quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

The fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units.

Obvious facts don't need to be referenced, but when a citizen of one nation, say Great Britain of France, sits in judgement of another nation, say Germany, there is a fine line between fact and national bias. I recall reading something in Rebecca's West's "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon" about the bias of the Britains of her day towards Serbia, but I can't recall why?

And I was referring to your protest of the innocence of Serbia in starting WW I, or didn't you catch my reference to Hamlet? You do realize I'm posting from a town called Stratford?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

The fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units.

Obvious facts don't need to be referenced, but when a citizen of one nation, say Great Britain of France, sits in judgement of another nation, say Germany, there is a fine line between fact and national bias. I recall reading something in Rebecca's West's "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon" about the bias of the Britains of her day towards Serbia, but I can't recall why?

And I was referring to your protest of the innocence of Serbia in starting WW I, or didn't you catch my reference to Hamlet? You do realize I'm posting from a town called Stratford?

warspite1

Re the Shakespeare, Stratford, Hamlet line - no sorry that was far too subtle for me. You may want to use a brick in the face next time [:D]

I don't really want to get into the whole modern day political thing but why was Serbia found not guilty then?

And please I thought this national bias stuff had been dealt with. I blame Germany and AH the most because I believe they are most guilty. I blame Russia and Serbia (as well as France, Russia and Britain) because all of them are guilty to a degree in various ways - but were not the prime cause of the war. I DON'T NOT place majority blame on AH, Russia and France because of national bias. Russia was an absolutist monarchy and a horrible regime, The Serbian regime was distinctly unlikable and the French are....well the French (joke! [;)]).

But the main problem with this subject (in terms of quoting loads of 'facts') is that one can quote all the facts they like, but as our discussion is proving, ultimately this comes down to personal opinion. So facts are unlikely to prove either's side of the argument.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

Many senior military officers now have degrees in international law. My niece is a lawyer, but specializes in environmental law; I'm just a journalist, but murder by assassination or any other means that crosses national boundaries is by definition an international crime, and as I previously posted: "the fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I think we know that if a soon-to-be-king Prince of Wales was assassinated by a cabal in the German military in order to bring about a favorable situation for Germany, we'd be hearing a different tune from Brits about the causation of a war based thereon. Am I right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

Many senior military officers now have degrees in international law. My niece is a lawyer, but specializes in environmental law; I'm just a journalist, but murder by assassination or any other means that crosses national boundaries is by definition an international crime, and as I previously posted: "the fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units."

warspite1

But do you know the answers to the various questions I raised? I assumed you understood the legal aspect, which is why you were quoting the case. If not (and frankly I don't blame you [;)]) then this statement is proof of nothing - and I don't see how you can accuse a state of breaking a law that (as far as I know) didn't exist at the time of wrongdoing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

Many senior military officers now have degrees in international law. My niece is a lawyer, but specializes in environmental law; I'm just a journalist, but murder by assassination or any other means that crosses national boundaries is by definition an international crime, and as I previously posted: "the fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units."

warspite1

But do you know the answers to the various questions I raised? I assumed you understood the legal aspect, which is why you were quoting the case. If not (and frankly I don't blame you [;)]) then this statement is proof of nothing - and I don't see how you can accuse a state of breaking a law that (as far as I know) didn't exist at the time of wrongdoing.

You need to consult someone with a degree in international law, but murder by any means, e.g., assassination, is a wrongdoing that goes back to Cain. The modern crime of genocide was just an example that one nation could sue another, namely Serbia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

Many senior military officers now have degrees in international law. My niece is a lawyer, but specializes in environmental law; I'm just a journalist, but murder by assassination or any other means that crosses national boundaries is by definition an international crime, and as I previously posted: "the fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units."

warspite1

But do you know the answers to the various questions I raised? I assumed you understood the legal aspect, which is why you were quoting the case. If not (and frankly I don't blame you [;)]) then this statement is proof of nothing - and I don't see how you can accuse a state of breaking a law that (as far as I know) didn't exist at the time of wrongdoing.

You need to consult someone with a degree in international law, but murder by any means, e.g., assassination, is a wrongdoing that goes back to Cain. The modern crime of genocide was just an example that one nation could sue another, namely Serbia.

warspite1

No I don't have to because I am not quoting some legal action for which I don't understand its legal basis, the legal arguments or how it affects action taken in 1914.

You are, but you are guessing. You cannot tell me how the two main statements join together - and without knowing that you cannot possibly understand if the conclusions you are drawing are correct let alone can be compared with the position in 1914. You cannot tell me what the legal position was in 1914 either and have now resorted to telling me that murder is wrong and it said so in the bible. Well yes, but that does not mean the Serbian state is responsible for the assassination does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

warspite1

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think there are a number of issues here, not least of which is the fact that this is modern day politics so may see the thread locked. Rather than that, I will simply delete this post if it is considered out of bounds.

Let me just make absolutely clear, in discussing this I am simply seeking to understand your point. I, like you I’m sure, have no wish to express any support, favour or anything else positive to the perpetrators of genocide – whoever they are. I seek to make no judgement on any of the countries involved – BUT SEEK ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES so I can marry them with the events of June 1914.

Firstly I am not a lawyer. Trying to read through the case itself and the legal arguments is not easy – and of course it’s even less easy trying to match the case, international law – and what happened - with the events leading up to and following the assassination of the Franz Ferdinand.

The crux of this is: can you explain the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference between the two statements below.

quote:

The Hague-based ICJ found……….there was not enough evidence to suggest Party A was directly responsible [for the crime against Party C].

quote:

But it did find Party A, which politically and militarily backed Party B, had breached international law....

I am a simple man and these two comments (in the absence of understanding the legal detail) don’t seem to follow. What international law did Party A breach even though they were not held to be directly responsible? Please no personal thoughts here, I just want to know legally what they were talking about and so why you believe this is relevant to the argument about 1914.

There are then a number of questions that stem from this, perhaps the first and foremost being what relevant international laws were in place in 1914? I suspect the one you mention was not. Was Serbia guilty of breaking any international law? Bringing up a recent case is all well and good but does it have relevance to 1914? Given the known stance of AH in the years preceding 1914 (see post 119), would AH have given a fig anyway?….

Finally, can you just confirm your thoughts on who started WWI? I know at the outset you said you thought it was Serbian intrigue that started the war (and Germany picked up the bill) and that the Alliance system roped everyone in. Are you saying that it was essentially Serbia’s fault entirely? I just want to be clear.

Many senior military officers now have degrees in international law. My niece is a lawyer, but specializes in environmental law; I'm just a journalist, but murder by assassination or any other means that crosses national boundaries is by definition an international crime, and as I previously posted: "the fact that Bosnia could take Serbia to court over war crimes certainly proves states are responsible for the actions of their own military, even rogue paramilitary units."

warspite1

But do you know the answers to the various questions I raised? I assumed you understood the legal aspect, which is why you were quoting the case. If not (and frankly I don't blame you [;)]) then this statement is proof of nothing - and I don't see how you can accuse a state of breaking a law that (as far as I know) didn't exist at the time of wrongdoing.

You need to consult someone with a degree in international law, but murder by any means, e.g., assassination, is a wrongdoing that goes back to Cain. The modern crime of genocide was just an example that one nation could sue another, namely Serbia.

warspite1

No I don't have to because I am not quoting some legal action for which I don't understand its legal basis, the legal arguments or how it affects action taken in 1914.

You are, but you are guessing. You cannot tell me how the two main statements join together - and without knowing that you cannot possibly understand if the conclusions you are drawing are correct let alone can be compared with the position in 1914. You cannot tell me what the legal position was in 1914 either and have now resorted to telling me that murder is wrong and it said so in the bible. Well yes, but that does not mean the Serbian state is responsible for the assassination does it?

I am not guessing that the government of Serbia was sued by Bosnia for international war crimes, or that a state-sponsored Serbian assassination plot that crossed national boundaries into AH was legally any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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

I thought that Germany was allied with AH. There might have been loopholes to get Germany out of formal obligations but Germany surely had a moral obligation to AH after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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

I thought that Germany was allied with AH. There might have been loopholes to get Germany out of formal obligations but Germany surely had a moral obligation to AH after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

warspite1

I don't see how Germany could have a moral obligation that involved supporting an attack on a minor country that at that time was not proven to have sanctioned the assassination - an attack that they knew (well before AH launched the attack, even if they didn't realise immediately) would lead to a wider European conflagration. I don't see why that moral obligation extended to refusing the British proposal of a conference to sort out the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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

I thought that Germany was allied with AH. There might have been loopholes to get Germany out of formal obligations but Germany surely had a moral obligation to AH after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

warspite1

I don't see how Germany could have a moral obligation that involved supporting an attack on a minor country that at that time was not proven to have sanctioned the assassination - an attack that they knew (well before AH launched the attack, even if they didn't realise immediately) would lead to a wider European conflagration. I don't see why that moral obligation extended to refusing the British proposal of a conference to sort out the problem.

Germany didn't support the attack on Serbia. They supported the AH defence against Russia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

warspite1

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

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

warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

warspite1

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

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

warspite1

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

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-sykes-picot-agreement-1916

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

It can't be Serbia's fault entirely if other nations were backing the two original belligerents. Serbia simply triggered Europe's dominoes.

warspite1

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

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

warspite1

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

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-sykes-picot-agreement-1916

warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

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

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


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

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

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

If anyone disputes facts above, I can provide sourcing.

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

quote:

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