RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

altipueri -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 9:49:57 PM)
LATE NEWS: Archduke Franz Ferdinand found alive. World War One all a mistake.

Hotschi -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 10:18:30 PM)
As I wrote earlier in another thread, it was the Habsburgian Austro-Hungarian Empire who started the whole bloody war. A "blank-cheque" by any other power, in this case by Germany, does not mean that A-H MUST go to war against Serbia. It was "Kaiser" Franz-Joseph's bloody own decision to do so, and the resulting break-up and dissolution of this A-H Empire was definitely a good thing.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 10:23:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 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? warspite1 Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. *I recommend Lawrence in Arabia* (Anderson).** I actually read that book. And I see you answered your own question.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 10:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 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? warspite1 Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. *I recommend Lawrence in Arabia* (Anderson).** I actually read that book. And I see you answered your own question. warspite1 No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 10:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 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? warspite1 Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. *I recommend Lawrence in Arabia* (Anderson).** I actually read that book. And I see you answered your own question. warspite1 No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document??

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 10:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 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? warspite1 Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. *I recommend Lawrence in Arabia* (Anderson).** I actually read that book. And I see you answered your own question. warspite1 No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document?? warspite1 So you are 'setting some kind of store by the fact it was a gentleman's agreement'? Why? If you've read the book you will know what a rubbish agreement it was. What is the point you are making?

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:01:42 PM)
quote: and the resulting break-up and dissolution of this A-H Empire was definitely a good thing. I agree with this statement, and it could have been accomplished by Bismarck in mid-1870's. Germany would not only have gotten prime real estate, but thankful and loyal allies (Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia), and secured a long-term peace with Russia+Serbia (giving Russia East Galacia, and eastern West Galacia; Serbia and Croatia splitting Bosnia along ethnic lines). Bismarck was asked about this, but he declined stating he didn't want to assume the ethnic problems of A-H. Here I assume Bismarck was thinking Germany would annex all of A-H...or maybe that was what he assumed the question was. Imagine a German Empire looking like this from about 1875 on (splitting Europe in half, major Med port, additional national resources): [image]local://upfiles/28013/6E516F710C4D4B8F9C624CDB1C2BA004.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:08:40 PM)
quote: 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: quote: 1. The Serbian Prime Minister Pasic knew of the assignation beforehand and assisted it. That Pasic knew of the plot seems to be no longer in dispute � as told by Jovanovic, the Minister for Education - Sleepwalkers (Clark). But you say he assisted the plot. Clark does not believe this and makes a compelling case for the fact that, far from assisting the plot, Pasic tried to stop it and indeed warn Vienna (albeit that his attempts in both cases were not as strong as they perhaps could have been due to his own weak position). Pasic had good reason to seek to avoid a war � he knew just how poor the country�s position was following the Balkan Wars. Clark also makes clear that Pasic�s position was probably not strong enough to bring down the Black Hand and he had to walk a fine line. So according to your sources how did Pasic actually assist the plotters? There remains the not insignificant question of to what extent did Austria-Hungary �know� of Belgrade�s involvement � a somewhat important point as Austria-Hungary were about to declare war on a Sovereign nation. The wording of the ultimatum suggests that they were still unaware. �Perhaps the most interesting feature of this text��..is that it does not assert direct complicity on the part of the Serbian State in the murders at Sarajevo� - Sleepwalkers (Clark). quote: 2. Two days after the assassination Germany and A-H advised Serbia to open an investigation, Serbian government refused. Your wording here is designed to make the situation appear more black and white than it probably was. Serbia did not refuse, but equally it has to be said that Serbian investigations were not thorough and there appeared little chance that � prior to the Ultimatum � that Serbia were going to be of much help to Austria-Hungary (Clark) quote: 3. After that refusal: Take a look at the ultimatum. An innocent government in my opinion would have no problem accepting every one of those points. Germany/A-H knew it would not be accepted by that particular belligerent military government, and also considering previous actions/statements such as #2 above (not because the ultimatum was unjustifiable). This is a very strange comment. Have you read what the document says? Just about every source I have ever come across states that Serbia, if they accepted this Ultimatum, would be effectively handing over sovereignty to Vienna � although Clark is the one person who seem a little less bullish on this. But your comment regarding an innocent country? Why would an innocent government have no problem with this? Whether innocent or guilty no government is going to give up its sovereignty in this way. But please tell me which parts do you think any country would be happy to accede to � and then imagine anyone asking the US to do the same? quote: Serbia had 48 hours to accept it...the penalty if they did not?: recalling the Ambassador. I don�t understand the point about the penalty if Serbia refused. You say the penalty was to recall the Ambassador. Seriously? You are genuinely stating that had Russia not intervened, had Serbia not mobilised (both of which we�ll come to later) that all the Austrians would have done is recalled their Ambassador if the Serbians had refused?? There would have been no war?? The ultimatum was all about agree or we recall the Ambassador??? quote: 4. Prior to the end of the 48 hours, Russia sends a telegram of support to Serbia (blank check anyone?), NO. In Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) the author makes clear this is no blank cheque. The Russian Ambassador Sazanov confirms that Russia will protect Serbia�s independence but in so doing urges Serbia to accept most of the Austro-Hungarian terms. So while still trying to get a peaceful solution the Russians were agreeing to protect a little independent nation from a bullying oppressor. quote: Serbia mobilizes its army (in those days mobilization of the military was considered akin to a declaration of war). After Serbia rejects the vast majority of the ultimatum...A-H response? Breaking of diplomatic relations. Again is this serious? You said a failure to accept would mean a recall of the Ambassador. Now you are saying that because Russia have shown support the penalty is�. a break in diplomatic relations? That is all? This is bizarre. But why did Serbia mobilise first? Well understandably realising that the ultimatum is not designed to be accepted, Serbia orders mobilisation on the 25th July 1914 just a few hours before they had to give their response to the Austro-Hungarians. But effectively you are saying the only reason the Austro-Hungarian declared war is: quote: 5. 24 hours later recently mobilized Serbian troops are seen crossing the Danube into the A-H side of the river and skirmish with A-H troops. Well that is convenient! No other source I have read seems to believe this. �Next morning Berchtold informed his Emperor � mendaciously � that the Serbs had fired on Austria�s Danube Steamers - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) quote: 6. A-H then declared war and mobilized its army. The way you have written this makes it sound like you are saying the Austro-Hungarians declared war and mobilised 24 hours after Serbia mobilised. Not true. Austria-Hungary declared war at 19:23 on the 25th (about an hour and a half after the expiry of the Ultimatum) and ordered mobilisation the same day � although Austria-Hungary being Austria-Hungary, the order did not actually take effect for two days - (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/serbia-and-austria-hungary-mobilize/) There was only going to be one outcome � and the Austrian Ambassador to Serbia was ordered to leave Serbia that evening - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) �On the evening 28th July Russian military intelligence reported that three-quarters of the Austrian Army was being mobilised, 12 out of 16 Corps � many more than were needed to tackle Serbia� - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) Russia mobilised on the 30th July - (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/serbia-and-austria-hungary-mobilize/). Remember the partial mobilisation she had carried out previously was nothing different to what she had done in the winter of 1912-13 � without provoking hostilities - Catastrophe 1914 Europe Goes to War (Hastings) quote: 7. The Franco-Russo secret treaty of 1892 was revealed, in which France and Russia mobilized their military. I will let someone else look at this if they so which as I have made my position clear. The key to why the Balkan crisis developed into WWI starts with A-H, Serbia, Russia and Germany.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 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? warspite1 Re my answer (and question) above are you setting some kind of store by the fact it was a 'Gentlemen's Agreement'? I hope not but if so I think you should do some reading on the outcome of this 'agreement'. *I recommend Lawrence in Arabia* (Anderson).** I actually read that book. And I see you answered your own question. warspite1 No I want to answer your question - but I don't know what it is. Why did you reference this document?? warspite1 So you are 'setting some kind of store by the fact it was a gentleman's agreement'? Why? If you've read the book you will know what a rubbish agreement it was. What is the point you are making? It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:14:40 PM)
Removed posts as this was becoming unreadable quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon. warspite1 And the point is in reference to who started WWI?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: and the resulting break-up and dissolution of this A-H Empire was definitely a good thing. I agree with this statement, and it could have been accomplished by Bismarck in mid-1870's. Germany would not only have gotten prime real estate, but thankful and loyal allies (Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia), and secured a long-term peace with Russia+Serbia (giving Russia East Galacia, and eastern West Galacia; Serbia and Croatia splitting Bosnia along ethnic lines). Bismarck was asked about this, but he declined stating he didn't want to assume the ethnic problems of A-H. Here I assume Bismarck was thinking Germany would annex all of A-H...or maybe that was what he assumed the question was. Imagine a German Empire looking like this from about 1875 on (splitting Europe in half, major Med port, additional national resources): warspite1 Great if your German. For the rest of Europe perhaps not so much....[;)]

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/8/2017 11:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Removed posts as this was becoming unreadable quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon. warspite1 And the point is in reference to who started WWI? Obligation, i.e., that even a worthless, highly informal agreement was honored by the Euro powers.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 12:28:54 AM)
Warspite1: Ok, so now I get you read and like Clark and Hastings...they are your "gold standard". My question is: Are you willing to read other authors on this subject...ie, the ones I sourced? Do you have an open mind on this and are you willing to accept that perhaps Clark/Hastings might have it wrong or perhaps incomplete?...or are they infallible on this subject in your opinion? In a previous post I mentioned something along the lines of a person's starting point bias (perception maybe is a kinder word), which we all have for various reasons. Authors that reflect our starting point perception tend to become our favorites. I have never read Clark or Hastings, and it could be they have it spot on...or maybe not. I have an open mind, but all things being equal, I will side with my starting point perceptions as I'm sure you will as well. I can flesh out some of what the authors that I sourced wrote, although it probably wont matter to you. But perhaps it will be a curiosity for others. At the moment I am dealing with a major hurricane heading my way.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 4:11:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Removed posts as this was becoming unreadable quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon. warspite1 And the point is in reference to who started WWI? Obligation, i.e., that even a worthless, highly informal agreement was honored by the Euro powers. warspite1 [&:] Well I think you need to read the book again because you've forgotten something rather important.....

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 4:38:34 AM)
quote: Jagdtiger14 Warspite1: Ok, so now I get you read and like Clark and Hastings...they are your "gold standard". They are two sources I chose to quote. Did I have a go at you for your choices? quote: Are you willing to read other authors on this subject...ie, the ones I sourced? Do you have an open mind on this and are you willing to accept that perhaps Clark/Hastings might have it wrong or perhaps incomplete?...or are they infallible on this subject in your opinion? Jagdtiger if you are going to take part in these discussions then you really should do people the basic courtesy of reading their posts too. This comment is annoying as it is depressingly familiar. a) As I have previously explained on numerous occasions, Clark�s view of who started WWI does not tally with mine. Because I choose to read a wide range of authors I read his well received book nonetheless � and learned a lot � although I still don�t agree fully with his conclusions. Indeed if you bothered to read my post above you will see that on a couple of points he agreed � or partially agreed - with you. Hastings is an author I sometimes agree with and sometimes not. I quote from authors who I think have done their research. b) Please see post 92. You are the one who appears to like to read events from one side only and I find it instructive you never bothered to respond. It was you that recommended that �awesome� book Dunkirk: The Patriotic Myth and, although I knew it wasn�t going to be something I was likely to agree with, I read it. I think you could do me the same courtesy and read books I recommend. c) Do I have an open mind? Of course, that is why I read all the time � to try and educate myself. quote: In a previous post I mentioned something along the lines of a person's starting point bias (perception maybe is a kinder word), which we all have for various reasons. Authors that reflect our starting point perception tend to become our favorites. I have never read Clark or Hastings, and it could be they have it spot on...or maybe not. I have an open mind, but all things being equal, I will side with my starting point perceptions as I'm sure you will as well. Yes, I answered that too and sorry, while I obviously start with perceptions and ideas formed as I grew up and the learning and information received along the way, I am old enough and ugly enough to view things dispassionately. I don't have an axe to grind in this. I have no love for Czarist Russia or that awful Serbian state any more or less than Germany (in fact probably much less than Germany) or that faltering monolith Austria-Hungary. I don't have a hidden agenda in finding one more at fault than the other. quote: I can flesh out some of what the authors that I sourced wrote, although it probably wont matter to you. If it didn�t matter then I wouldn�t get involved in these �discussions�. But yes, if you could � and please, please start with what I can only assume is a typing error (although the error appears twice) � i.e. the idea that Austria-Hungary wrote out the Ultimatum she did, NOT because she was expecting it to be refused so she could go to war, but so she could..... recall her Ambassador.... if Serbia said no. That comment ranks alongside � no is far more comical even � than fighter command having 1,400 fighters, all �Ultra-modern� in 1940. quote: At the moment I am dealing with a major hurricane heading my way. Good luck to you and all affected by these terrible weather conditions. Stay safe. I pray Irma will decide to change tack and bugger off out to sea.....

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 5:31:22 AM)
quote: If you could � and please, please start with what I can only assume is a typing error (although the error appears twice) � i.e. the idea that Austria-Hungary wrote out the Ultimatum she did, NOT because she was expecting it to be refused so she could go to war, but so she could..... recall her Ambassador.... if Serbia said no. Warspite1, maybe I'm loosing it in my advanced age, but please could you do me the favor of pointing out to me where I wrote A-H was NOT expecting the ultimatum to be (mostly) rejected (so she could go to war)? If you are referring to my post #148: I am referring to a fact of history of what happened immediately after the ultimatum's rejection (and Serbian full (not partial) mobilization (done near/on the A-H border) which in that time was considered an act of war) and that was A-H breaking off diplomatic relations. At that exact point in time A-H did not fully mobilize (esp on Serbia's border), did not declare war, and did not attack Serbia. I'm not saying they would not have done so very soon anyway. Additionally (Clark and/or Hastings differ from Albertini) in that it was Serbian reservists who were transported on steamers crossing over the Danube into A-H national waters where a skirmish broke out. Bottom line is you cant convict someone of murder if they hav'nt murdered (even if they threaten to do so). A-H did not mobilze the portion of its army that would face the already fully mobilized Serbian Army on July 28'14. Even then, A-H was still not fully mobilized until Russia did. Strict sequence of events counts, especially in history. While there is probably general agreement that A-H would eventually attack Serbia, the fact is they did not immediately do this. Serbia jumped the gun, they fully mobilized first on A-H borders, they attacked first. In a court of law, following the strict sequence of events, Serbia would be guilty, not A-H.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 6:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: If you could � and please, please start with what I can only assume is a typing error (although the error appears twice) � i.e. the idea that Austria-Hungary wrote out the Ultimatum she did, NOT because she was expecting it to be refused so she could go to war, but so she could..... recall her Ambassador.... if Serbia said no. Warspite1, maybe I'm loosing it in my advanced age, but please could you do me the favor of pointing out to me where I wrote A-H was NOT expecting the ultimatum to be (mostly) rejected (so she could go to war)? If you are referring to my post #148: I am referring to a fact of history of what happened immediately after the ultimatum's rejection (and Serbian full (not partial) mobilization (done near/on the A-H border) which in that time was considered an act of war) and that was A-H breaking off diplomatic relations. At that exact point in time A-H did not fully mobilize (esp on Serbia's border), did not declare war, and did not attack Serbia. I'm not saying they would not have done so very soon anyway. Additionally (Clark and/or Hastings differ from Albertini) in that it was Serbian reservists who were transported on steamers crossing over the Danube into A-H national waters where a skirmish broke out. Bottom line is you cant convict someone of murder if they hav'nt murdered (even if they threaten to do so). A-H did not mobilze the portion of its army that would face the already fully mobilized Serbian Army on July 28'14. Even then, A-H was still not fully mobilized until Russia did. Strict sequence of events counts, especially in history. While there is probably general agreement that A-H would eventually attack Serbia, the fact is they did not immediately do this. Serbia jumped the gun, they fully mobilized first on A-H borders, they attacked first. In a court of law, following the strict sequence of events, Serbia would be guilty, not A-H. warspite1 That is pretty astounding. So lets be clear here. Let's say that Russia stay out but that Serbia still decide to reject the ultimatum. We will also assume that the Serbs were incredibly stupid and, despite being given an ultimatum they could not accept, decided to play into Austria's hands and not take the precaution of mobilising. Let's also say that there were no border skirmishes (manufactured or otherwise). Right. In this scenario what do Austria-Hungary do now? You've said they would recall their ambassador and also break-off diplomatic relations (although I don't know if you believe the latter applies as Russia, in this scenario, hasn't got involved). Right. Now what happens? You said quote: While there is probably general agreement that A-H would eventually attack Serbia Disingenuous. Probably? general agreement? Really? Come come, I think you are on safe territory in stating that A-H would invade. Where does the probably come from? After all, if A-H didn't, this is how history sees it. - The heir to the throne has been murdered - A-H blame Serbia and choose to make them pay - They issue a list of demands that Serbia refuse to meet in full - A-H decides enough is enough. "You have murdered our heir. You have refused our demands. Right, we can tolerate this outrage no longer. We are withdrawing our ambassador...oh and and breaking off diplomatic relations.... immediately! So there [puts thumb to nose and blows raspberry]. That showed you Serbia!". Fanciful. Utterly. Fanciful. And all the conversations, notes and telegrams within A-H and between A-H and Germany that confirm what A-H seeks to do? They can simply be ignored yes? Or perhaps they were just another cunning rouse to get Serbia to mobilise first? - although one would have to first leak them to Serbia of course.... By the way you said quote: A-H did not mobilze the portion of its army that would face the already fully mobilized Serbian Army on July 28'14. How long do you think it takes to get an army fully mobilised?

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 6:37:26 AM)
The 10 demands of the ultimatum: 1. To suppress every publication which shall incite to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy, and the general tendency of which shall be directed against the territorial integrity of the latter; My comment: Prior to the assassination if A-H made this demand I would tell them to go bugger off. After the assassination, realizing the sensitivity and that war could possibly result I would concede this at least temporarily until things cool down (maybe a year or so?). This is not unreasonable. Serbia rejected this. 2. to proceed at once to the dissolution of the Narodna Odbrana to confiscate all of its means of propaganda, and in the same manner to proceed against the other unions and association in Serbia which occupy themselves with propaganda against Austria-Hungary; the Royal Government will take such measures as are necessary to make sure that the dissolved associations may not continue their activities under other names or in other forms. My comment: see my comment in #1. This is not uncommon even today (especially Germany). This was rejected by Serbia. 3. to eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, everything, whether connected with the teaching corps or with the methods of teaching, that serves or may serve to nourish the propaganda against Austria-Hungary; My comment: Today there are bad actor nations/groups in control who teach their children to hate or propagandize children: Hamas vs Israel, Argentina concerning the Falklands, etc...I'm sure you would like that to stop? Serbia rejected this. 4. to remove from the military and administrative service in general all officers and officials who have been guilty of carrying on the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whose names the Imperial and Royal Government reserves the right to make known to the Royal Government when communicating the material evidence now in its possession; My comment: See #1. Serbia rejected this. 5. to agree to the cooperation in Serbia of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the integrity of the Monarchy. My comment: I would ask for clarification since this is written confusingly. Does it mean A-H officials get to operate within Serbia? If so how many, and to what degree? Is it in tandum with Serbian officials?, for how long, etc... To me it seems in cooperation with Serbian officials, and details to be worked out later...if so, see #1 above. Serbia rejected this. 6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose; My comment: I would happily concede this to A-H if my nation was innocent. Serbia rejected this. The way around this one though is to make sure the participants in the conspiracy leave Serbian territory. 7. to undertake with all haste the arrest of Major Voislav Tankosic and of one Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian official, who have been compromised by the results of the inquiry; My comment: No problem. See #6. Serbia rejected this. 8. by efficient measures to prevent the participation of Serbian authorities in the smuggling of weapons and explosives across the frontier, to dismiss from the service and to punish severely those members of the Frontier Service at Schabats and Losnitza who assisted the authors of the crime of Sarajevo to cross the frontier; My comment: Serbia fully agreed to this. 9. to make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad, who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June; My comment: No problem at all. Serbia should be diplomatic towards A-H after such an event. Serbia rejected this, really??? 10. to inform the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised in the foregoing points. My comment: I guess Serbia rejected this because they rejected 1-7, and 9. If you agree to 1-9, then you would agree with #10. My guess is that Serbia didn't want to be talked down to, and they didn't want to lose face. But really, its obvious the assassination was a traumatic event for A-H. An innocent nation would work with its much larger and powerful neighbor (even if it was not larger and more powerful). The other issue is that Russia's blank check to Serbia made it possible to reject this. What if Russia had told Serbia to just do it? In the end was it worth it for Serbia? If Serbia had complied with these demands, and A-H attacked them anyway, now we know the bad guy. The full transcript of the ultimatum: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 7:12:30 AM)
quote: And all the conversations, notes and telegrams within A-H and between A-H and Germany that confirm what A-H seeks to do? They can simply be ignored yes? Or perhaps they were just another cunning rouse to get Serbia to mobilise first? - although one would have to first leak them to Serbia of course.... To history the telegrams and notes show what the intentions of A-H and Germany were. To real time sequence of events they were irrelevant since Serbia played into A-H and German intentions anyway. Although Germany and A-H were planning a murder, they didn't. Serbia made it easy for them and gave them Casus Belli. Yes, Serbia was stupid. Its my opinion that without Russia, Serbia would have accepted the ultimatum. Serbia "...given an ultimatum they COULD not accept", yes they COULD have, they chose not to (just like you think and blame Germany that they could/should have pulled A-H back), and I blame Russia's backing of Serbia for that. Russia has been accused of knowing of the assassination attempt before on June 14 (and funding the assassination)...(Apis's confession) and assisting the Serbian government in promising protection. If you do not believe Apis's confession, then the comment (admitted involvement of his office) and curious silence afterwards by the Assistant Military Attache Alexander Werchovsky should make you curious?!

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 7:25:39 AM)
quote: How long do you think it takes to get an army fully mobilised? My error, I should have written "called for full mobilization" rather than the way it reads that it happened instantly. Sorry.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 7:31:07 AM)
quote: b) Please see post 92. You are the one who appears to like to read events from one side only and I find it instructive you never bothered to respond. I think you mentioned starting a different thread or something. I don't think that subject is appropriate in this one.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 7:47:34 AM)
I will try to get to some of the writing of the authors I mentioned. Interesting statement by one of the conspirators (Vaso Cubrilovic) much later in life referring to Franz Ferdinand's assassination: "We destroyed a beautiful world that was lost forever due to the war that followed." Sugar, Peter F (1999) East European Nationalism, Politics and religion. Now who was he referring to concerning "We"? The conspirators? Serbia? I don't know, but it is interesting as it seems he is taking responsibility for "who caused WW1".

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 9:15:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I will try to get to some of the writing of the authors I mentioned. Interesting statement by one of the conspirators (Vaso Cubrilovic) much later in life referring to Franz Ferdinand's assassination: "We destroyed a beautiful world that was lost forever due to the war that followed." Sugar, Peter F (1999) East European Nationalism, Politics and religion. Now who was he referring to concerning "We"? The conspirators? Serbia? I don't know, but it is interesting as it seems he is taking responsibility for "who caused WW1". warspite1 Without context there is no way one can know who he is referring to. He may be talking about 'We' as in European political and military leaders.

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 9:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: b) Please see post 92. You are the one who appears to like to read events from one side only and I find it instructive you never bothered to respond. I think you mentioned starting a different thread or something. I don't think that subject is appropriate in this one. warspite1 Sure, when you get a chance to respond how about using the book thread?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 9:17:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: And all the conversations, notes and telegrams within A-H and between A-H and Germany that confirm what A-H seeks to do? They can simply be ignored yes? Or perhaps they were just another cunning rouse to get Serbia to mobilise first? - although one would have to first leak them to Serbia of course.... To history the telegrams and notes show what the intentions of A-H and Germany were. To real time sequence of events they were irrelevant since Serbia played into A-H and German intentions anyway. Although Germany and A-H were planning a murder, they didn't. Serbia made it easy for them and gave them Casus Belli. Yes, Serbia was stupid. warspite1 Re: Bold Thank-you for confirming. Re: Underlined And Serbia was not stupid. They prudently mobilised because it was obvious what A-H had planned. That does not make them the aggressors. Poland was partially mobilised in 1939. She was not fully mobilised because of pressure from the Western Allies [8\|]. So was that sensible? Norway was also only partially mobilised by April 1940 - was that sensible? Belgium mobilised at the time of the Invasion of Poland. Do you say she attacked the Germans?

warspite1 -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 9:30:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 The 10 demands of the ultimatum: warspite1 I think that your view seems to gloss over the fact that Serbia was an independent sovereign nation. At this point there was no proof as to who exactly ordered the assassination. As I said, you try demanding of the American government what was demanded of Serbia. quote: The Royal Serbian Government will furthermore pledge itself: quote: 1. to suppress every publication which shall incite to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy, and the general tendency of which shall be directed against the territorial integrity of the latter; Who is the arbiter of this? What is deemed to incite hatred and contempt � as opposed to simple free speech? So A-H goes and does something stupid in another part of the world. A Serbian cartoonist draws a humorous cartoon depicting the event. A bit of satire or an incitement to hatred? Well I�m sure A-H will decide. Free speech goes out of the window. quote: Your comment: This is not unreasonable And you really think this was a reasonable demand? Even so, the Serbs agreed to it. Serbian Response: [Serbia will] introduce ... a provision into the press law providing for the most severe punishment of incitement to hatred and contempt of the [A-H] Monarchy... quote: 2. to proceed at once to the dissolution of the Narodna Odbrana to confiscate all of its means of propaganda, and in the same manner to proceed against the other unions and associations in Serbia which occupy themselves with propaganda against Austria-Hungary; the Royal Government will take such measures as are necessary to make sure that the dissolved associations may not continue their activities under other names or in other forms; You said the Serbs rejected this. Can you provide a source for that please? This is not the case according to First World War.com. So A-H don�t just want what they regard as criminal organisations outlawed but those that state any form of propaganda? And you think that limitation on free speech is acceptable? Serbian Response: The Serbian govt.] possesses no proof ... that the Narodna Odbrana and other similar societies have committed up to the present any criminal act of this nature ... Nevertheless, [Serbia] will ... dissolve the Narodna Obrana and every other society which... quote: 3. to eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, everything, whether connected with the teaching corps or with the methods of teaching, that serves or may serve to nourish the propaganda against Austria-Hungary; quote: Your comment: Today there are bad actor nations/groups in control who teach their children to hate or propagandize children: Hamas vs Israel, Argentina concerning the Falklands, etc...I'm sure you would like that to stop? Serbia rejected this. Again, this is just a restriction on free speech. Essentially this states it is outlawed that anything that A-H objects to can be taught about A-H in Serbia. Again can you provide a source for this being rejected please because that is not the popular conception? Serbian Response: [Serbia will] eliminate without delay from public instruction ... everything that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against [A-H], whenever [Austria] furnish them with facts and proofs... quote: 4. to remove from the military and administrative service in general all officers and officials who have been guilty of carrying on the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whose names the Imperial and Royal Government reserves the right to make known to the Royal Government when communicating the material evidence now in its possession; Yet again you have stated that the Serbs rejected this restriction on what Serbians can think. No one else seems to think this is the case. Source please. Serbian Response: [Serbia] also agree to remove from the military service all such persons as the judicial inquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of [A-H], and they expect [Austria] to communicate ... the names and acts of these officers for the purpose of the proceedings which are to be taken against them. quote: 5. to agree to the cooperation in Serbia of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the integrity of the Monarchy; quote: Your comment: I would ask for clarification since this is written confusingly. Does it mean A-H officials get to operate within Serbia? If so how many, and to what degree? Is it in tandum with Serbian officials?, for how long, etc... To me it seems in cooperation with Serbian officials, and details to be worked out later...if so, see #1 above. Serbia rejected this. Same again. Source please, this is not the clause that it's reported as being rejected. The Serbs asked for clarification yes, but did not reject it. Of course as we know, the Austrians were not interested in clarifying anything..... Serbian Response: [The Serbian govt. does] not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand ... that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the representatives of [A-H], but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighbourly relations. quote: 6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose; quote: Your comment: I would happily concede this to A-H if my nation was innocent. Serbia rejected this. The way around this one though is to make sure the participants in the conspiracy leave Serbian territory. Yes I am sure that you would be only too happy for anyone to come along and mess with the US Constitution�. This is the one that was rejected and not surprising really. Serbian Response: ...As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution... quote: 7. to undertake with all haste the arrest of Major Voislav Tankosic and of one Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian official, who have been compromised by the results of the inquiry; Again source please. Serbia did not reject this � but reasonably asked for proof. Essentially otherwise, this clause gives A-H the right to simply act as judge and jury in terms of who can be arrested. Why should that be allowed? If proof was provided and the persons not handed over then that is something else. Do the US simply hand US Citizens over to anyone - even those they don't have treaties with? Serbian Response: [States it has not yet been possible to arrest one of the persons named; request proofs of guilt from Austria] quote: 8. by efficient measures to prevent the participation of Serbian authorities in the smuggling of weapons and explosives across the frontier; to dismiss from the service and to punish severely those members of the Frontier Service at Schabats and Losnitza who assisted the authors of the crime of Sarajevo to cross the frontier; quote: Your comment: Serbia fully agreed to this. And it should be noted that Pasic was trying to achieve that before the assassination. Serbian Response: [agrees to reinforce measures against illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the frontier with Bosnia-Herzegovina] quote: 9. to make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad, who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June; quote: Your comment: No problem at all. Serbia should be diplomatic towards A-H after such an event. Serbia rejected this, really??? Yes really. Why must they accept this? Again they are attacking free speech. And if it works for Serbia then why not for Austria? So when Conrad and every other warmonger within Austrian higher circles make statements calling for the crushing of Serbia � as they had done for years - are they to be �explained� too? No of course not, because A-H are totally innocent right? Serbian Response: [offers explanations of anti-Austrian comments by Serb officials if Austria sends examples of their actually having been made] quote: 10. to inform the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised in the foregoing points. quote: Your comment: I guess Serbia rejected this because they rejected 1-7, and 9. If you agree to 1-9, then you would agree with #10. I think most of the world have different understandings of rejection, compliance and further query. Serbian Response: [Serbia will duly notify the measures taken, but if Austria is not satisfied with the reply] the Serbian government . . are ready . . to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague [i.e., the World Court], or to the Great Powers...

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 11:38:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Removed posts as this was becoming unreadable quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. It's not the content of the agreement, but the fact such an informal missive was agreed upon. warspite1 And the point is in reference to who started WWI? Obligation, i.e., that even a worthless, highly informal agreement was honored by the Euro powers. warspite1 [&:] Well I think you need to read the book again because you've forgotten something rather important..... I haven't forgotten that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And I will add that those who make excuses for the past will never learn from it.

Joe D. -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 11:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 ... Interesting statement by one of the conspirators (Vaso Cubrilovic) much later in life referring to Franz Ferdinand's assassination: "We destroyed a beautiful world that was lost forever due to the war that followed." Sugar, Peter F (1999) East European Nationalism, Politics and religion. Now who was he referring to concerning "We"? The conspirators? Serbia? I don't know, but it is interesting as it seems he is taking responsibility for "who caused WW1". "The conspirators? Serbia?" Perhaps both, since they were working to unravel an empire; apparently destroying an entire era was just an unintended consequence. Stay safe.

Yogi the Great -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 12:26:52 PM)
Gee I thought it would take us less than 6 pages to figure out who caused WWI. [;)]

ezzler -> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited (9/9/2017 1:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great Gee I thought it would take us less than 6 pages to figure out who caused WWI. [;)] I'm waiting until it gets to 20 pages. Then I'm going to kick it all off again with "Who was responsible for the start of the American Civil War?" When that cools down, can always go for the ever reliable "Spitfire or Me109?"

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.265625