian far east, and yes it was because of logistics. Britain would likewise have had a huge logistical disadvantage if they went up against the US in Canada or if they went up against Russia in India (which was arguably the largest reason why they pursued detente with Russia). The world was shocked by the war, but in the long term it changed how they viewed Japan alot more than how they viewed Russia.
The halt of the mobilization order does not show that the Germans were more commited to war than the Russians as the Germans HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING YET. You accuse me of misinformation for not being aware of something while you're spreading blatant falsehoods. The Germans DID NOT began to mobilize until AFTER the Russians started mobilizing on the 30th.
The Austrians were not showing their muscles, despite the threat posed by Russia they had only gone for a partial mobilization directed at Serbia so as to not provoke Russia, as neither Austria or their German allies wanted the Russians to get involved. However, when the Russians mobilized they showed that they were willing to go to war over this. Of course the Germans could have waited and tried to settle it peacefully, but unless the Russians rescinded the mobilization order again, which they refused to do, the Germans would have been left at a serious disadvantage if negotiations failed, which seemed like a very plausible outcome.
>Nope it wasnt, and that was the reason UK aligned with the Entete. Doubts on Russias military capabilties were serious when they become the first European superpower to lose a war vs an Asian military, which was practically unheard of.
It very much was, which is why the Germans intervened on Austria-Hungary's behalf in the first place. German decision-makers feared that Russia (and France) were engaged in major armaments programs that would in short order leave them unable to prevail in a military contest. German planning allowed for East Prussia to be overrun by the Russian Army while the German Army focused on rapidly eliminating France.
No what the Germans feared was that British industry would outpace Germany, and Russian railway expansion would make mobilization too quickly + the demographic advantages were only widening. This is why many people argue that Germany encouraged Austria to be aggressive rather than diplomatic. War was better now than later.
It was also the reason why Germany backed Austria to begin with; The habsburg monarchy was fracturing as Czechs and Hungarians and croats and bosnians demanded more autonomy and likely eventual independence. This would create a cluster of smaller states that Russia would extend its influence over.
Germany was locked in a position where France was a default enemy while Russia was the real threat emerging to Germanys continental posiiton.
Germany was successfully building their Mitteleuropa project by dominating south east Europe economically and making huge investments into the Berlin-Baghdad railway.
Austria just taking it on the chin and allowing Serb terrorists to destabilize the region and ruin everything was not acceptable for them.
They didn't wish for a war with Russia at all, but if there was going to be one then it was better to have it in 1914 instead of a few years down the line. In the end Russia was the one who chose to mobilize and turn the local conflict into a global one.
I mean you can draw this so far down the line on who enabled the conflict
Austrian mobilization led to Russian mobilization led to German declaration of war on Russia, France and Belgium.
The Austrians knew that Russia wasnt just going to let Serbia be crushed and likely annexed like Bosnia.
This war wasnt about attacking Serbia in order to root out the Black Hand. The war was about eliminating Serbia as a state. We know that from records of the Austrians intentions, and how they would handle the Serbian occupation during the war. It was annexation.
This right here I believe relieves Russia from the guilt of interfering, the focus should instead be on Austria to have a more diplomatic in their intentions and demands from the assassination. Most south-Slavs in the Habsburg did not want to belong to the crown. The annexation of Bosnia in 1908 sparked as crisis of its own which almost led to war. Austria was rattling the hornet nest knowingly and thus they have some responsibility too when a crisis emerges against them.
Now the war would still have been a regional conflict even if Russia declared war on Austria.
You can say that Germany is relieved of guilt for declaring war because if they didnt stand by Austria then Austria would be crushed, but you can say that exact same line regarding Russias committment to Serbia.
This is more of a "Versailles debate" by the way, where Germany was wrongfully accused of being responsible for ww1. There are those who believe this because there are many hints that suggests Germany wanted a war in 1914 because it was prepared for war and needed a war before they would be severely undermined by the growing strength of their rivals. The Germans had told the Austrians to back off multiple times before because the Germans simply werent ready for a war.
I personally dont believe in this thesis and I personally put the blame of ww1 on Austria because their imperialist ambitions provoked a deteriorating situation
First time posting in this thread and I might develop further on this after I get off work, but it’s easy to be sympathetic towards Austria-Hungary and their frustrations towards Serbia when you consider Serbia’s actions in the last decade or so.
Serbia by the late 1900s and early 1910s was acting almost as an appendage of Russia itself, through the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, Hartwig, who exercised tremendous influence on Serbia’s foreign policy. They were repeatedly infringing on Austria's borders and becoming more rowdy. They almost even refused to heed an international committee that warned them not to occupy Albania during the Balkan wars (which would have given Russia its centuries-long goal of a warm water port in the Mediterranean). The Austrians stood by as they saw this Russian almost-puppet gorge itself with the remnants of the Ottoman empire in Europe, and never threatened them with war. Only to be met by scathing resentment from Serbia, most of which had to do with the Serbian royal family resenting Austria for being on friendly terms with the previous Serbian ruling dynasty (overthrown in the last decade).
It's honestly admirable the restraint Austria-Hungary had for a "Great Power" that by all the rights could have proclaimed their zone of influence was being breached.
>The war was about eliminating Serbia as a state.
Where the frick are you getting this nonsense from? In the discussions the Austrian leadership held before sending the ultimatum not only did they decide against eliminating Serbia, they decided against even annexing a part of Serbia, largely thanks to Tisza, the Hungarian PM, who ardently opposed bringing any more South Slavs into the Empire. Instead they were to give out parts of Serbia to its neighbours while allowing a weakened rump state to remain.
Later during the war there were plans to eliminate Serbia though, but that was more so on the initiative of Bulgaria than Austria.
>This right here I believe relieves Russia from the guilt of interfering
No it doesn't since it isn't true.
>Russia wasnt just going to let Serbia be crushed and likely annexed
It was not Russia’s sphere of influence, as per the international agreements Russia made in and after 1877. Furthermore, Russia was interfering to protect a state that had done the unthinkable in dynastic Europe- killed the sole heir to a powerful throne. What on earth was Russia thinking?
>The war was about eliminating Serbia as a state.
Smells like atrocity propaganda.
>Most south-Slavs in the Habsburg did not want to belong to the crown.
This is also untrue. Most Bosnians were enthralled about joining with Austria, and looked foreard to the eocnomic development and prosperity that union with the empire would bring.
>The Germans had told the Austrians to back off multiple times before because the Germans simply werent ready for a war.
This isn’t true.
>The habsburg monarchy was fracturing as Czechs and Hungarians and croats and bosnians demanded more autonomy and likely eventual independence.
This is often-parroted British postwar propaganda. Austria was actually a very successful multicultural state before the war. After the creation of the dual monarchy, development and changed habits caused the various ethnicities to enjoy Austrian rule much more. For example, before the war, Czechs almost all wanted to remain in Austria. Even most Bosnians wanted Austria; Princep was an anomaly (and mostly supported by the Serbian state anyway).
>Doubts on Russias military capabilties were serious
This is your head canon. The west had military attaches with the Russian and Japanese forces. The Battle of Mukden was largest battle fought in human history up to that point. Just because Russia lost doesn't mean they were pushovers, on the contrary.
And look at how the war was settled, Japan had to contend with virtually no territorial gains because the losses meant nothing to Russia and they could've just send more armies and beat Japan. That didn't bode well at all in regards to a any future conflict with Russia.
Russia was responsible for this conflict’s escalation. Imagine if after 9/11, some other country like Russia or the EU had threatened America with war if it invaded Afghanistan. Two very similar scenarios.
Yeah, I wont say that Russia arent half mongoloid opportunist shits, but really, Germany gave her pretty good pretext. invading Belgium and Netherlands wasnt sound either.
>invading Belgium and Netherlands
Netherlands was neutral in ww1 during whole time
this anon is correct, however in superreality all of the main European powers were power hungry and aiming at starting a war, Russians, Krauts, and Austros.
The Eastern European slice up was a mess waiting to happen.
The bigger issue arching over even that one was that Europe was economically growing, but becoming boxed in by wider wold developments. Such as the Philippines going to the US instead of Germany, strangling it of the new raw resource sources and foreign markets it desperately needed. Or Albania becoming independent and reliant on italy, turning the gates of the Adriatic from a place where two powers (ottoman and italian) can be pitted against eachother so austria can slide in and out of the sea, into a prison where austria had to appease italy in order to get in or out. Russia was eager to do SOMETHING because of its disastrous defeat against Japan just 9 years prior, and its ensuing revolution that was narrolwy averted. Russian expansion into china was thwarted.
Do you nootice anything?
All you need to read is tragedy and hope. The israelites wanted to curtail Germany’s power by preventing them from linking up with the ottomans and their eventual exploitation of their oil in Iraq. The biggest threat to them was the Baghdad to Berlin railway line that was to designed to bus that oil to Berlin. That oil would have given the Germans energy independence and enough strength to get rid of the old order. The Serbs were given the go ahead to invade Kosovo in 1912 and to drag Austria into a war in which Russia would also drag itself into the war and then Germany, Britain and France.
I bet the israelites also forced Germany to attack neutral Belgium which Britain couldn't ignore.
>believing Anglo israelite propaganda
Damn, they really are behind every event. Are they the ubermensch?
Belgium was a very, very silly excuse, and laughed at by Britons at the time. They would have gone to war whether belgium was invaded or not. Britain had a similar treaty with greece but broke it to try and force it into the war. They would have done the same with belgium.
>The israelites wanted to curtail Germany’s power
Except German israelites were the most assimilated and integrated israelites on the planet, pre-WWI Germany was literally the best place to be a israelite.
>pre-WWI Germany was literally the best place to be a israelite
Which is why they had to destroy it, so that they could perpetuate their victminhood narrative.
Quite detestible aren't they?
Kind of like how america is today, yet look at how they treat it.
Germany was basically the same as Britain or France for israelites, maybe even a bit worse. The country that was actually the most israelite-friendly was Austria-Hungary
This. Well it was also about toppling the european world order in general and creating an opening for communism- which was the planned vehicle to put them at the top in the early 20th century. Germany was the main opponent and target, yes, but they wanted to get rid of ALL the european empires in general. Germany was the strongest and the “heir apparent” to “caput mundi”. Like how the british were the zenith of european power in the orevious century, and the french in the century before that, and spain before that.
It's not just a theory, that's an established fact
>On 2 July, the Saxon Ambassador in Berlin wrote back to his king that the German Army wanted Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia as quickly as possible because the time was right for a general war since Germany was more prepared for war than either Russia or France. On 3 July, the Saxon military attaché in Berlin reported that the German General Staff "would be pleased if war were to come about now".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#German_officials_reassure_Austria-Hungary_of_its_support
The German General Staff did not have the power to declare war.
I am sure these were very real transcripts and not “discovered” by trevor roper types decades later.
>The guys in charge of the fighting would be happy to fight
Doesn't really mean much
>I blindly swallow Entente propaganda
Damn you genius, no one has thought of that before!
This is a very unique and different take. It takes a very high IQ and creative mind to come up eith this mindblowing theory. It is Not sponsered by all mainstream historians at all. and not sponsered by history entertainment media like youtube and history channel either.
>Germans finish widening the Kiel Canal in June 1914 (allowing them to shift dreadnoughts from the batlic to the north sea)
>by pure coincidence a war breaks out a month later
Pic related predicted when the Germans would kick things off way back in 1907.
>Wilhelm II called British balance of power principles "idiocy," but agreed that their statement was a “desirable clarification” of British policy.[1] His opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does…then war would be unavoidable for us, too,”[1] and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better".[1] Moltke "wanted to launch an immediate attack."[3]
>Both Wilhelm II and the Army leadership agreed that if a war were necessary it were best launched soon. Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years”[1] because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy's prerequisites for war.[1] The British historian John Röhl has pointed out the coincidence that the date for completion of the widening of the Kiel Canal was the summer of 1914,[3] but a reading of the report of the conference shows no agreement as to a war in 1914. However, Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz.[1] Moltke yielded "only reluctantly."[3]
Russia started WWI by launching a full mobilization on July 30 and stationing troops along the Austro-Hungarian border in preparation for an invasion to save Serbia.
Russia turned a local conflict into a global one.
Russian mobilization was a response to Austrian mobilization which happened on the 25th on July.
It was Germany who was the odd number in this equation. Austria and Russia showing each others muscles and then Germany just declares war on everyone and refuse to a peace conference
This is dishonesty. Fisrt of all, it frames Austrian mobilization as the cause of the war. Russian ambitions in the Balkans are far less justifiable than Austrian motivations to attack serbia. In fact, without the Russian Blank Check to Serbia, Serbia may have been more willing to avoid war with austria altogether and acquiesce to its demands.
I would hold Austria more responsible since it was Austria who:
1. Mobilized
2. Declared war.
Russia was still neutral even after the declaration of war on Serbia and still tried to urge restrain.
Austria should not have attacked Serbia when they knew there was a major risk Russia intervene but they did it anyway.
They did it because Germany said they could.
I still think that it was very poor diplomacy on the part of Russia to threaten war at that specific time. Like I wrote in a prior post, it would be like Russia demanding the US not invade Afghanistan after 9/11. Such demands would necessarily lead to war.
Difference here is that Austria was an empire seeking to completely destroy Serbia as an existing state which has far more critical geopolitical consequences if successful, so the Russian perspective becomes more reasonable when urging Austria to calm the frick down.
The Austrians actually hesitated, and NATO probably would have as well. What made Austria go-ahead was when Germany gave them their full support. Had the Germans also urged Austria to resort to diplomacy over invasion, it's likely cooler-heads would have prevailed, there would have been a conference. not a ultimatum.
The Serbs accepted pretty much all demands, except for the one that would have Austrian military stationed inside Serbia, since it would basically give Austria control of the country.
>Austria was an empire seeking to completely destroy Serbia as an existing state
Is there any proof of this that comes from Austria itself, not the Allies from a post-war justification narrative?
It seems more likely that the worst Austria would do is absorb Serbia into itself. Which I consider highly unlikely based on the empire’s difficulties with Bosnia.
Austrian mobilization only threatened a local war against Serbia. Russian mobilization turned that local conflict into a global one.
Why was Russia so determined to break into the Balkans, anyway? It had hardly a claim to the Balkans. If pan-Slavicism is cited, well then this indirectly threatens Austria and Germany themselves, because of all the Slavs within those two Empires.
In fact, in 1877, the Great Powers convened and agreed that Austrian, Ottoman, and Russian interests should be balanced in favor of Austria as the premier abrogater of politics in that region. Russia was clumsily and aggressively breaking this aggreement. Only a fool would argue that Russia was not intending for there to be war. War was thenonly possible outcome of such behavior.
Austria was overthrowing its weight in the balkans which definitely had a big impact on the eventual collision.
You have to understand that the Balkans were, by international agreement (including Russia’s), part of Austria-Hungary’s sphere of influence. Not only that, but like I said the 9/11 comparison. Austria was going to attack Serbia. Nothing would change this. The reaction lied upon Russia as to what this meant. Does it mean a minor Balkan conflict? Or does it become a world war? Russia had a choice.
like always germs are good boys and didnu nuffin
they just can't help themselves and have no agency of their own
are you telling me that germs are animals or force of nature?
Yes and that's zased.
Independent thought is a israeli psyop.
People should follow their leaders for the good of their volk.
so you saying that Russian have a choice because they are humans and germs are just mindless animals who go on rampage regularly ?
weird take
And that's a good thing.
Russia violated international agreements it made with the rest of the world, and directly confronted austria in a war that it KNEW would happen. You’re coping about muh germs because you don’t like to see the mainstream gay moron version of history challeneged.
that is just pathetic mutt cope
>the mutts are behind Austro-Hungarian internet apologists
yeah most of the time
>Russia violated international agreements it made with the rest of the world, and directly confronted austria in a war that it KNEW would happen.
Germany declared war on Russia first though. Russia simply mobilized their in the hopes that it would make Austria back off.
I will never understand how Russia thought it could de-escalate the situation by escalating the situation
Good God, this is Red Guard level of delusional brainwashing. ANYTHING, any amount of mental gymnastics to tell yourself that the Germans and Austrians did literally nothing wrong in the buildup to WW1 or at any other time for that matter because I fricking love Germans and Austrians even though I'm probably not one? Both of them wanted war (>t. manfried rauchensteiner, whose 1000 page book on austria-hungary i read cover to cover), and I just don't get how you can say this shit like "durr, it was austria's sphere of influence" sincerely. I think even literal apes would understand this, but when talking to wehraboos (and Prussian officers), it's always
>whaaaa why did you declare war on us? we were just invading these small nations, we didn't do nuffin to you!
>but you attacked our ally, how would you feel if your ally was attacked?
>dunno, my ally wasn't attacked
As if it is just incomprehensible that letting countries start random wars on the European continent is setting a bad precedent.
You're just as moronic as he is tbh
Perhaps.
>"durr, it was austria's sphere of influence"
Are you seriously forgetting the act of state sponsored terrorism? No country could allow something like that to go on, it's such a massive security risk. And the Serbian government did nothing to apprehend the culprits.
>The guns and grenades that Gavrilo Princip and his fellow conspirators used to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were given to them by Major Vojislav Tankosic, a Serbian army officer and a member of the Black Hand
>Tankosic was also involved in training and transporting the assassins from Belgrade to Sarajevo, with the help of other Black Hand agents and sympathizers
>Tankosic was never arrested or tried for his role in the plot
IRA had close affiliations with the Irish politicians too.
Should Britain have declared war on Ireland if the assassination attempt on Thatcher was successful?
The Irish state cooperated with Britain and prosecuted IRA members.
I do actually agree that Austria had the right to be forceful with Serbia, since the Serbs were nutjob nationalists. However, when it was clear that attacking them would result in a war with Russia, someone should have probably thought to reconsider their approach. Instead, Germany said "whatevs lol, we got your back buddy" and promptly invaded Belgium.
>No country could allow something like that to go on, it's such a massive security risk.
So call an international conference in the aftermath of the assassination, lay out Austria's grievances, use that (and the threat to the monarchal principle) to isolate Russia, and get the great powers to impose a settlement upon Serbia. Unilaterally invading, from a diplomatic point of view, was a dumb move that erased whatever sympathy Austria-Hungary could've gotten - see how sparsely attended the funeral was.
>Tankosic was never arrested or tried for his role in the plot
The crime was outside of Serbia's jurisdiction.
>So call an international conference
Why? Terrorism and regicide are completely unacceptable, they didn't need to call any conference. Serbia was the one that was out of line for harboring the terrorists and Russia for supporting them.
>see how sparsely attended the funeral was
The Habsburgs refused to allow foreigners to attend. Wilhem tried to participate as a private citizen and the Swedish king publicly protested but to no avail.
>outside of Serbia's jurisdiction
Complete nonsense. The Taliban tried to use similar excuses.
>they didn't need to call any conference
And where did that line of thinking get them?
Where did supporting Serb terrorists get the Romanovs?
I don't give a single shit about the Romanovs and I'm not sure where you got the impression that I do.
The point was that Russia payed an even greater price for their political decision than the Habsburgs did. Arguably Serbia did too if you value human life.
And that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, because EVERYONE got fricked over by the stupid war. That's my point. When it was clear that invading Serbia would have started a world war (what? You think France just wouldn't join in? what? You think invading Belgium wouldn't drag Britain in?), they should have restrained the autism and done something differently.
Austria was in the right, they had a just reason to start the war. Russia had no legitimate reason to intervene, they should have restrained the autism and done something differently.
>whaaaa why did you declare war on us? we were just invading these small nations, we didn't do nuffin to you!
>but you attacked our ally, how would you feel if your ally was attacked?
>dunno, my ally wasn't attacked
Again you are forgetting state sponsored terrorism and regicide as if these were normal acceptable things.
Russia didn't even have a military alliance or any sort of treaty with Serbia.
It's a very controversial topic whether Black Hand was directly funded and controlled by the Serbian state.
There is a stark difference between "influenced by" and outright state cooperation. The Serbian state was aware of them but they did not answer to the Serbian state.
>The group held influence over government appointments and policies. The Serbian government was fairly well-informed of Black Hand activities.
>The decision to kill the Archduke was initiated by Apis and not sanctioned by the full Executive Committee (if Apis was involved at all, a question that remains in dispute[20]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia)
It doesn't matter if the black hand is an official institution of the Serb state or not. If such a terrorist organization is supported by official actors within the state (e.g. military individuals) and these actors are not pursecuted by the state, the state is inherently criminal. Austria had legally valid reasons for attacking a rogue state and Germany recognized these reasons with its diplomatically stupid blanc check.
This isn’t a reasonable justification. Russia is the one who should have called an international assembly after the war against Serbia, just like what happened to Russia in and after 1877. This wouod likely have caused Austria to retreat from Serbia after the war was finished, with some peace treaty that benefitted all sides. Russia could have used the incident to try and get other great powers to renegotiate the legality and extent of its influence in the Balkans, and Austria would have had its heir’s death avenged. Germany’s ally would not be torn to pieces by russia in a war. And lastly, the other great pwoers would not see much expansion of germany’s influence in austria and the balkans.
Hopefully you understand all this. Russia overreacted by threatening war, when there were many other smarter and mutually beneficial measures it could have taken.
>Russia is the one who should have called an international assembly after the war against Serbia
Too late for that. The iron dice were already unilaterally rolled.
>This wouod likely have caused Austria to retreat from Serbia after the war was finished
In the scenario of no Russian involvement, Austria-Hungary can commit Echelon B from the start, but that would be unlikely to grant them rapid victory. Meaning the war would be protracted and Russia would find it increasingly embarrassing to sit and do nothing. And if/when they do win at high cost, they would hardly be able to treat it as a punitive expedition, meaning terms unacceptable to Serbia (and thus to Russia).
Russia did call for a peace conference in the Hague in the final days before Germany declared war. The Germans ignored the plea.
I'm sorry, but this is third world thinking. You're talking about Austria-Hungary like a child throwing a tantrum that you have to appease. You can't just give in to hostile countries threatening force to achieve their aims because that only encourages them to use more. When Austria-Hungary is threatening to invade a country friendly to Russia, it is not Russia's responsibility to be the voice of reason, it is Austria-Hungary being an aggressor.
This post is just simply extremely irrational. You didn’t address any of my points.
>why?
To coordinate things with the Great Powers and build international legitimacy (and cooperation) for their case, so that, among other things, the General European War doesn't break out.
>Terrorism and regicide are completely unacceptable
Which should've made a conference, even as just a formality, even more of a no-brainer, especially if they wanted to treat it in a legalistic manner and in light of any number of anarchist terror plots.
>Complete nonsense
Realistically, it wasn't. The actual deed took place outside of Serbia in territory Serbian officialdom would hardly have access to, and was done by non-Serbians, whose actions gave strong plausible deniability to any Serbians involved with the Black Hand.
You don't what the frick you're talking about, Ciganovic and Tankosic were both NAMED by the assassins as the men who trained and armed them in Serbia.
Still not actionable, especially given the specific almost accidental circumstances of the assassination.
Though an international tribunal, agreed to as part of an international mediation process would likely be better at gaining access and cooperation for investigation than any other group or effort.
Yes it is fricking actionable. Not enough to get a trial out of it of course, but certainly enough to arrest them and investigate their doings, but Serbia refused to do this. How the assassination turned out on the day of the deed is irrelevant as the two men weren't there.
And getting an international tribunal going was unlikely given that both France and Russia discarded Austria-Hungarys allegations at face value, just like the Serbs themselves did.
>but Serbia refused to do this.
Austria-Hungary's conduct and attitude toward Serbia hardly created an atmosphere of friendly collaboration. And in the event, the Serbs did agree to almost all the points of the ultimatum that Austria-Hungary itself had drafted.
> How the assassination turned out on the day of the deed is irrelevant as the two men weren't there.
The affair hardly played out like one would expect a deliberate plot by a secret society with high-level representation in the state to.
>And getting an international tribunal going was unlikely
Germany would be for it. The Brits would likely participate and drag the rest along if it was called for in the immediate aftermath. And if France/Russia prove intransigent, then the justification for drastic unilateral action is vastly greater than what A-H tried to go with historically.
Austria-Hungarys conduct and attitude towards Serbia was only the way it was because of Serbias own conduct and attitude towards Austria-Hungary, and that goes back long before 1914. One should recall that Austria-Hungary and Serbia used to have very friendly relations, one could even call them allies in some sense, but then the Serbs brutally murdered their own king in 1903 and from then on they were rabid ultranationalists with a passionate hatred for the Habsburgs. And Serbia agreed to jack shit, read the reply for yourself, it hardly has a single straight forward "yes".
That the assassins were incompetent assassins doesn't at all disprove their testimony that they were trained and armed in Serbia by Serbian soldiers.
Sure the Austrians could have handled it better, but they still had a perfectly valid justification.
>they were rabid ultranationalists
It was the spirit of the times, especially in the Balkans.
> it hardly has a single straight forward "yes".
That's how diplomacy tends to work, especially in a time when "honor" was considered a top-level concern of states, and other states were maneuvering to either extend the deadline or bring it to arbitration.
>That the assassins were incompetent assassins doesn't at all disprove their testimony that they were trained and armed in Serbia by Serbian soldiers.
It places severe limits on how much of a state conspiracy it was, and therefore on the culpability of the Serbian state.
>they still had a perfectly valid justification
Clearly they didn't - nobody was fooled or conciliated by their issuing an ultimatum after a month, having done nothing to prepare the diplomatic or legal environment. Even setting aside Hungarian opposition/stalling, the Austrian course of conduct was incoherent. Acting promptly in the first few days would've at least had surprise and some sense of outraged passion to it.
>It places severe limits on how much of a state conspiracy it was, and therefore on the culpability of the Serbian state.
No, it does not. That’s a Non-sequitar.
>Clearly they didn't - nobody was fooled
What? Nobody declared war on austria until after Russia dragged its allies into the war. The fact that nobody wanted to “stick up” for serbia shows that nobody saw serbian grievances as legitimate.
>No, it does not. That’s a Non-sequitar.
It was amateur hour, and only worked because of bad Austrian security in an environment where they knew there were threats and freak coincidence. That's not the capabilities of a state, or even of a high-level conspiracy within a state. Nor would it (or did it, even today) generate anything conclusive for proving wider Serbian involvement.
> shows that nobody saw serbian grievances as legitimate.
It shows that the affair was viewed as "a characteristic bit of Balkan savagery" that would "soon recede into the category of Balkan squabbles, such as recurred every fifteen or twenty years", and that everyone in late July was more concerned with the approaching World War because it had risen beyond the level of recrimination and reprisal.
>pilpul
Thanks for your input chaim
>So call an international conference
Russia, Italy and France were guaranteed to side against Austria-Hungary while Britain would probably have sided against Austria-Hungary.
>see how sparsely attended the funeral was.
If foreign royals were invited they would have attended no matter how they felt about the man or his country as that was the royal procedure, but they weren't invited which you'd know if you did the bare minimum of research.
>The crime was outside of Serbia's jurisdiction.
The terrorists were armed and trained in Serbia by Serbian citizens and then smuggled across the border by Serbian citizens.
>I just don't get how you can say this shit like "durr, it was austria's sphere of influence" sincerely
That’s because you’re mentally ill
I genuinely know frick all about the internal politics that led to the Schlieffen Plan being drawn up and implemented
>the Schlieffen Plan
In was drawn up during the Russo-Japanese war as a plan for attacking France without while Russians were distracted and couldn't intervene and even then it required ABSOLUTELY every ounce of force the Germans could muster. Then it kinda got clung onto even when the conditions for its success were completely lacking.
e.g. Schlieffen specified 48.5 corps to conduct the operation, while the Germans only used 34 in 1914
If IQfy thinks it's false then it's probably true and vice versa.
they were fueled by fear of modernized russian empire which Stalin proved right
ww1 is boring, literally just a warm up lap to ww2.
>political scheming of some gay royal families
boring and gay, seen it 5000 times
>vs
>an epic greek tragedy where a homeless schizo with zero military education kicks down every major power around him and has to be subdued by the most powerful military alliance in history, leaving a trail of mystery elements which to this day perturb scholars
now that's some fricking kino
ww1 has far better battles, theatres and tragic outcomes of first seen doctrines and weapons
Ww2 is like the gay moronic cousin of ww1
The only kino things in ww2 are the pacific theater and the north africa battles in Egypt
Serbs were literally terrorists in Austria. They bombed and knifed civvies before they killed the king.
What are thoughts on World War 2? Do you think the Germans had ulterior invaded Poland or was it just a response to anti-German violence?
I guarantee you that there is not a single person in this world who blames Germany for WW1, but not for WW2.
German ambition and jealously of Britain pushed Willie into an aggressive posture. He could have easily moved away from colonialism, avoiding conflict with Britain and the Balkans, avoiding conflict with Russia. Neither policy benefited Germany. And while British fears of a united Europe motivated its every move, they almost went to war with France. German nationalism is responsible for WW1.
Germany is completely innocent of all crimes in WW2. They invaded Poland as a response to anti-German violence in Poland. Of course a country that lost its territory and citizens are going to have an invested interest in them, epically when it’s right on their border. The whole thing could have been resolve with diplomacy. The west wanted the war and thought they could handle the Germans.
0/10
Thats some next lvl shit right there m8
Germany literally sent 2 telegrams declaring war on Russia, one if Russia had accepted their ultimatum and one if Russia had not.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not want war, but was quickly sidelined by the militarists in his regime who had carefully placed him in a bubble. It was their orchestration, careerists in the military seeking short term gain now controlled the government, rather like Japan in ww2.
/misc/ will claim OP's take is some n*rmy r*ddit take, and it is, but it just so happens to be true.
Complete fiction.
Wilhelm II was unaware of what was happening and sending telegrams that contradicted the actions of his military.
>On 1 August 1914, a British offer to guarantee French neutrality was sent out and promptly accepted by Wilhelm.
>Wilhelm then ordered German forces to strike against Russia alone, leading to fierce protests from Moltke that it was not technically possible for Germany to do so as the bulk of the German forces were already advancing into Luxembourg and Belgium.
>At the same time as the invasion of Luxembourg, on 1 August 1914 Germany declared war on Russia. When presenting his declaration of war, the German ambassador accidentally gave the Russians both copies of the declaration of war, one which claimed that Russia refused to reply to Germany and the other that said Russia's replies were unacceptable.
https://archive.org/details/albertinitheoriginsofthewar1914/page/n595/mode/1up?view=theater
>what he did not know was that for Germany mobilization would be practically simultaneous with crossing the Belgian and Luxemburg frontiers and thus creating a situation which was irreparable. Even in Germany this was a secret from Tirpitz and perhaps even from the Kaiser, who, as we shall see, at a certain moment tried to hold up the beginning of operations and was not able to do so.
>All are preparing themselves for the great war, which all sooner or later expect.
>t. Moltke 1912
The fact that General Staff apparently lacked a war plan for dealing with Russia alone is the most damning argument against supposed German military genius.
Russia likewise did not have a plan for mobilizing only against Austria-Hungary. When the Tsar asked for it his general staff said it was 'impossible'.
Very few people have ever claimed that the Russians were competent though.
No serious and reputable scholar claims German military genius. British propaganda historians like to play up their opponents and downplay themselves in order to greatly exaggerate their victories. British propagandists invented the claim of German superiority.
The Kaiser was aware of what was happening and the military actually did halt, as he ordered. However, he gave the order to go ahead again soon after as he found out that the British offer wasn't genuine (which should be obvious as there was no way that the French were going to stay out).
>the German ambassador accidentally gave the Russians both copies of the declaration of war, one which claimed that Russia refused to reply to Germany and the other that said Russia's replies were unacceptable.
this sounds so unnecessary, incompetent, and silly that it borderlines on obvious propaganda or ~~*deliberate internal subterfuge*~~.
can you guys recommend any good (non israeliteed) books on WWI? I literally know nothing about it
What are you interested in?
schizo conspiracy theories about da jooz because facts and reality are too cuckolded and bluepilled
>what caused it
>the war itself
>what caused it
Read Dance of the Furies
>the war itself
Like what? Individual battles - any particular ones? The war at sea? The war in France? In the East? The Turks? A big broad scope history or autistic detail?
well i suppose i would need to gain a broad understanding of the war before i choose a specific area to dive into
Attrition: Fighting the First World War, Philpot
On A Knife Edge, Afflerbach
Both good places to start imo
>Read Dance of the Furies
Doesn't Neiberg claim that France dindu nuffin?
He most of the blame on the Austro-Hungarians for giving a 48 hour ultimatum, instead of the normal slow burn that actually lets the diplomatic process work.
AH had already waited a month before sending the ultimatum. During that time Serbia did nothing to prosecute the conspirators.
After searching for hours to find the actual content of the ultimatum, and not just some rabbi telling you what to think of the ultimatum, I have come to the conclusion that Serbia was behaving belligerently and stupidly. Serbia and Russia caused the outbreak of war.
For the prelude and the July Crisis The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is a must.
Guns of August is generally considered the go-to for most.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August
Clark presented a more unorthodox thesis: Asutrias demands were mild, Serbia was irrational to reject them. Russia has the significant responsbility for escalating the war (tho Clark does reject the 'blame game' and stress that everyone was equally responsible). Most of the criticism on Clark cames from German historians who started to REEE pretty hard when he downplayed Germanys role in the outbreak of ww1. Most of the book focus on Serbia and Russia but he got some criticism for being biased
1. His previous work was literally about Kaiser Wilhelm
2. He ignores some important things like Russia urging Serbia to accept whatever demands Austria will make following the assassination
3. That the Serbs requested a commission from The Hague to carry out the demands on Serbian soil, not Austrian soldiers.
4. Austria could not prove that the government had any actual control of the Black Hand, and it's still a very controversial topic today. Tho Clarks thesis could be justifed since it was clear the Serbian government was aware of the Black Hand due to it's members also holding high positions, and more of less sanctioned it's existence, but it's still not known whether it sanctioned any kind of assassination.
No monarch in Europe wanted to justify regicide, certainly not the Russians.
5. Clark downplays the heavy controversial 1912 German war cabinet meeting which basically stress that was is necessary and that Germany should go to war as soon as possible. An overwhelming amount of historians have traditionally cited this meeting as a justification for the "blame Germany" thesis.
None of this means Clark is wrong. A book cant cover everything and some books emphasize on one thing more than the other book did. Clark is unorthodox which is probably why IQfy prefers his work.
> the heavy controversial 1912 German war cabinet meeting which basically stress that was is necessary and that Germany should go to war as soon as possible
Does this meeting actually exist? Or is it Fable Talks tier propaganda?
It happened, but it was a nothingburger
Gus of august is moron tier bullshit, and full of myths. By recommending that you've demonstrated you don't have the right to an opinion
Sure thing predditor. You forgot to add that you’re trans.
Frick, I love it when I bfto you little gayboys with a high schoolers knowledge of history so hard you have to accuse me of being a troony to cope
>he admits he has a high schoolers knowledge of history
Thats why you hate guns of august. Also, because you are a preddit troony.
Guns of August would be considered the equivilent to Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in regards to gaining a basic understanding on ww2.
Both books are regarded as cornerstones to their topics, however both books are old and thus they are somewhat outdated since not all sources were available at the time. Great for the beginner, but not for the experts.
Guns of August still remains one of the most praised books on the topic.
It's not great for a beginner because we know it's full of shit, written by a journalist ffs. Why teach beginners myths and half-truths so they just have to unlearn it?
It's meant to be introduced to the topic if you have 0 knowledge. It's popular history, hence why its written by a jóurnalist and not a historian.
I repeat; why teach beginners myths and half-truths so they just have to unlearn it?
Forgot to add that Clark also omitting the fact that Germany ignored calls for a peace conference.
poor Willy II, should have listened to Bismarck, should have put him on a life support machine and drained every ounce of knowledge out of him