RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/4/2017 2:55:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 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? I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?' The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'? RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I. And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I. So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/4/2017 4:42:22 PM)
quote: Jagdtiger14 Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him) I don’t think it’s funny that we disagree – I think it’s in one way unsurprising - given your anti-British bias - but in another way bizarre given the book’s dubious claims to be a history tome. Look, suppose I write a book on Barbarossa. I write that Germany invaded the Soviet Union with 7,000 tanks and they were all PZKW IV’s. Regardless of anything else I write, that comment would surely make you believe that the author, and his conclusions, should be treated with extreme caution. What it wouldn’t do – regardless of whatever else was in the book – would make you think that the book qualifies for ‘Awesome’ territory (which you say the Harman book is). Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book? I don’t want to side-track this thread with this book but I would love the chance to understand why you put it in the 'awesome category' given much of its content. I would also love to understand why you rate the book given your comments: quote: I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep... quote: I think many historians are lazy, frankly... ...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read. Dig deep? Harman dig deep? Okay…… As I say I would love to discuss further off line or a separate thread because I am at a loss to understand how you think this man dug deep for this book. The guy has actually re-defined the word lazy with his lack of even the most basic research - according to him members of the Durham Light Infantry murdered 400 SS troops in cold blood after the battle. Funny that, the returns for the German division concerned show they had nowhere near 400 losses from all causes, let alone 400 missing..... and his 'I simply can't be bothered to explain' sections (he can't explain because many of the points he makes simply defy explanation). quote: Jadgdtiger14 I'll take first hand knowledge/impressions over historians any day. quote: 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. I don’t understand. My mum and dad were in WWII. At home they suffered the blitz, and my dad suffered the V1 and V2. My dad was in the army at the start of the war and my mum served as a nurse in Oz towards its end. Right, for personal stories of the areas in which they saw service and/or were affected I would welcome their insight. For a detailed historical perspective of Nazi Germany 1933-45 or The Pacific War 1937-45 I would no more consult my old mum and dad than I would the man in the moon…… I would prefer to read the writing of someone who has consulted, researched and analysed source documents and 1st hand accounts of those at the sharp end - You know, the records from someone who was actually at Munich in 1938 and not just someone who perhaps read a journalists take on what he'd heard second hand in a newspaper a few days after the event.... quote: Jagdtiger14 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. quote: loki100 edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. I understand to a degree what you mean Jagd. Understanding history – and not some little snapshot – is important. But yes, I totally agree with loki, that this approach just doesn’t add anything when trying to understand the level to which Germany were/were not responsible. It’s the old, “Yes your honour I did murder those 10 innocent women but, in holding me responsible for the crimes you fail to contextualise the poor upbringing I had”…… quote: loki100 As Warspite knows, I tend to regard the British empire somewhat dubiously, and have been known to refer to the Union Jack as the 'butcher's apron'. So you can work out if I have any automatic pro-British bias from that? Yes, I have met very few people on the forums – although sadly there are one or two – who hold the risible notion that ‘their’ country couldn’t possibly be responsible for any wrong doing ever. Interestingly I have said that Germany/Austria-Hungary are primarily responsible – and for that I get a charge of bias. Which kind of begs the question, why would I have a positive bias toward Serbia or Czarist Russia or even France?????

wodin -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/4/2017 4:44:33 PM)
Yep. UK saw the new upcoming future superpower Germany with it's huge industrial strength and it's want to be a major player with overseas colonies as a threat, one which could knock the Empire of the top spot and UK couldn't have that..so they wanted to give Germany a proper good kicking before it did pose a major threat to the Empire. National pride to the extreme, plus status and obviously wealth where the reasons everyone got stuck in when they did. Everyone just waiting for the right spark. Funny how pre WW1 the Germanic nations where our allies usually against France. We just didn't like it when they nations became one ruled over by the militaristic Prussains. In away it was Victoria's offspring and other family members etc having a massive domestic about who will have the best country. 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]

loki100 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/4/2017 4:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin Yep. UK saw the new upcoming future superpower Germany with it's huge industrial strength and it's want to be a major player with overseas colonies as a threat, one which could knock the Empire of the top spot and UK couldn't have that..so they wanted to give Germany a proper good kicking before it did pose a major threat to the Empire. National pride to the extreme, plus status and obviously wealth where the reasons everyone got stuck in when they did. Everyone just waiting for the right spark. Funny how pre WW1 the Germanic nations where our allies usually against France. We just didn't like it when they nations became one ruled over by the militaristic Prussains. In away it was Victoria's offspring and other family members etc having a massive domestic about who will have the best country. ... Yes it was a typical family domestic row gone wrong. In Glasgow known as a 'stairheid rammy' but at least ours tend to have a lower death toll at the end [;)] More seriously, yes Britain wanted to set limits to German power (esp naval) and clearly Germany wasn't accepting those limits but I'm not sure it was a desire to give Germany a good kicking per se that drove British policy. Its similar to the old Marxist standard line that it was a war of Imperialist powers (even that is not really true) driven by imperialist disputes (for which there is scant evidence). What stands up is there was a whole load of long standing grievances rattling around but none really explain the war that happened. My personal take is that systems (diplomatic. social, economic, personal) all have a capacity to absorb adverse events. Some more than others. The European diplomatic system by 1914 was at the end of that capacity (my view). So when you have a stressed system, and some very poor judgements (step forward A-H and Germany) and the realities of railway timetables underpinnning mass mobilisation, you have the risk that a potentially localised war (A-H vs Serbia) rattles through the system and produces a general war. To me that is the question to be answered. Europe had managed a century of crises with a fair few localised wars. Something was different in 1914 - and its not simply Serbia being belligerent or A-H dippy?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/4/2017 5:59:13 PM)
quote: Is there a Matrix poll question we can have on this? You could have a look at the thread before this one - quite a few responses there. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3541193&mpage=1&key=austria-hungary

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 6:45:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 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? I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?' The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'? RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I. And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I. So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage? warspite1 As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war. Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support. If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 9:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 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? I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?' The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'? RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I. And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I. So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage? warspite1 As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war. Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support. If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised. Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire. Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 6:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 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? I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?' The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'? RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I. And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I. So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage? warspite1 As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war. Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support. If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised. Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire. Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions. warspite1 No. Russia was supporting a minor country that was being declared war on by AH. Elements in Serbia were responsible for the murders - it wasn't Serbian policy. AH should have ensured through their demands that the perpetrators be brought to justice - not wholesale invasion of the country. Such restraint could well have won AH sympathy with other powers.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 8:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 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? I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?' The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'? RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I. And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I. So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage? warspite1 As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war. Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support. If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised. Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire. Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions. warspite1 No. Russia was supporting a minor country that was being declared war on by AH. Elements in Serbia were responsible for the murders - it wasn't Serbian policy.... If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ? And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia. "On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Serbian_Alliance_of_1807

Orm -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 8:08:45 PM)
Gentlemen, could we please reduce the long quote-chains in this thread? It makes it tougher for illiterates like me to follow this interesting discussion.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/5/2017 8:09:23 PM)
Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion.

loki100 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 10:44:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. ... If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ? And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia. "On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Serbian_Alliance_of_1807 Ok, for the sake of seeking clarity, lets buy into your argument that the Serbs are really very bad people and that you can now trace ths badness back to at least 1807. Lacking that much detailed knowledge, I've vaguely picked up that during the various wars and revolts in the Balkans across the nineteenth and early twentieth century that Serbia was pretty spiky in its dealings both with its neighbours and the two external powers in the region (A-H and the Ottomans). So there, we (I think) agree, Serbia must have been a very annoying state to have had to deal with - actively chasing what it saw as its interests and historical rights. MacMillan's excellent the 'PeaceMakers' suggests this was very much the mindset of the allied powers at Versailles. Now lets take the second strand of Sarejevo. A senior royal/politician was assasinated. Now as I've argued above, unfortunately in the period from say 1880 to 1914 this was not rare. Between domestic Russian terrorist groups (People's Will et al), other nationalist terrorist groups and those inspired by some form of Anarchism this was a bit of an occupational hazard in that era. Equally, a fair few of these groups had sponsors (sometimes unwittingly) either in their own state or in another. So we have two strands that are not unique - the Serbs being a pain and a terrorist murder of a royal - generating an event that was all but unique ... a generalised European war. You have offered no reason why things that were common came together to generate something that was unique. All you do is to point to proximity and muddle up correlation with causation. On the other hand, Warspite1 can offer a logic as to why a unique event was the outcome. And in doing so goes a long way to capturing an answer to the question of the thread 'who caused WW1'.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 4:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 5:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. ... If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ? And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia. "On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Serbian_Alliance_of_1807 Ok, for the sake of seeking clarity, lets buy into your argument that the Serbs are really very bad people.... Troll, I've already told you about not putting your words in my mouth, to include deliberately misrepresenting any of my arguments. I said that (1) Serbs have historically been aligned with Russia and (2) Russia is at least as guilty as other Euro states -- notably Germany for supporting AH -- by backing a belligerent nation that triggered a world war through state sponsored terrorism.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 5:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914.

Zorch -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 5:31:41 PM)
Wait - didn't Edmund Blackadder cause WWI? I'm sure he was at the bottom of it.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 5:47:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914. Serbia and Russia have maintained formal diplomatic relations since 1838. In fact when I was peace-keeping in Bosnia during SFOR VII a separate Russian paratroop unit was policing Republika Srpska. "One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Serbia_relations

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 5:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914. "One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...." warspite1 Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 7:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914. "One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...." warspite1 Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices. But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today. Why does the obvious have to be difficult?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 8:34:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914. "One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...." warspite1 Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices. But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today. Why does the obvious have to be difficult? warspite1 Sorry I don't understand where you are going or the point you are making. You said the two countries were allied with a formal alliance. I said that was not true but that the Russians did feel it necessary to support Serbia. You then argued they were formally allied and quoted some superseded treaty from 100 years before, I then repeated that they were not formally aligned only for you to then confirm that what I had said right at the start was true [&:]. You now say that the Russians did support Serbia in WWI. Yes I know - I've been saying that the whole time too. So what is the point you are making? Regardless of whether my view is right or wrong I have remained constant throughout - and haven't gone off seeking half answers from selected Wiki articles. In my view (and I fully accept I may be wrong and I hope when I one day meet my maker he will reveal the truth) the blame lies as laid out previously: No one is blameless, everyone could have done more and/or done things differently - yes everyone, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Serbia. The Serbian nation were not responsible for the act of terrorism, only a faction within. That faction - almost certainly with the support of others - could have been rooted out. But AH wanted the Serbian state to pay. That was only possible with German support. It was known that such action would mean a wider conflagration. But, despite a month to think about it, a month to explore options and choices, AH set about their true goal. The British tried to convene a peace conference involving the major powers and Germany said no. Russia did not mobilise for 36 hours after the AH declaration of war - but AH wasn't interested in any other outcome (thanks to the blank cheque). Alliances ultimately decided who was on who's side, but there was NOTHING by way of a legal requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque. There was no treaty that meant Russia was obliged to come to Serbia's aid. 'Tangled alliances' DID NOT cause WWI. Russia made it clear that they would not stand aside while AH attacks an independent state. Europe is now on the precipice and AH and Germany pushes the continent over the edge. So yes, AH and mostly Germany are, in my view, to blame.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/6/2017 10:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within. Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion. In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that? And thanks for the discussion. warspite1 But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914. "One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...." warspite1 Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices. But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today. Why does the obvious have to be difficult? warspite1 Sorry I don't understand where you are going or the point you are making. You said the two countries were allied with a formal alliance. I said that was not true but that the Russians did feel it necessary to support Serbia. You then argued they were formally allied and quoted some superseded treaty from 100 years before, I then repeated that they were not formally aligned only for you to then confirm that what I had said right at the start was true [&:]. You now say that the Russians did support Serbia in WWI. Yes I know - I've been saying that the whole time too. So what is the point you are making? Regardless of whether my view is right or wrong I have remained constant throughout - and haven't gone off seeking half answers from selected Wiki articles... You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet. And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra. I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 6:41:22 AM)
Loki100: quote: 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. 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? As I mentioned, part of A-L was majority French. If you look at the German elections in A-L, the French anti-annexation party (Regional Parties Autonomists) began to slip severely in 1890, then had less than 50% support in 1893, finally in 1912 was no longer the top percentage getter. In addition to that in 1872 only about 10% of A-L residents wanted French citizenship (161,000...out of which only 50,000 actually emigrated back to France): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine You are misrepresenting the facts, including the French being "somewhat" annoyed (unless that is your attempt at sarcasm). And then even more sarcasm with the 1300's remark. If you really don't know about the time period from the late 1860's to 1914 I suggest doing so. Those events were responsible for WWI. France having the opposite diplomatic reaction towards Germany after getting spanked in a war in which they declared on Germany, and instead attempting friendship rather than perpetual hostility could have seen some of A-L returned along with long-term peace. Without the French alliance system, "WWI" would have been Germany+A-H vs Russia+Serbia. I also did not say it was "all" France's fault. The Black Stain: [image]local://upfiles/28013/8DF1E39C511341C29C3C270159BFB0C9.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 7:00:33 AM)
Previous responses removed to make the post more readable. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet. And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra. I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? warspite1 quote: I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? Not sure why you’ve got all snotty. quote: You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do. Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said: quote: Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false. By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI? I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly. Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia. A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..…

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 11:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Previous responses removed to make the post more readable. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet. And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra. I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? warspite1 quote: I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? Not sure why you’ve got all snotty. quote: You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do. Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said: quote: Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false. By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI? I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly. Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia. A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..… Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war. And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world? Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this. And not quite true statements are not quite false, either.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 11:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Previous responses removed to make the post more readable. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet. And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra. I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? warspite1 quote: I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? Not sure why you’ve got all snotty. quote: You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do. Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said: quote: Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false. By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI? I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly. Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia. A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..… Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war. And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world? Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this. And not quite true statements are not quite false, either. warspite1 quote: Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war. Well I disagree, although as I said, if the Serbian Government were disingenuous about making amends (and their acceptance of all but one of the ultimatum points suggests they were not) then AH would have been within their rights to reconsider its position. quote: And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; Really not sure how many times I can get this across. I AGREE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CONNECTION. I was putting you right on a factual inaccuracy, but I have never suggested that in 1914 Serbia and Russia were not linked. quote: Have you ever been to that region of the world? I have been to Austria and Hungary. I have never visited any of the Balkan countries. Why is that crucial to the events of 1914? quote: Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this. Weaker sister state? Not my words but thanks for helping to make my argument. There is a MASSIVE difference between a) attacking a weak Sovereign nation and b) coming to the defence of a weak Sovereign nation being threatened by a bully. And I simply cannot see why you can't seem to grasp this. If the Serbian Government was guilty of the crime then I don't have a problem. However. They weren't. Read the ultimatum. If the Serbs were genuine in accepting the points then that is all one needs to know. If they weren't then, as I said, all bets would be off. quote: And not quite true statements are not quite false, either What??? [&:]

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 12:14:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Previous responses removed to make the post more readable. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet. And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra. I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? warspite1 quote: I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English? Not sure why you’ve got all snotty. quote: You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself. I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do. Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said: quote: Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false. By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI? I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly. Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia. A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..… Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war. And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world? Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this. And not quite true statements are not quite false, either. warspite1 quote: Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war. Well I disagree, although as I said, if the Serbian Government were disingenuous about making amends (and their acceptance of all but one of the ultimatum points suggests they were not) then AH would have been within their rights to reconsider its position. quote: And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; Really not sure how many times I can get this across. I AGREE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CONNECTION. I was putting you right on a factual inaccuracy, but I have never suggested that in 1914 Serbia and Russia were not linked. quote: Have you ever been to that region of the world? I have been to Austria and Hungary. I have never visited any of the Balkan countries. Why is that crucial to the events of 1914? quote: Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this. Weaker sister state? Not my words but thanks for helping to make my argument. There is a MASSIVE difference between a) attacking a weak Sovereign nation and b) coming to the defence of a weak Sovereign nation being threatened by a bully. And I simply cannot see why you can't seem to grasp this. If the Serbian Government was guilty of the crime then I don't have a problem. However. They weren't. Read the ultimatum. If the Serbs were genuine in accepting the points then that is all one needs to know. If they weren't then, as I said, all bets would be off. quote: And not quite true statements are not quite false, either What??? [&:] To paraphrase one of your own playwrights, you protest too much, methinks. The Serbian government was and still is responsible for its own military/paramilitary. Even today, Bosnia-Herzegovina said it would appeal against a 2007 UN court ruling clearing Serbia of genocide during Bosnia’s civil war. That's why I asked if you have ever been in the region. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/bosnia-to-appeal-2007-un-court-ruling-clearing-serbia-of-genocide And if posters don't source their "facts," how is that any different from just expressing their opinions?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 12:36:01 PM)
Previous responses removed to make the post more readable. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. To paraphrase one of your own playwrights, you protest too much, methinks. The Serbian government was and still is responsible for its own military/paramilitary. Even today, Bosnia-Herzegovina said it would appeal against a 2007 UN court ruling clearing Serbia of genocide during Bosnia’s civil war. That's why I asked if you have ever been in the region. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/bosnia-to-appeal-2007-un-court-ruling-clearing-serbia-of-genocide And if posters don't source their "facts," how is that any different from just expressing their opinions? warspite1 Please don't speak in riddles - protest about what? What has a UN court ruling against Serbia got to do with 1914? Look you've been to the region, you've mentioned it once or twice, but you need to stay relevant here. So are you saying all facts must be backed with sources? You always do that yes? Most posters to these forums do that yes? Of course not. But okay I have no problem with that. Although perhaps though you should check the accuracy of the facts you choose to support. Providing a source is all well and good, but if the fact is actually false, it kind of defeats the object. The 1807 treaty wasn't false of course - just its relevance to 1914.

Aurelian -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 1:51:36 PM)
Funny thing about Serbia and Russia. In 1907 Russia got involved in a secret diplomatic effort with Austria. In return of their support of a Russian demand that Turkey open the Dardenelles to free passage of Russian warships, Russia would turn its back when A-H annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was a betrayal of a small Slavic people. Unfortunately for Russian Foreign Minister Izvolsky, before he was ready to press Russia's demand, A-H annexed Bosnia, leaving him nothing to show for it. Oops. At this point, Serbia mobilized and called on Russia for aid. So Russia began to mobilize of the border with Austria. Then Germany stepped in and asked Izvolsky if he was prepared to back down. "We expect a precise answer, yes or no. Any vague, complicated or ambiguous reply will be regarded as a refusal." Rather blunt, but Russia, not ready for war, backed down. Russian humiliation was spectacular. To short quote Sir Arthur Nicolson, British Ambassador to St. Petersburg "In the recent history of Russia......she has never, for apparently no valid reason, had to submit to the dictation of a foreign power. So from 1909 onwards, the Kiev military district had standing orders to be ready within 48 hours to repel an invasion. And Nicholas II of Russia resolved to never again withdraw from a similar challenge. Nicholas And Alexandria by Robert K Massie, pp 249-252. Just to provide a little background to why Russia stood by Serbia in 1914.

ezzler -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 6:04:46 PM)
Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan. WW1 expert. "Conrad von Hötzendorf, Chief of Staff of Austo-Hungary, first proposed preventive war against Serbia in 1906, and he did so again in 1908–09, in 1912–13, in October 1913, and May 1914: between 1 January 1913 and 1 January 1914 he proposed a Serbian war twenty-five times". AH was just looking for a reason to invade. And a very good one came their way.

Zorch -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/7/2017 6:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan. WW1 expert. "Conrad von Hötzendorf, Chief of Staff of Austo-Hungary, first proposed preventive war against Serbia in 1906, and he did so again in 1908–09, in 1912–13, in October 1913, and May 1914: between 1 January 1913 and 1 January 1914 he proposed a Serbian war twenty-five times". AH was just looking for a reason to invade. And a very good one came their way. Conrad is a strong candidate for the stupidest general ever to lead a country to war - see 'A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire'.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125