quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?

warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?

warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?

warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?

warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?

warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?

warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

warspite1

It's in the paragraph above the sentence you bolded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?

warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?

warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

warspite1

It's in the paragraph above the sentence you bolded.

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri
Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri
Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.

....

While Kaiser Wilhelm had a lot of flaws, he was an intelligent man and sometimes, despite his impulsiveness and his mercurial, insufferable temper, he assessed things right. Had the Austrian army listened to him and Bethman-Hollweg and did as they recommended, chances are it would have ended with a peace conference, not four years of all-out war. Vienna interpreted this "blank cheque" as doing as they pleased. Kaiser Wilhelm gives this "blank cheque" on the condition that Austria acts immediately and occupies Belgrade as a bargaining chip.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.

warspite1

Thanks to the rulers of Austria-Hungary taking the decision to use the, lazy, unimaginative, age-old 'answer' to all problems - "Go to war!" (made possible only by the support of Germany) Austria-Hungary's fate was sealed. There was an excellent article (that I can't lay my hands on at present [:@]) that shows Austria-Hungary was finished within about the first 6 months of war starting. I'll try and dig this out.

The ultimate goal of many Serbians of ending the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the forming of a Slav state was indeed achieved at the conclusion of the war. With hindsight, knowing what was to come, I wonder how many of the plotters would have decided the assassination was just not worth it.

A success? Regardless of immediate goals with regard to AH, by every other measure (for Serbians and everyone else) the assassination was a total and utter disaster.

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths as a percentage of the population were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.

warspite1

Thanks to the rulers of Austria-Hungary taking the decision to use the, lazy, unimaginative, age-old 'answer' to all problems - "Go to war!" (made possible only by the support of Germany) Austria-Hungary's fate was sealed. There was an excellent article (that I can't lay my hands on at present [:@]) that shows Austria-Hungary was finished within about the first 6 months of war starting. I'll try and dig this out.

The ultimate goal of many Serbians of ending the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the forming of a Slav state was indeed achieved at the conclusion of the war. With hindsight, knowing what was to come, I wonder how many of the plotters would have decided the assassination was just not worth it.

A success? Regardless of immediate goals with regard to AH, by every other measure (for Serbians and everyone else) the assassination was a total and utter disaster.

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths as a percentage of the population were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

Total deaths during World War I for Austria-Hungary were 1,787,000 to 2,081,200, or about twice that of Serbia at 750,000 to 1,250,000. Russia seems to have taken the lion's share of casualties at 2,840,000 to 3,394,369.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And I am no stranger to the Balkans having spent almost 6 months in Bosnia peacekeeping during SFOR VII; the Bosnians were usually glad to see us, but when we went to Republika Srpska I knew we had arrived when the signs were in Cyrillic and the people stopped smiling at us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thanks to the rulers of Austria-Hungary taking the decision to use the, lazy, unimaginative, age-old 'answer' to all problems - "Go to war!" (made possible only by the support of Germany) Austria-Hungary's fate was sealed. There was an excellent article (that I can't lay my hands on at present [:@]) that shows Austria-Hungary was finished within about the first 6 months of war starting. I'll try and dig this out.

quote:

Austria-Hungary, as a declining Great Power, was facing a tremendous loss of face if they let that assassination allegedly supported by a third-rate power, perceived as barely civilized, totally unanswered.

quote:

Inaction being out-of-question, this forced the Habsburg cabinet to compensate by a firm, uncompromizing stand against Serbia - to show Europe that while being the fifth-wheel in Europe balance of power, they were still strong enough to not let such an insult slide without resolute action.

quote:

But then, the question is "what other options did Austria-Hungary have"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

If I read the discussions right about the cause of WWI, then most people seem to blame the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

And when I read discussions about the cause of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, most of the same people blame Prussia here.

And this I can not understand. [&:] I must have misunderstood something. [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

If I read the discussions right about the cause of WWI, then most people seem to blame the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

And when I read discussions about the cause of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, most of the same people blame Prussia here.

And this I can not understand. [&:] I must have misunderstood something. [:(]

quote:

PART VIII.

REPARATION.

SECTION l.

GENERAL PROVISIONS.

ARTICLE 231.

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

quote:

The guilt of Germany and her allies is stated in black and white in the Treaty of Versailles.

quote:

I'll take first hand knowledge/impressions over historians any day.

quote:

And then of course there is the bias factor depending on where you were born.

quote:

If you are British and have a love of British history, especially military history...enjoy the writing style of particular British historians...you will probably side with what they write, not to mention your willing default to believe your country was correct in what they did.

quote:

A persons doubt in his mind will depend on what side he is on.

quote:

Is there a Matrix poll question we can have on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.

warspite1

Thanks to the rulers of Austria-Hungary taking the decision to use the, lazy, unimaginative, age-old 'answer' to all problems - "Go to war!" (made possible only by the support of Germany) Austria-Hungary's fate was sealed. There was an excellent article (that I can't lay my hands on at present [:@]) that shows Austria-Hungary was finished within about the first 6 months of war starting. I'll try and dig this out.

The ultimate goal of many Serbians of ending the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the forming of a Slav state was indeed achieved at the conclusion of the war. With hindsight, knowing what was to come, I wonder how many of the plotters would have decided the assassination was just not worth it.

A success? Regardless of immediate goals with regard to AH, by every other measure (for Serbians and everyone else) the assassination was a total and utter disaster.

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths as a percentage of the population were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

Total deaths during World War I for Austria-Hungary were 1,787,000 to 2,081,200, or about twice that of Serbia at 750,000 to 1,250,000. Russia seems to have taken the lion's share of casualties at 2,840,000 to 3,394,369.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And I am no stranger to the Balkans having spent almost 6 months in Bosnia peacekeeping during SFOR VII; the Bosnians were usually glad to see us, but when we went to Republika Srpska I knew we had arrived when the signs were in Cyrillic and the people stopped smiling at us.

warspite1

Apologies, I appear to have left off the word/symbol percentage/% [8|] in that First World War stat, but of course that is what I was talking about - as I remembered to do for the WWII stat. Actual numbers - when comparing countries of such differing size as Serbia vs Russia vs AH - is of course pretty irrelevant.

Amended paragraph:

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, as a % of the total population, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths using the same measure as for WWI were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility....

For causing WW I, or simply prolonging it?

Why does Serbia get a pass for state-sponsored terrorism and Austria-Hungary for issuing Serbia an ultimatum no sovereign nation could accept while still retaining its sovereignty?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

My cousin who fought in WWI did keep a diary beginning in 1900, most of it personal and local, but world events of the time were mentioned and became more detailed and prominent as it got closer to 1914. In addition to that I had my great grandmother who was 31 in 1914, but that was word of mouth (she was a real Kaiser/Prussia-hater). Both of them had the opinion/perspective that French anger/diplomacy led to WWI. Many interested in WWI fail to take that conflict in context going back to 1870 (Franco - Prussian war)...or just over look it. I think many historians are lazy, frankly...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read. Preconceived notions sometimes become starting points which leads to information gathered to back them up...this happens in current day polling put out for public consumption.

Actually I am a fan of things British: 500 AD to Henry II, Henry V, QEI, Drake, up to French/Indian War (7 years war?)...after that, not so much (respect for Nelson of course, although I like Drake more). Oh, and tea[:)] Yes, I was talking about the British, and yes, I think it does apply equally to any French, German, American, etc...including North Korean.[:D] In answer as to why a Brit would enjoy a Brit historian (note I wrote "probably", not "only")...you answered above in regards to ones starting position.

Of course not every historian from a particular country has the exact same view or bias...note: A.J.P. Taylor or Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him). I think a certain establishment and simplistic viewpoint is taught in our high schools and universities (I know first hand at least in the US and Germany). Most students including those interested in history fall into the trap of just accepting something out of laziness or disinterest. Here it helps to have a contrarian personality and I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep...not just the same old staid directions or automatic acceptance of certain conclusions. I think those historians that put the majority blame on Germany in WWI have failed on a contextual level. You cant understand WWI without starting in the 1860's (1870 at the very least)...its seed was planted then.

I'm allowing for the poll to prove me wrong[:D]