Who caused WW1 - revisited

[warspite1]

Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within.

Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
...

If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ?

And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia.

"On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E ... ce_of_1807

Ok, for the sake of seeking clarity, lets buy into your argument that the Serbs are really very bad people and that you can now trace ths badness back to at least 1807.

Lacking that much detailed knowledge, I've vaguely picked up that during the various wars and revolts in the Balkans across the nineteenth and early twentieth century that Serbia was pretty spiky in its dealings both with its neighbours and the two external powers in the region (A-H and the Ottomans). So there, we (I think) agree, Serbia must have been a very annoying state to have had to deal with - actively chasing what it saw as its interests and historical rights. MacMillan's excellent the 'PeaceMakers' suggests this was very much the mindset of the allied powers at Versailles.

Now lets take the second strand of Sarejevo. A senior royal/politician was assasinated. Now as I've argued above, unfortunately in the period from say 1880 to 1914 this was not rare. Between domestic Russian terrorist groups (People's Will et al), other nationalist terrorist groups and those inspired by some form of Anarchism this was a bit of an occupational hazard in that era. Equally, a fair few of these groups had sponsors (sometimes unwittingly) either in their own state or in another.

So we have two strands that are not unique - the Serbs being a pain and a terrorist murder of a royal - generating an event that was all but unique ... a generalised European war.

You have offered no reason why things that were common came together to generate something that was unique. All you do is to point to proximity and muddle up correlation with causation.

On the other hand, Warspite1 can offer a logic as to why a unique event was the outcome. And in doing so goes a long way to capturing an answer to the question of the thread 'who caused WW1'.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within.

Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion.

In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that?

And thanks for the discussion.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
...

If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ?

And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia.

"On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E ... ce_of_1807

Ok, for the sake of seeking clarity, lets buy into your argument that the Serbs are really very bad people....

Troll, I've already told you about not putting your words in my mouth, to include deliberately misrepresenting any of my arguments.

I said that (1) Serbs have historically been aligned with Russia and (2) Russia is at least as guilty as other Euro states -- notably Germany for supporting AH -- by backing a belligerent nation that triggered a world war through state sponsored terrorism.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within.

Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion.

In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that?

And thanks for the discussion.

warspite1

But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914.

[Zorch]

Wait - didn't Edmund Blackadder cause WWI? I'm sure he was at the bottom of it.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Allies? As I have previously said, they were not formally Allied. And the fact that Serbia was paying Dimitrijevic's salary does not mean he was necessarily carrying out Serb policy, but was instead a rogue element within.

Okay I think neither of us will be convinced by the other. That's me out. Good discussion.

In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that?

And thanks for the discussion.

warspite1

But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914.

Serbia and Russia have maintained formal diplomatic relations since 1838. In fact when I was peace-keeping in Bosnia during SFOR VII a separate Russian paratroop unit was policing Republika Srpska.

"One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2 ... _relations

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




In 1807, Serbs signed an alliance with the Russian Empire. How "informal" was that?

And thanks for the discussion.

warspite1

But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914.

"One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...."

warspite1

Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

But that was 1807. The two fell out in the 1870's when Russia supported Bulgaria. Although relations had much improved there was no formal alliance in 1914.

"One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...."

warspite1

Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices.

But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today.

Why does the obvious have to be difficult?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




"One of the factors that led to the beginning of World War I was close bilateral relations between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Russian Empire. While Russia and Serbia were not formally allied, Russia openly sought political and religious influence in Serbia...."

warspite1

Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices.

But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today.

Why does the obvious have to be difficult?

warspite1

Sorry I don't understand where you are going or the point you are making. You said the two countries were allied with a formal alliance. I said that was not true but that the Russians did feel it necessary to support Serbia. You then argued they were formally allied and quoted some superseded treaty from 100 years before, I then repeated that they were not formally aligned only for you to then confirm that what I had said right at the start was true [&:].

You now say that the Russians did support Serbia in WWI. Yes I know - I've been saying that the whole time too. So what is the point you are making?

Regardless of whether my view is right or wrong I have remained constant throughout - and haven't gone off seeking half answers from selected Wiki articles. In my view (and I fully accept I may be wrong and I hope when I one day meet my maker he will reveal the truth) the blame lies as laid out previously:

No one is blameless, everyone could have done more and/or done things differently - yes everyone, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Serbia.

The Serbian nation were not responsible for the act of terrorism, only a faction within. That faction - almost certainly with the support of others - could have been rooted out. But AH wanted the Serbian state to pay. That was only possible with German support.

It was known that such action would mean a wider conflagration. But, despite a month to think about it, a month to explore options and choices, AH set about their true goal. The British tried to convene a peace conference involving the major powers and Germany said no.

Russia did not mobilise for 36 hours after the AH declaration of war - but AH wasn't interested in any other outcome (thanks to the blank cheque).

Alliances ultimately decided who was on who's side, but there was NOTHING by way of a legal requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque. There was no treaty that meant Russia was obliged to come to Serbia's aid. 'Tangled alliances' DID NOT cause WWI.

Russia made it clear that they would not stand aside while AH attacks an independent state. Europe is now on the precipice and AH and Germany pushes the continent over the edge. So yes, AH and mostly Germany are, in my view, to blame.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Yes that's what I said, no formal alliance. One of the 'easy' answers offered as to why a war developed was because of the tangled alliances that 'sucked everyone in'. As I said, there was no legal requirement for Russia to support Serbia - options, choices.

But historically the Russians did support Serbia, just as they have done in the past and just as they are doing today.

Why does the obvious have to be difficult?

warspite1

Sorry I don't understand where you are going or the point you are making. You said the two countries were allied with a formal alliance. I said that was not true but that the Russians did feel it necessary to support Serbia. You then argued they were formally allied and quoted some superseded treaty from 100 years before, I then repeated that they were not formally aligned only for you to then confirm that what I had said right at the start was true [&:].

You now say that the Russians did support Serbia in WWI. Yes I know - I've been saying that the whole time too. So what is the point you are making?

Regardless of whether my view is right or wrong I have remained constant throughout - and haven't gone off seeking half answers from selected Wiki articles...

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet.

And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra.

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

[Jagdtiger14]

Loki100:

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

As I mentioned, part of A-L was majority French. If you look at the German elections in A-L, the French anti-annexation party (Regional Parties Autonomists) began to slip severely in 1890, then had less than 50% support in 1893, finally in 1912 was no longer the top percentage getter. In addition to that in 1872 only about 10% of A-L residents wanted French citizenship (161,000...out of which only 50,000 actually emigrated back to France): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-Lorraine

You are misrepresenting the facts, including the French being "somewhat" annoyed (unless that is your attempt at sarcasm). And then even more sarcasm with the 1300's remark. If you really don't know about the time period from the late 1860's to 1914 I suggest doing so. Those events were responsible for WWI. France having the opposite diplomatic reaction towards Germany after getting spanked in a war in which they declared on Germany, and instead attempting friendship rather than perpetual hostility could have seen some of A-L returned along with long-term peace. Without the French alliance system, "WWI" would have been Germany+A-H vs Russia+Serbia. I also did not say it was "all" France's fault.

The Black Stain:

[warspite1]

Previous responses removed to make the post more readable.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet.

And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra.

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

warspite1

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

Not sure why you’ve got all snotty.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do.

Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said:

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal.

I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false.

By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI?

I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly.

Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia.

A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..…

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Previous responses removed to make the post more readable.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet.

And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra.

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

warspite1

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

Not sure why you’ve got all snotty.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do.

Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said:

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal.

I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false.

By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI?

I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly.

Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia.

A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..…

Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war.

And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world?

Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this.

And not quite true statements are not quite false, either.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Previous responses removed to make the post more readable.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal. Further, Russia was a protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, notably Serbia, with whom they also shared an alphabet.

And a rogue Serbian colonel still works for his government the way Col. Oliver North still worked for Ron Reagan during Iran-Contra.

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

warspite1

I trust those points are understandable, or am I not speaking Queen's English?

Not sure why you’ve got all snotty.

You don't have to seek any answers for your arguments because apparently they are all sourced in yourself.

I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do.

Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said:

Historically the Serbs and Russians have always been allies, whether formal or informal.

I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false.

By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI?

I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly.

Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia.

A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..…

Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war.

And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world?

Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this.

And not quite true statements are not quite false, either.

warspite1

Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war.

Well I disagree, although as I said, if the Serbian Government were disingenuous about making amends (and their acceptance of all but one of the ultimatum points suggests they were not) then AH would have been within their rights to reconsider its position.

And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them;

Really not sure how many times I can get this across. I AGREE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CONNECTION. I was putting you right on a factual inaccuracy, but I have never suggested that in 1914 Serbia and Russia were not linked.

Have you ever been to that region of the world?

I have been to Austria and Hungary. I have never visited any of the Balkan countries. Why is that crucial to the events of 1914?

Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this.

Weaker sister state? Not my words but thanks for helping to make my argument. There is a MASSIVE difference between a) attacking a weak Sovereign nation and b) coming to the defence of a weak Sovereign nation being threatened by a bully. And I simply cannot see why you can't seem to grasp this.

If the Serbian Government was guilty of the crime then I don't have a problem. However. They weren't. Read the ultimatum. If the Serbs were genuine in accepting the points then that is all one needs to know. If they weren't then, as I said, all bets would be off.

And not quite true statements are not quite false, either

What??? [&:]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Previous responses removed to make the post more readable.

warspite1



Not sure why you’ve got all snotty.



I don’t source answers from myself - that’s ridiculous. I form an opinion based on reading and trying to learn – just as most people do.

Re the wiki comment I simply referred to the fact that I said something about a formal alliance, you then provided a wiki link to seek to prove me wrong “How informal was that?” I confirmed why that didn’t apply to this situation and then you went off and made another sweeping – and factually incorrect - statement. Now you’ve said:



I don’t know what this has to do with who started WWI but again, that statement is not quite true. Russia and Serbian relations went south for a time in the 1870’s due to Russian support for Bulgaria which affected Serbian interests. Indeed Serbian relations with Austria had been established in the early 1870’s and AH recognised the newly independent Serbia. Over time, relations with Austria soured and Serbia grew closer to Russia again, but to say Russia and Serbia have always been allies is patently false.

By 1914 the Russians and Serbs, although not formally aligned, were close enough that Russia felt compelled to act when AH threatened invasion of Serbia. None of that is up for dispute, none of that has been called into question by me – that is why I simply don’t understand why you bring this up again. You now seem of the opinion that Russia was not formally aligned to Serbia (true) but that relations between the two in 1914 was very close (true). And? What does that do regarding who is responsible for WWI?

I am not going to get into the Iran-Contra stuff because it will all get political and the thread will be locked so let’s bring it back to 1914. It was rogue elements within the Serbian Government that arranged the atrocity. Now. AH can, with German support, declare war on Serbia (with all that that means) OR it can, through restraint and a measured response (ideally with the backing of all powers) make the Serbians pay. Be clever, play the long game – play the diplomatic game – welcome the British offer of a conference. AH has been wronged. They can make that point very clearly.

Then, if the Serbian Government decides to take no action against the rogue elements and effectively does nothing, then that is a game-changer as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned. In that scenario AH has acted reasonably, but has been met with nothing but insult and provocation. The world will then have a different view of the respective merits of AH and Serbia.

A World War may well start in the future (I think pretty much everyone believes war was only a matter of time) but the perception of the guilty party(ies) in the blame game suddenly shifts..…

Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war.

And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them; I saw this for myself when I was peacekeeping in Bosnia in 2000. Have you ever been to that region of the world?

Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this.

And not quite true statements are not quite false, either.

warspite1

Rogues elements within a government still work for and represent that government; and using an assassin dying of consumption to kill the heir of neighboring empire is the blackest of all black ops that could lead to war.

Well I disagree, although as I said, if the Serbian Government were disingenuous about making amends (and their acceptance of all but one of the ultimatum points suggests they were not) then AH would have been within their rights to reconsider its position.

And whatever temporary tiffs Serbia and Russia have had during the decades doesn't disqualify the strong cultural connections between them;

Really not sure how many times I can get this across. I AGREE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CONNECTION. I was putting you right on a factual inaccuracy, but I have never suggested that in 1914 Serbia and Russia were not linked.

Have you ever been to that region of the world?

I have been to Austria and Hungary. I have never visited any of the Balkan countries. Why is that crucial to the events of 1914?

Again, if Germany is to be held responsible for backing AH then Russia is just as guilty for sticking up for its weaker sister state, and I can't understand why you don't understand this.

Weaker sister state? Not my words but thanks for helping to make my argument. There is a MASSIVE difference between a) attacking a weak Sovereign nation and b) coming to the defence of a weak Sovereign nation being threatened by a bully. And I simply cannot see why you can't seem to grasp this.

If the Serbian Government was guilty of the crime then I don't have a problem. However. They weren't. Read the ultimatum. If the Serbs were genuine in accepting the points then that is all one needs to know. If they weren't then, as I said, all bets would be off.

And not quite true statements are not quite false, either

What??? [&:]

To paraphrase one of your own playwrights, you protest too much, methinks.

The Serbian government was and still is responsible for its own military/paramilitary. Even today, Bosnia-Herzegovina said it would appeal against a 2007 UN court ruling clearing Serbia of genocide during Bosnia’s civil war. That's why I asked if you have ever been in the region.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... f-genocide

And if posters don't source their "facts," how is that any different from just expressing their opinions?

[warspite1]

Previous responses removed to make the post more readable.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

To paraphrase one of your own playwrights, you protest too much, methinks.

The Serbian government was and still is responsible for its own military/paramilitary. Even today, Bosnia-Herzegovina said it would appeal against a 2007 UN court ruling clearing Serbia of genocide during Bosnia’s civil war. That's why I asked if you have ever been in the region.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... f-genocide

And if posters don't source their "facts," how is that any different from just expressing their opinions?

warspite1

Please don't speak in riddles - protest about what?

What has a UN court ruling against Serbia got to do with 1914? Look you've been to the region, you've mentioned it once or twice, but you need to stay relevant here.

So are you saying all facts must be backed with sources? You always do that yes? Most posters to these forums do that yes? Of course not. But okay I have no problem with that. Although perhaps though you should check the accuracy of the facts you choose to support. Providing a source is all well and good, but if the fact is actually false*, it kind of defeats the object.

* The 1807 treaty wasn't false of course - just its relevance to 1914.

[Aurelian]

Funny thing about Serbia and Russia. In 1907 Russia got involved in a secret diplomatic effort with Austria. In return of their support of a Russian demand that Turkey open the Dardenelles to free passage of Russian warships, Russia would turn its back when A-H annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was a betrayal of a small Slavic people. Unfortunately for Russian Foreign Minister Izvolsky, before he was ready to press Russia's demand, A-H annexed Bosnia, leaving him nothing to show for it. Oops.

At this point, Serbia mobilized and called on Russia for aid. So Russia began to mobilize of the border with Austria. Then Germany stepped in and asked Izvolsky if he was prepared to back down. "We expect a precise answer, yes or no. Any vague, complicated or ambiguous reply will be regarded as a refusal." Rather blunt, but Russia, not ready for war, backed down.

Russian humiliation was spectacular. To short quote Sir Arthur Nicolson, British Ambassador to St. Petersburg "In the recent history of Russia......she has never, for apparently no valid reason, had to submit to the dictation of a foreign power.

So from 1909 onwards, the Kiev military district had standing orders to be ready within 48 hours to repel an invasion. And Nicholas II of Russia resolved to never again withdraw from a similar challenge.

Nicholas And Alexandria by Robert K Massie, pp 249-252. Just to provide a little background to why Russia stood by Serbia in 1914.

[ezzler]

Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan. WW1 expert.

"Conrad von Hötzendorf, Chief of Staff of Austo-Hungary, first proposed preventive war against Serbia in 1906, and he did so again in 1908–09, in 1912–13, in October 1913, and May 1914: between 1 January 1913 and 1 January 1914 he proposed a Serbian war twenty-five times".

AH was just looking for a reason to invade. And a very good one came their way.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: ezz

Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan. WW1 expert.

"Conrad von Hötzendorf, Chief of Staff of Austo-Hungary, first proposed preventive war against Serbia in 1906, and he did so again in 1908–09, in 1912–13, in October 1913, and May 1914: between 1 January 1913 and 1 January 1914 he proposed a Serbian war twenty-five times".

AH was just looking for a reason to invade. And a very good one came their way.

Conrad is a strong candidate for the stupidest general ever to lead a country to war - see 'A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire'.