AofA wrote:
I can't absolve Austria simply because Serbia agreed to every one of the Austrian demands except occupation by Austrian forces.
Belgrade had little choice, with an Austrian Army gathering on its border. Pasic was just buying time for what he hoped would be a massive Russian invasion into Galicia.
I would ask again; was the Serbian government any less deserving of Vienna's wrath in 1914 than Afghanistan's was Washington's in 2001? What should Vienna have done, if not invaded and overthrown what was a terrorist regime hopelessly beyond reform?
As I said earlier, Conrad wanted war, and he was going to get it.
This much is true, that Conrad had been spoiling for a war with Serbia since 1912. The reason though is that Serbian-sponsored terrorist actions throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Banat had been growing exponentially.
I can also say I'm not convinced that destroing the old Imperial powers in Europe was a good thing, in light of the success of the EU today, unity seems to be coming, and it's better then the fragmented tiny kingdoms they have littered Europe for centuries.
Ah - the first cracks in the facade of a rock-solid 20th century belief, that ethno-linguistic nationalism could only be satisfied throught statehood - ein Volk, ein Nation! This myth played a major role in the destruction of the old imperial realms but only in the 1980s and 90s, with most of the bloody 20th century behind them, did a few of the "freed" nations begin to ask aloud whether independence was all it's cracked up to be. Stunted little economies breeding dependence and easy manipulation by outside powers, internicene ethnic strife shattering centuries-old communities, small populations unable to provide for adequate armies (even in the militaristic 1930s) in a very dangerous neighborhood, collapsing living standards, all products of the automatic belief that every single nationality must have a state.
Hitro wrote:
A very good question Vrylakas!
Thanks Hitro! One should never be complacent with history. Always question!
For me the answer is "No". Has been and still is. But the comparision is valid, without any doubt. Austria was in today's rethoric, a "victim of state sponsored terrorism", at least they must have had that impression at the time. But my answer is still no because I don't think it gave Austria the right to do it then, and it doesn't give the West (in particular America) the right to do it now. Countries, and especially the people in them, shouldn't be punished for terrorist actions, even if their government should be involved.
The Habsburgs were a feudal imperial realm that was interested exclusively in preserving itself. After the 1878 Conference of Berlin the Habsburgs gave up expanding into the Balkans (having successfully blocked Russian influence there), instead being content to maintain the status quo. Vienna signed various treaties of alliance or non-aggression with most of the Balkan states in the 1880s and 90s, and pretty much let things rest. In 1914, the Habsburgs hoped to rely on this system of alliances but of course Italy (1915), then Romania (1916) both switched sides.
I would ask you then what Vienna should have done. It wasn't looking to destroy and exterminate the Serbs; it was looking to replace an extremely hostile neighboring government that was sponsoring terrorism on its soil.
Pellaken wrote:
whoever made this poll wasent too bright. it was Austria Hungary's fault. everyone knowes that.
Ah, a typically modest and diplomatic response from Pellaken. Tell me P., why is it "obviously Austria-Hungary's fault"? I am trying to challenge exactly that traditional notion. Please read my post 4 ahead of yours, and tell me what your thoughts are.
NewFangle wrote:
Russia should have never mobilized its forces. Perhaps Germany wouldn't have gone nuts on France if it didn't.
MadScot wrote:
Interestingly, "Russian's bumbling mobilization" was mentioned. (Sorry, I've not mastered the quotation thing yet!) Yet in fact Russia maobilized far faster than the German General Staff had assumed, throwing the whole Schlieffen plan timetable out of whack. And one can argue that German fear of the Russian industrialisation which was linked to a vigourous railway-building programme in Poland was partly responsible for Germany's aggressive support of Austria-Hungary, which emboldened the Habsburgs in their demands of the Serbians.
A few historians have fingered Russia's fumbled mobilization as the cause for the outbreak of war. The Tsar's decision to order a precautionary half-mobilization, then cancel it, then order a full mobilization, was supposedly misinterpreted by the Germans to be aggressive moves when the Russians were just reacting to political events in Austria and trying to kick-start their creaky mobilization plan that required more time than Germany's to achieve full status - and Russia's one major advantage over Germany in 1914 was sheer numbers.
MadScot - excellent points!
SKILORD wrote:
Germany didn't want the war, they gave austria their full backing in hopes that it would intimidate the rest of europe into peace.
Interesting theory, S. In the first week+ of the June-July Crisis, Bethman-Hollweg tried desperately to restrain Vienna and he genuinely tried to organize an international conference to resolve the crisis, much to Conrad's annoyance. However, somewhere in the 2nd week Germany decided that this was a good opportunity for the Final Showdown it had been planning for a decade with Russia and France. There is a point in the July Crisis where Berlin clearly takes over and pushes for war, but I'm wondering about the events that brought Europe to that point where Germany's opportunists could hijack matters. From that point on, the war had nothing to do with Serbian terrorism, it had everything to do with German imperial ambitions and fear of the Russo-French alliance. Could something have been done in those first two weeks though that staved off war?
It was entirely due to nationalist movements in the balkans in my opinion.
D'oh! The Balkans take a hit! Rising nationalism throughout the old creaky empires (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman) was a boiling confrontation but I think the dissolution of these empires in 1918 proved that they alone were not the problem, that nationalism created its own problems (culminating after a nasty couple decades in something we quaintly call "World War II"). Simply said, the nation-states founded on nationalist principals in the interbellum years proved to be even worse with minorities than the old feudal empires had been.
Newfangle wrote:
MAIN causes of war.
Militarism- 350% increase in military spending from 1870 to 1914 by major European powers.
Alliances- Triple Entente, etc.
Imperialism- Cough, Bosnia Hertzigovina 1908, cough
Nationalsim- well, thats a given.
Pretty standard list, NF, and I'm asking if those still stand up to scrutiny. Yes indeed there was a rapid rise in the size of armies around the Continent in the decades leading up to the war, but the various military machines were still very small, almost tiny, by comparison to the armies the 20th century would become accustomed to. The alliance system proved effective in the 1946-89 Cold War in Europe (though it sucked for those of us on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain), but it did keep the Soviets out of Western and most of Central Europe.
Bosnia-Herzegovina was given to Vienna at the Berlin Conference as a protectorate in 1878 (meaning that it was occupied by Austria but technically still belonged to the Porte) and its annexation in 1908 was a mere legal technicality. Bulgaria's unilateral declaration of independence (at the same time, coordinated with Vienna) in 1908 made a bigger sensation across Europe. The Bosnian population at the time was mostly Moslem and Croat in the cities, with Serbs populating much of the rural countryside; the urban (Moslem & Croat) Bosnians tended to be pro-Habsburg while the poor, rural countryside (Serbs) were the ones agitating against Austrian rule. When the Archduke arrived in Sarajevo he was greeted by genuinely warm and enthusiastic crowds. Moments after he shot the Archduke, Princip had to be saved from being pummeled to death by the crowd by nearby gendarmes; there's a famous picture of this. Even among the Bosnian Serbs there was a rift as some prefered life in the empire while others opted for the Serbian state.
Grade 11 social studies for ya.
It's exactly those that I'm challenging. I think the way we look at what is probably the most important and defining conflict of the 20th century needs to be re-evaluated. Our historical approach has been a little too pro-Allied, and that has distorted I think how we understand the motivations of some of the participants.
Great posts all! Thanks everyone and keep it comin'!
. Declaring war on a 'neutral' makes them non-neutral, anyway, technically.
).
