Rethinking WWI

[SHaYap]

~snip

The assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not a cause for war, it was an excuse for Austria to wage the war it wanted with Serbia. The "smoke" was there all right, but in Vienna and Berlin.

All nationalism bias aside ~

The Causes and War Aims of World War One

By Robert Wilde

The Traditional Views Rejected

The traditional explanation for the start of World War 1 concerns a domino effect. Once one nation went to war, usually defined as Austria-Hungary’s decision to attack Serbia, a network of alliances which tied the great European powers into two halves dragged each nation unwillingly into a war which spiralled ever larger. This notion, taught to schoolchildren for decades, has now been largely rejected. James Joll concludes “the Balkan crisis demonstrated that even apparently firm, formal alliances did not guarantee support and co-operation in all circumstances.” (Joll and Martel, The Origins of the First World War, p. 79)

This doesn’t mean that the formation of Europe into two sides, achieved by treaty in the late nineteenth / early twentieth centuries, isn’t important, just that the nations were not trapped by them. Indeed, while they divided Europe’s major powers into two halves - The ‘Central Alliance’ of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Germany - Italy actually changed sides.

...

Context: The Dichotomy of Europe in 1914

Historians recognise that all the major nations involved in the war, on both sides, had large proportions of their population who were not only in favour of going to war, but were agitating for it to happen as a good and necessary thing. In one very important sense, this has to be true: as much as politicians and the military might have wanted the war, they could only fight it with the approval – greatly varying, maybe begrudging, but present - of the millions of soldiers who went off to fight.

In the decades before Europe went to war in 1914, the culture of the main powers was split in two. On the one hand there was a body of thought – the one most often remembered now - that war had been effectively ended by progress, diplomacy, globalisation and economic and scientific development. To these people, who included politicians, large-scale European war had not just been banished, it was impossible. No sane person would risk war and ruin the economic interdependence of the globalising world.

• european history about dot com link (italics mine)
  

Germany in 1900

...

By 1900, Germany had split into two cultures. One was a conservative, authoritarian, business-driven group that was very wary of the working class while the other was the working class that greatly benefitted in the time in Germany known as the Grűnderzeit – the good times. The tensions that could have existed were disguised because German was doing so well. However, when the good times started to unravel, these tensions came to the surface. A not uncommon practice when this occurred was to rally your people around a state leader by having a successful foreign policy. In an imperial sense German was well behind the UK – German South West Africa did not have the same cache as South Africa, India or Canada for example. What better way to express your new found power than by having an arms building programme so that you at least rivalled your nearest opponent. Great Britain was proud of its navy, which no other power could rival. Therefore Germany started a naval building programme that would bring her into the C20th –whether it angered the UK or not.

• history leaning site link (italics mine)
  
• 1914 and World War One Timeline link
  

Background to World War One

The background to the long term

causes of World War One can be traced back to the end of the C19th. Alliances, broken alliances and German naval expansion all caused much friction in Europe with two camps developing - both of which distrusted the other. The immediate spark of World War One may well have been the murder at Sarajevo but suspicion and mistrust had been growing since 1882.

• history learning site link
  
• Causes of World War One link
  

First World War - How it Began

This website contains much material based in and around the events of World War One - but if you are unsure how it began and who did what, well, where to begin? That's the purpose of this section of the site.

Admittedly the origins of the war remain somewhat controversial even after all these years, but the facts are there. The articles contained here outline the run-up to the war, who was who, and explain why the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was by no means the sole cause of the conflict, how it was spoiling anyhow.

Having read these primers you will hopefully be in a better position to explore the remainder of the site which despite its size is, of course, still very much in development.

• First World War dot com - a multimedia history of WWI link
  

Who Declared War and When

The 'Great War', which began on 28 July 1914 with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war with Serbia, was the first truly global war. It began in Europe but quickly spread throughout the world. Many countries became embroiled within the war's first month; others joined in the ensuing four years, with Honduras announcing hostilities with Germany as late as 19 July 1918 (with the record going to Romania, who entered the war - albeit for the second time - one day before it finished, on 10 November 1918).

Detailed below is a list of the nations who formally declared hostilities during World War One, along with their date of entrance. Nations of the British Empire, e.g. Australia, Canada and New Zealand, automatically entered the war with Britain's decision to enter the fray on 4 August 1914.

Note that on numerous occasions hostilities were assumed without a formal declaration, e.g. Russia with Germany and Austria-Hungary in August 1914.

• details link
  

~

[questionmark]

Neither was Gavrilo Princip an agent of the Serbian state. I say that because I see the thrust of some posts that wish to put the blame for the war on Serbia, and by implication, ultimately Russia. This is a lie that cannot be answered by those who say it outright or imply it. I quote from what Princip said at his trial about his reasons for the asasination.

The assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not a cause for war, it was an excuse for Austria to wage the war it wanted with Serbia. The "smoke" was there all right, but in Vienna and Berlin.

Yes, because Serbia, in its aim to create Greater Serbia (later known as Yugoslavia), was morally supporting, training and hiding separatists that were committing acts of terrorism on Hungarian territory. If that is not a good reason to grab the first occasion to stop it I wonder what is. And what makes the matter worse, after the assassination and that Austria-Hungary sent a ultimatum to stop it they did not. Which in my eyes is that they wanted war, and they were hoping that the Russians would come to aid them...

What nobody counted on is that everybody did what their treaties said: Go to war if the partner was attacked. And that is what happened.

Edit:and before we start mixing up things: Austria Hungary included Bosnia at the time.

Edited January 10, 2014 by questionmark

[questionmark]

The point I've been trying to make in my posts is that while in various ways the actions of Britain, France and Russia helped the war to start, the difference with Germany and Austria was that their governments were consciously acting to bring about war.

And because the Russians intentions were so peaceful they were supporting the Black Hand and the Bosnian terrorists. We know.

Very simple? One of the Austrian demands was that the Serbian government "...Accept in Serbia 'representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government' for the 'suppression of subversive movements'." Such a demand was incompatible with Serbia's continued existence as an independent nation.

Well, I have a link to the actual demands here and it says nothing like that, all Austria-Hungary wanted is that Serbia take action against the Black Hand, those who fomented them and their Bosnian helpers if the were on their territory, in fact one of the conditions was that the Serbian government send a report (not accept a supervisor) about the actions taken.

And before we continue about who shot at Sevastopol: The Breslau was never Turkish nor was the Guben, which by the way could bombard nothing because it was a transport ship with a small cannon on its bow, the best it could do is fire short distance shells on other ships from a short distance away. Nor were they acting on Turkish command nor was anybody of the crew from Turkey at the time.

[Kaa-Tzik]

All nationalism bias aside ~

• european history about dot com link (italics mine)
  

• history leaning site link (italics mine)
  
• 1914 and World War One Timeline link
  

• history learning site link
  
• Causes of World War One link
  

• First World War dot com - a multimedia history of WWI link
  

• details link
  

~

Yet this in no way overturns orthodox, real, history. This is revionism. What is happening is no different to a poster with an unconventional view of the pyramids, when asked to give proof of their claims, simply linking to a site all about fringe pyramid theories, or to an author of a fringe book, and proclaiming "proof". Much as I respect you Eye, on this matter you are on the wrong side of history.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Kaa-Tzik]

Yes, because Serbia, in its aim to create Greater Serbia (later known as Yugoslavia), was morally supporting, training and hiding separatists that were committing acts of terrorism on Hungarian territory. If that is not a good reason to grab the first occasion to stop it I wonder what is. And what makes the matter worse, after the assassination and that Austria-Hungary sent a ultimatum to stop it they did not. Which in my eyes is that they wanted war, and they were hoping that the Russians would come to aid them...

What nobody counted on is that everybody did what their treaties said: Go to war if the partner was attacked. And that is what happened.

Edit:and before we start mixing up things: Austria Hungary included Bosnia at the time.

All of which still sidesteps why you are making these obvious attempts to absolve Germany from being the most culpable for the war, the view of orthodox history. That you use an obvious typo over a ship's name to try and score some point rather detracts from your credibility, as such tricks are usually seen as a sign of being in the wrong. Goeben and Breslau were transfered to the Turkish navy on 16 August 1914, being renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim and Midilli. The German crews remained, and command of the two ships remained with German admiral Souchon. The attacks on Odessa, Novorossiysk and Sevastopol took place with a squadron of "real" Turkish warships. You may huff and puff about this, but it is the facts. You disagree, you want to put forward a fringe theory, then show evidence to back you up, for at the moment it has all been your opinion, and if you say something, it does not make it so, facts make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau

[questionmark]

All of which still sidesteps why you are making these obvious attempts to absolve Germany from being the most culpable for the war, the view of orthodox history. That you use an obvious typo over a ship's name to try and score some point rather detracts from your credibility, as such tricks are usually seen as a sign of being in the wrong. Goeben and Breslau were transfered to the Turkish navy on 16 August 1914, being renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim and Midilli. The German crews remained, and command of the two ships remained with German admiral Souchon. The attacks on Odessa, Novorossiysk and Sevastopol took place with a squadron of "real" Turkish warships. You may huff and puff about this, but it is the facts. You disagree, you want to put forward a fringe theory, then show evidence to back you up, for at the moment it has all been your opinion, and if you say something, it does not make it so, facts make it so.

http://en.wikipedia....ben_and_Breslau

There is no orthodoxy, just a political verdict akin to the Wright Brothers invented flight (which they did not either). And there is nothing absolve Germany from. Just in this case they did not do it alone and Austria was not the only other guilty party. All involved until the ultimatum to Belgium were actively planning and acting to extend their territory or sphere of influence and all Germany did is but to fulfill its alliance obligations, like Russia and like France.

But you can claim that the flower pot did not fall because it was on the window sill first: Does not change the facts.

Edited January 10, 2014 by questionmark

[Kaa-Tzik]

There is no orthodoxy, just a political verdict akin to the Wright Brothers invented flight (which they did not either). And there is nothing absolve Germany from. Just in this case they did not do it alone and Austria was not the only other guilty party. All involved until the ultimatum to Belgium were actively planning and acting to extend their territory or sphere of influence and all Germany did is but to fulfill its alliance obligations, like Russia and like France.

But you can claim that the flower pot did not fall because it was on the window sill first: Does not change the facts.

Well well, no orthodoxy, I'm sure the fringe posters about AE will be glad to read that, and may conclude that orthodox views are simply a "movable feast" to be used or abused to fit a posters own personal views, hmm.

However, there is an orthodox history of the war, a history informed by the countless documents of all kinds, a history that is not challenged, except by a new politically motivated fringe element, and we know how much the fringe dislike orthodoxy, don't we. The modern, politically correct, pyscho-babble cry of "We are all guilty" simply does not "cut the mustard". That Germany has to take a greater part of the blame is not disputed by history and your post is disingenous in still trying to spread the blame equally. You dissembled on a number of posts about Turkey's undeclared acts of war against Russia, and facts have shown this to be so. It is all about facts, not opinions, and the facts show Germany to have greater responsibility for the war.

[SHaYap]

Yet this in no way overturns orthodox, real, history. This is revionism. What is happening is no different to a poster with an unconventional view of the pyramids, when asked to give proof of their claims, simply linking to a site all about fringe pyramid theories, or to an author of a fringe book, and proclaiming "proof". Much as I respect you Eye, on this matter you are on the wrong side of history.

I appreciate vote of confidence but as it is this is orthodox academic History updated with greater evaluation of available evidence not available before due to the circumstances of the 'Great' War ... both of them ~ whether it is revised or revisionist I can't be the one to say ~

BUt as it stands now it is standard learning History as is being taught in the higher Institutions of Academia ~

~

- edit to add ~ I am not absolving any party of blame nor am I seeking any other or one to blame either ...

Edited January 10, 2014 by third_eye

[questionmark]

I appreciate vote of confidence but as it is this is orthodox academic History updated with greater evaluation of available evidence not available before due to the circumstances of the 'Great' War ... both of them ~ whether it is revised or revisionist I can't be the one to say ~

BUt as it stands now it is standard learning History as is being taught in the higher Institutions of Academia ~

~

Depends where, if a prof actually dared to say that in certain countries he would have to get himself another job fast.

But sooner or later they won't be able to hide it anymore...like the Russians are finally admitting now that the first Russian dynasty was founded by a Viking called Rurik. 20 years ago you would have ended up in Siberia working in a mine for saying that.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think I can safely absolve Australia and New Zealand of any blame.

And America.

Maybe we could work out who started it by working out first who didn't

[questionmark]

I think I can safely absolve Australia and New Zealand of any blame.

And America.

Maybe we could work out who started it by working out first who didn't

That maybe would be the way to proceed, lets see... Australia formally independent since the statute of Westminster of 1931 and implemented in 1942...guess we can safely exclude them.

New Zealand also independent by the statute of Westminster and implemented in 1947 ....

I would include Great Britain in that list, they did not join in until it was getting to be evident that Germany would be able to get to Paris in no time (and thanks to the British intervention the advance actually was stopped) and that the Russians, still weakened from having been slapped all over the place by Japan 7 years before, would not have had much to stop the Germans either. With Russia and France out of the way and Austria as ally Germany actually would have been the superpower in Europe. That is about the last thing they [the British] could have wanted.

Edited January 10, 2014 by questionmark

[Bavarian Raven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY3Sb8xiQ_c

A good doc about the lead up to ww1 and what happened in the opening days...

[Space Commander Travis]

interesting question, bearing in mind everything that happened subsequently: if France had fallen in 1914, before things had had a chance to really get going, would things have actually worked out in the long run rather better than they did? France would have been under the heel of the Prussian jackboot, to be sure; but that was nothing new, was it, it had happened in 1871, not to mention 1814, but would Britain have considered it worthwhile carrying on the struggle in the West singlehandedly? They did in 1940, of course, but their survival was at stake then; would it have been in 1914? Would the Kaiser have not been satisfied with france, and had wanted to go on to crush Britain under the Prussian heel? Or would they have come to some deal that brought things more or less back to how they were? Would Germany have then been free to carry on the fight with Russia without the distraction in the West, which was the same mistake the Hitler made? Could they have forced Russia to sue for peace, since surely even Kaiser Bill wasn't deluded enough to envisage defeating and taking Russia under German control. If they had done so, would the Revolution have been forestalled? Would Lenin have stayed in Switzerland writing books? And if all that ha happened, would a corporal by the name of A. Hitler ever have had the chance to get where he did? If Germany had defeated France, would that have been a better or worse outcome that what did in fact happen?

[SHaYap]

Little Napoleon would have said 'Non'

But I suspect 'yea'

but then I suspect we'll never know ... ever ...

~

[Kaa-Tzik]

I appreciate vote of confidence but as it is this is orthodox academic History updated with greater evaluation of available evidence not available before due to the circumstances of the 'Great' War ... both of them ~ whether it is revised or revisionist I can't be the one to say ~

BUt as it stands now it is standard learning History as is being taught in the higher Institutions of Academia ~

~

- edit to add ~ I am not absolving any party of blame nor am I seeking any other or one to blame either ...

Which "higher Institutions of Academia", in which country or countries and by which "academics" and what are their politics, for this debate is actually about a political attempt to re-write history....

[Kaa-Tzik]

Depends where, if a prof actually dared to say that in certain countries he would have to get himself another job fast.

But sooner or later they won't be able to hide it anymore...like the Russians are finally admitting now that the first Russian dynasty was founded by a Viking called Rurik. 20 years ago you would have ended up in Siberia working in a mine for saying that.

Caught out consistently lying, you resort to cheap jibes, not that it surprises me....

Russians are not "finally admitting" anything about the Rus, as the pro and anti Normand debate has been going on for centuries, and continues. For a short period, 42 years, the anti Normand view was given priority and was taught in schools and universities, but nobody ever went to gulag for pro Normand views, please provide sources for this assertation, names of imprissoned academics etc. Besides, the anti Normand view only became prevalent in 1949, and by 1954 the gulags were being rapidly emptied, certainly nobody would have been sent to gulag for their view on history, and in 1960 the gulag system was finished, with the exception of serious political oponents of the state, not history teachers. You attempt to wave clouds of smoke and make petty point scoring posts, and it still does not hide your lies and outrageous remarks defending Germany over the rape of Belgium. Your desperation to spread the blame equally, and it is clearly desperation, shows an obvious desire to take blame away from Germany, warum...

[questionmark]

Caught out consistently lying, you resort to cheap jibes, not that it surprises me....

Russians are not "finally admitting" anything about the Rus, as the pro and anti Normand debate has been going on for centuries, and continues. For a short period, 42 years, the anti Normand view was given priority and was taught in schools and universities, but nobody ever went to gulag for pro Normand views, please provide sources for this assertation, names of imprissoned academics etc. Besides, the anti Normand view only became prevalent in 1949, and by 1954 the gulags were being rapidly emptied, certainly nobody would have been sent to gulag for their view on history, and in 1960 the gulag system was finished, with the exception of serious political oponents of the state, not history teachers. You attempt to wave clouds of smoke and make petty point scoring posts, and it still does not hide your lies and outrageous remarks defending Germany over the rape of Belgium. Your desperation to spread the blame equally, and it is clearly desperation, shows an obvious desire to take blame away from Germany, warum...

Thank you for shedding some light on the issue, so, Russia never manipulated history to come out smelling like roses?

Speaking of lying....

[Kaa-Tzik]

Thank you for shedding some light on the issue, so, Russia never manipulated history to come out smelling like roses?

Speaking of lying....

Petty and pointless comment to distract from your own behaviour. And from the country that had slaves when all other "white" countries had none. Oh, and segregation until modern times. Pot calling kettle black I think, and throwing stones in glass house.

Caught out lying, you simply try to drag this debate down to distract. May as well close this thread as it seems just another vehicle for your ego....

Edited January 11, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Space Commander Travis]

Interesting how things come around. While not entirely untrue, it's fair to say*, so much of the talk about the "Rape of plucky little Belgium" was classic propaganda, the stuff about raping nuns and bayoneting babies, and melting down bodies to make glue. which meant that when word about what was going on in the concentration camps pre and particularly during WWII came out, everyone remembered the propaganda from the first time round, and said "Yeah, tell us another, we've heard it all before".

Really in a way the Allied propagandists of WWI had only themselves to blame for the public not believing them the second time round. Classic example of crying wolf I suppose.

* they did hang mayors for resisting, and shoot Boy Scouts for assisting the resistance, for example

[Space Commander Travis]

And this was a magnificent example of double standards..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fryatt

Charles Algernon Fryatt (2 December 1872 – 27 July 1916) was a British mariner who was executed by the Germans for attempting to ram a U-boat in 1915. When his ship, the SS Brussels, was captured off the Netherlands in 1916, he was court-martialled and sentenced to death although he was a civilian non-combatant. International outrage followed his execution near Bruges, Belgium. In 1919, his body was reburied with full honours in the United Kingdom.

Even though the whole point of the U-boat campaign, of course, was to destroy enemy merchant shipping. How do they figure the logic of that out?

[questionmark]

interesting question, bearing in mind everything that happened subsequently: if France had fallen in 1914, before things had had a chance to really get going, would things have actually worked out in the long run rather better than they did? France would have been under the heel of the Prussian jackboot, to be sure; but that was nothing new, was it, it had happened in 1871, not to mention 1814, but would Britain have considered it worthwhile carrying on the struggle in the West singlehandedly? They did in 1940, of course, but their survival was at stake then; would it have been in 1914? Would the Kaiser have not been satisfied with france, and had wanted to go on to crush Britain under the Prussian heel? Or would they have come to some deal that brought things more or less back to how they were? Would Germany have then been free to carry on the fight with Russia without the distraction in the West, which was the same mistake the Hitler made? Could they have forced Russia to sue for peace, since surely even Kaiser Bill wasn't deluded enough to envisage defeating and taking Russia under German control. If they had done so, would the Revolution have been forestalled? Would Lenin have stayed in Switzerland writing books? And if all that ha happened, would a corporal by the name of A. Hitler ever have had the chance to get where he did? If Germany had defeated France, would that have been a better or worse outcome that what did in fact happen?

Britain would have had to enter the war, Belgium or not.

But we better go back a few years before the war.After the Prussian-French war the conventional wisdom was that Germany could have never sustained a modern war for more than 9-13 months because they would run out of a indispensable chemical component they had to go get all the way to Chile in form of bird poop (better known as guano), nitrates. Without nitrates no modern gun powder (old black powder could have been also made with potassium chlorate) nor dynamite.

So all defenses against Germany were based on keeping the Germans at bay for 12 months, after that you could freely invade because the Germans had nothing to shoot with. France started building fortifications and when in the second round of expansion (1900-1905) looked like they were actually getting very near to that goal Alfred von Schlieffen came up with the idea that, to avoid Germany getting blackmailed (or at least that was his justification) they just had to circumvent those fortifications through Switzerland or Belgium. Because the conventional wisdom of war was that whomever took the capital of the enemy had won, they chose Belgium.

This plan was known, because as soon as they started drafting it France started to expand its "iron hand" defenses to include its border with Belgium, so it should have come to nobody's surprise that the Schlieffen plan was actually executed.

Now, had Schlieffen not croaked in 1913 he could have told Wilhelm that his plan was obsolete: Germany was only 6 months away from producing artificial nitrate compounds by isolating nitrogen from the air in industrial quantities.

If Germany wanted to avoid Britain entering the war on France and Russia's side all it needed to do is trench in in front of the French forts with one or two divisions and take the rest to go after Russia, an easy prey as it had not recovered from the Russo-Japanese war and was incapable of any meaningful advances against Germans fighting a two front war (in fact they were loosing battle after battle). It just had the main drawback Wilhelm the bigmouth never wanted Britain to stay out of the war, because Russia and France at the time were small fish for Germany, the enemy was the cousin on the island.

What Wilhelm did not realize is that he would have gotten it anyway. As seen after engineering the Russian revolution, once those extra men became available the Germans and Austrians actually made advances, like overrunning the Italian trenches and chasing the Italians all the way from the Alps to Milan. Just at that time it was too late.

So, lets imagine for a moment that the Germans would have stayed out of Belgium, would have smacked the Russians into giving up, which would have been no later than '16 and then with the Austrians going after Italy and the Germans after France there would have been no choice but for Britain to join in because the alternative would have been loosing all the influence they had in Europe and Wilhelm, after a few years of recovery, would have gone after Britain anyway... and this time after Britain without allies.

[Peter B]

Yes, because Serbia, in its aim to create Greater Serbia (later known as Yugoslavia), was morally supporting, training and hiding separatists that were committing acts of terrorism on Hungarian territory. If that is not a good reason to grab the first occasion to stop it I wonder what is.

In 1909 Austria demanded the Serbian Government halt the activities of another secret society promoting Greater Serbia, Narodna Odbrana. With Russia choosing to not back up Serbia, the Serbian government complied. If it worked in 1909, why not in 1914? Regardless, there were other ways of getting Black Hand to stop its activities short of a complete military occupation.

And what makes the matter worse, after the assassination and that Austria-Hungary sent a ultimatum to stop it they did not.

I'd really like you to explain this in more detail. You're saying that after Austria sent its ultimatum, Serbia did not stop the activities of Black Hand, is that correct? If so, on what sort of timescale are you expecting this to happen? Austria sent the ultimatum on 23 July, and declared war on 28 July. And once Austria had declared war on Serbia, presumably Serbia had no incentive to stop the activities of Black Hand...

Which in my eyes is that they wanted war, and they were hoping that the Russians would come to aid them...

If Russia hadn't backed Serbia in 1909, why would they expect the Russians to help them in 1914?

In any case, the Serbian government approached the Russian government on the night of 23 July, a few hours after receiving the ultimatum. The Russians refused to provide support. Czar Nicholas told the Serbs to accept the ultimatum. So well before the ultimatum expired the Serbs knew they were on their own.

What nobody counted on is that everybody did what their treaties said: Go to war if the partner was attacked. And that is what happened.

Well, it seems quite a few suspected it. And certainly in the German military they expected it - given, of course, that their plan for a war with Russia involved attacking France. For example "...on July 26...General von Moltke sent a message to Belgium demanding that German troops be allowed to pass through that kingdom 'in the event of an imminent war against France and Russia'" (Wikipedia).

[questionmark]

In 1909 Austria demanded the Serbian Government halt the activities of another secret society promoting Greater Serbia, Narodna Odbrana. With Russia choosing to not back up Serbia, the Serbian government complied. If it worked in 1909, why not in 1914? Regardless, there were other ways of getting Black Hand to stop its activities short of a complete military occupation.

That is a question you would have to ask Serbia.

Because the fact of the matter is that Serbia did nothing, nor had any intention to stop the Black Hand.

Edited January 11, 2014 by questionmark

[questionmark]

Well, it seems quite a few suspected it. And certainly in the German military they expected it - given, of course, that their plan for a war with Russia involved attacking France. For example "...on July 26...General von Moltke sent a message to Belgium demanding that German troops be allowed to pass through that kingdom 'in the event of an imminent war against France and Russia'" (Wikipedia).

That Germany would go through Belgium to attack France was a known fact since 1905 shortly after the Schlieffen plan was finalized. France knew that (proven by the fact that they started to fortify their borders with Belgium) and most probably so did Belgium. So I don't know why everybody acts so shocked when they did it 9 years later.

[Peter B]

Questionmark said:

And because the Russians intentions were so peaceful they were supporting the Black Hand and the Bosnian terrorists. We know.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide evidence of this, please.

I said:

One of the Austrian demands was that the Serbian government "...Accept in Serbia 'representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government' for the 'suppression of subversive movements'." Such a demand was incompatible with Serbia's continued existence as an independent nation.

Questionmark said:

Well, I have a link to the actual demands here and it says nothing like that, all Austria-Hungary wanted is that Serbia take action against the Black Hand, those who fomented them and their Bosnian helpers if the were on their territory, in fact one of the conditions was that the Serbian government send a report (not accept a supervisor) about the actions taken.

To quote the version you link:

To accept the collaboration in Serbia of organs of the Austro-Hungarian government [my emphasis] in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the monarchy

I'm not sure how else I can explain it - Austria demanded the Serbian government allow representatives of the Austrian government into Serbia, and require Serbian authorities to collaborate with the Austrians. That's a blatant breach of sovereignty. As I said earlier, would you expect the US government to agree to a demand like that if a foreign head of state was assassinated?

And before we continue about who shot at Sevastopol: The Breslau was never Turkish nor was the Guben, which by the way could bombard nothing because it was a transport ship with a small cannon on its bow, the best it could do is fire short distance shells on other ships from a short distance away. Nor were they acting on Turkish command nor was anybody of the crew from Turkey at the time.

These statements are so breathtakingly wrong that I seriously find it hard to believe you made them by accident. The transfer of these ships to Turkish control is well attested: http://en.wikipedia...._Breslau#Escape

Turkey was still a neutral country bound by treaty to prevent German ships passing the straits. To get around this difficulty it was agreed that the ships should become part of the Turkish navy. On 16 August, having reached Constantinople, Goeben and Breslau were transferred to the Turkish Navy in a small ceremony, becoming respectively the Yavuz Sultan Selim and the Midilli, though they retained their German crews with Souchon still in command.

The ship which accompanied the Breslau was the Goeben, not the Guben. You even called it the Goeben in an earlier post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_134-B0032,_Gro%C3%9Fer_Kreuzer_Goeben.jpg

And as for your comment about the ships not "...acting on Turkish command..." the ships were under the command of the German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon, who was appointed commander in chief of the Ottoman Navy on 23 September. As for your comment that "...nor was anybody of the crew from Turkey at the time..." no, not on the Goeben and Breslau. But for the attack on Sevastopol these two ships were accompanied by other Turkish ships which had full complements of Turkish crewmen.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Peter B