Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

[Terry Duncan]

Peter,

Whilst many posters here may not have seen some of these quotes, several of us have, and many times over too! When a claim has been addressed and shown to be inaccurate, for whatever reason, there is little point in repeating them unless the purpose is not honest debate. As a single example, how many times have we discussed the 'Apis confession' and how unrelieable it is, for the way is was obtained, due to the fact it contains known inaccuracies, as well as other inconsistancies. Constantly having to repeat the same discussions is tiresome.

By the way, you would be really well advided to remove the comment about moderators before one of the other staff here see it and take offence at it. It serves no purpose in the discussion.

[Jon Clarke]

The operative phrase here is "On this occasion." Obviously, on subsequent occasions Apis must have mentioned "my intention for the assassination" because he states that he received money from Artamonov for the purpose.

There is no 'obviously' about it. You are simply taking a phrase, and one that is probably subject to the normal issues surrounding translations, and making it fit your theory. Moreover, in order to do this, you are then distorting what Apis said about the money:

Some of their receipts are in the hands of the Russians, since I got money for this purpose from Mr. Artamonov, as the General Staff did not have funds available for this increased activity.

Apis, by using the term 'increased activity', is clearly not referring to the assassination as he has no need to disguise his meaning when he has already used 'assassination' at least three times in the 'confession'. What he is actually talking about is the setting up of a network within Austria-Hungary as mentioned the very first sentence of the 'confession'. Moreover it is extremely unlikely that Apis would need to go cap in hand to the Russians to provide the meagre funds for Princip & co as the actual sum provided was very small, only 120-150 dinars IIRC.

[Jon Clarke]

The whereabouts of ranking diplomats is always known, even when they are "on holiday." We know when they depart, where they go, when they return.

So you'll have absolutely no problem saying where the rest of the 'holidaying' ambassadors from Great Powers were in July 1914 - for example where exactly were Bertie, Szecsen, Tittoni, Goschen, de Bunsen, Page to name but a few? I would point that I have asked this sort of question on several occasions but have yet to receive a reply.

In sharp contrast, there is an unaccounted three-week gap in Isvolsky's record.

I note that you have once again failed to give a source for your claim that Isvolsky vanished from Paris on 29 June. The problem seems to be that you don't actually have a source but rather have added your own speculation on top of that of Stieve's in Isvolsky And The World War. The relevant quote from Stieve says that:

A fact that seems worth noting is that from the beginning of July there is a big gap in Isvolsky’s papers. Is this the result of a prudent holocaust? We have no definite knowledge, but the sudden stoppage justifies the question.

This is a long way from suggesting that Isvolsky disappeared on 29 June. Stieve is clearly speculating that Isvolsky, rather than 'disappearing off the face of the earth', had destroyed his correspondence from that period. He may of course have been correct but the more likely scenario is that there is no correspondence from Isvolsky because he was on holiday.

He ended up in St. Petersburg but no one knows how he got there, and his good friend, Paleologue, normally a prolific diarist, failed to note Isvolsky's arrival.

Paleologue's An Ambassador's Memoirs start from 20 July 1914 with the journey out to greet Poincare. Why then should he mention Isvolsky's return which almost certainly occurred prior to this date?

Jon has promised to check his daughter's writings in hopes of discovering a clue as to his whereabouts.

Whilst Helene Isvolsky's No Time To Grieve does not provide any information as far as Isvolsky's whereabouts during the period is concerned (she merely writes that 'Meanwhile father left for St Petersburg..'), she provide some information that would strongly support the view that Isvolsky was certainly not plotting a war with Germany. After mentioning that news of the assassination arrived in the Ukraine (where she was staying), she writes that:

The first tremors of the approaching earthquake were scarcely felt during those high summer days at Dikanka. News travelled slowly and no warnings came from my own family. I even received permission to prolong my stay in Russia and visit my cousins at the Golun estate. So I left Dikanka accompanied by my faithful Mac while Grisha [her brother] left to hunt in the Bavarian Alps and to join Mother at La Chere Villa.

La Chere Villa was the name the Isvolsky's gave to their holiday home at Tegernsee in Bavaria. Later Helene writes that:

As soon as the news of the ultimatum reached Father he took the first train to Paris. Before leaving, he sent a telegram to Golun telling me to leave immediately for Tegernsee.

This would mean that at the same time, according to your theory, Isvolsky was 'plotting' in St Petersburg and Paris to start a European War, he was also arranging for his entire family to be in the very country that you claim he was plotting against! Honestly just how likely is that?

[Jon Clarke]

We are agreed (I hope) that Franz Ferdinand was murdered. So tell me, did Apis, or did Apis not, supply the three assassins with pistols, bullets, bombs, money, shooting lessons - as alleged in virtually every book on the subject? If not, who supplied these weapons?

The weapons were supplied by Ciganovic as Princip made clear at his trial:

Prosecutor: -Yet when he returned, he said that Tankosic had not made the best impression on him? When did you receive the bombs and revolvers?
Princip:-Before our departure.
Prosecutor: -Had you ever before had a bomb and revolver in your hands?
Princip:-I examined them when I was at Ciganovic's.
Prosecutor:-How many bombs did Ciganovic have?
Princip: -He had about twelve pieces before the Bulgarian war (1913).
Prosecutor:-Had you ever fired?
Princip: -I had in Prokuplje and Belgrade. I had trained with Brownings on the Drina frontier and at Topcider.
Prosecutor: -Who took you there?
Princip:-Ciganovic.
Prosecutor: - Was Grabez there? (Yes.) Cabrinovic? (No.) When did you leave Belgrade?
Princip:-On Ascension Day (28 May 1914, N.S.).
Prosecutor: -How many days before that did he give you the bombs and revolvers?
Princip:-Two days before.

The general assumption of most historians is that the grenades came from Ciganovic's stash from the Balkan Wars whereas the revolvers were provided by Tankosic (via Ciganovic) who, IIRC, is said to issued an IOU for them.

[glenn239]

Jon quoted: "On this occasion I did not mention my intention for the assassination, and my motive for asking his opinion about Russia's attitude was the possibility that Austria might become aware of our activities, and use this as a pretext to attack us."

The operative phrase here is "On this occasion." Obviously, on subsequent occasions Apis must have mentioned "my intention for the assassination" because he states that he received money from Artamanov for the purpose.

Albertini's interview with Artamanov corraborates Peter's view somewhat - he got the impression the Russian was lying to him, though obviously about what details he had no idea.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peterhof,

What are the essential points we are to deduce from the following?

"At the outbreak of the World War, I was Minister of Education in M. Nikola Pasitch’s Cabinet. I have recently written down some of my recollections and some notes on the events of those days. For the present occasion I have chosen from them a few extracts, because the time is not yet come for everything to be disclosed. I do not remember whether it was at the end of May or the beginning of June, when one day M. Pasitch said to us (he conferred on these matters more particularly with Stojan Protich, who was then Minister of the Interior; but this much he said to the rest of us) that certain persons were making ready to go to Sarajevo to murder Franz Ferdinand who was to go there to be solemnly received on St. Vitus’ Day. As the told me afterwards, this plot was hatched by a group of secretly organized persons and by patriotic Bosno-Herzegovinian students in Belgrade. M. Pasitch and the rest of us said, and Stojan agreed, that he should issue instructions to the frontier authorities on the Drina to prevent the crossing over of the youths who had already set out from Belgrade for that purpose. But the frontier authorities themselves belonged to the organization and did not carry out Stojan’s instructions, but reported to him (as he afterwards told us) that the instructions had reached them too late, because the youths had already crossed over."

1) The Serbian Government was not the originator of the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand.

2) In fact, it gave orders to prevent the presumed assassins from entering Bosnia-Herzegovina to carry out any such assassination.

The thread title asks: "Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?"

The answer would appear to be, "Whoever it was, it would not appear to have been the Serbian Government".

Which then leads to the obvious question, "Why did Austria-Hungary decide to go to war with a country whose government was not only not responsible for the ArchDuke's death, but took active, if ineffective, steps to prevent it?"

Answer: "Because Austria-Hungary was engaged in a long term campaign of territorial expansion in the Balkans going back three or four decades and decided to use the assassination as an excuse to pursue this further at Serbia's expense."

Another question: "What the heck was Austria-Hungary doing in Bosnia-Herzergovina, in the first place?" Even the assassinated ArchDuke was opposed to its annexation!

[Terry Duncan]

Albertini's interview with Artamanov corraborates Peter's view somewhat

No it doesnt. Albertini said he thought Artamanov was not telling everything certainly but had no proof he was lying. It would also not indicate what exactly Artamonov was telling lies about. He does note the following;

To Artamonov the present writer submitted Simic’s statements.

He declared them to be false and that Dlinitrievic never mentioned the outrage to him. Only after the war did he learn that Apis was implicated. They had been on the friendliest terms but had never discussed the impending Austro-Hungarian manoeuvres in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Francis Ferdinand’s visit to Bosnia. They had never exchanged ideas
on what might happen if the Heir Apparent were to die. On the present writer’s remarking that it was strange he should absent himself from Belgrade at the very moment when the Austrian manoeuvres were on the point of beginning on the Bosnian frontier and the Archduke was expected at Sarajevo, Artamonov, after some embarrassed hesitation, said that he had not had any furlough for three years and permission had been given him in the first half of June when he had no idea of what was about to happen. He reiterated that he knew nothing of the outrage, and that in the little Belgrade of the time, where public life was confined to a very few cafés, the plot could not have been kept secret, and he added:

If Austria did not take adequate precautions for the protection of the Archduke’s life, there must have been reasons for it. Perhaps the Sarajevo drama implies a mysterious Hapsburg drama. Probably this is the explanation
why Jovan Jovanovic’s approach to Billnski had no result.

When the present writer asked Artamonov for his explanation of the statements made by Dimitrievi to Colonel Simic, his reply was:

Perhaps Dragutin Dimitrievic gave this version to attenuate and cover up his own guilt or to boast of influences from high quarters. He was a strong, ambitious man who aimed at gaining complete and unconditional command of the State. His statements to Colonel Simic as to my having agreed to the Sarajevo outrage on one hand whitewashed him for his part in the plot and on the other enhanced his prestige.

The present writer must honestly say he remained unconvinced by the behaviour of this officer, who struck him as being of limited intelligence with little strength of character, or by his explanations for his absence from Belgrade even after the outrage.

Later;

Of course I was in practically daily contact with Dimitrievic. I was Military Attaché, Dimitrievic was head of Military Intelligence of the Serbian General Staff. Serbia and Russia were on extremely friendly terms and had discussions on mutual co-operation in case of war. Moreover I had to follow Austrian military preparations in Bosnia, because, as an enemy frontier, it was of concern to the Russian General Staff in case of war. My relations with Dimitrievic were entirely confined to intelligence on military matters.

Nevertheless, in view of the post he held, Artamonov did not succeed in giving the present writer a convincing explanation of his departure from Belgrade precisely on the eve of the Austrian grand manoeuvres in Bosnia. He simply repeated that he never had occasion to talk with Dimitrievic either of the manoeuvres or of the possibility that Austria was planning a war on Serbia of which the manoeuvres were to be the prelude, nor of what might happen after the death of Francis Ferdinand, nor of the conspiracy against him.

Not until after the war did I learn that Dimitrievi had instigated and organized the Sarajevo outrage.

After all, it is questionable whether Artamonov was in a position to guarantee Russian aid to Serbia in the event of an Austrian attack and whether Dimitrievic would have been satisfied with such assurances. It does, however, seem certain—and this opinion is shared by Professor Slobodan Jovanovic — that Artamonov was told of the plot, if not
directly by Dimitrievic, then by some other informant, and that he did nothing to thwart it?

This is a very long way from supporting Peter's claims that Apis was paid by Artamanov for the purpose of financing or organizing the assassination, or that he even knew of it in advance.

[peterhof]

Just for the record:

As I pointed out on the old History Channel board, Apis lied about his motive. In his confession he stated that

"After Rade [Malobabic] had begun work, believing that Austria was preparing for war with us, I thought that with the removal of the heir to the throne, Ferdinand, the military party he headed would lose strength, thus removing or at least delaying the threat of war somewhat."

But Apis could hardly have been confused as to who headed the military party. This was Hotzendorff. Ferdinand headed the peace party. With his "trialist" solution, Ferdinand would have meant peace with Serbia and that is why he was targeted.

Princip said: "I killed him [Ferdinand] and I am not sorry. I regarded him as an energetic man who as ruler would have carried through definite ideas and reforms which stood in our way."

Those "ideas and reforms" meant Ferdinand's "trialist" solution which would have ended the 'Greater Serbia' movement at a stroke as it would have foreclosed any possibility of Bosnia/Herzegovina becoming part of Serbia.

Apis had no choice but to lie. He could hardly admit that his purpose was to start a war with Austria. This was also the core of the dispute with his good friend Pasic, who believed that diplomacy - not reckless action - should be the preferred method of dealing with Austria.

Also for the record, here is my conspiracy theory. Yes, it is only a theory:

Isvolsky requested the post of ambassador to France for the purpose of promoting war with the Central Powers for the mutual benefit of France and Russia and, hopefully, Britain. When he learned in September of 1913 that the Austrian Crown Prince planned to visit Bosnia, he arranged with Russian ambassador Hartwig the appointment of the notorious assassin, Apis, as Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence.
On January 6, Isvolsky sent his famous telegram announcing Poincaré’s intention to visit Russia “at the first opportunity” because if the planned assassination was successful, it would be necessary for Poincaré to see the Czar personally to be absolutely certain that France and Russia were on the same page. When Apis’ murder plot proved successful, Isvolsky immediately departed for St. Petersburg in utmost secrecy. His purpose was to prepare the hesitant and irresolute Czar for Poincaré’s arrival and to insure a suitably firm Russian response to the Austro-Serbian crisis. (And, not incidentally, to exact a measure of revenge for the humiliation of 1908.)The die was irrevocably cast when Russia mobilized on July 30.
(While Nicholas Romanov approved of Russia’s military preparations and acquiesced all-to-easily to his subordinates, the best evidence indicates that he was probably ignorant of the Sarajevo murder plot.)

Whadaja think?



(BTW: Thank you all for this great, edifying, educational discussion. It certainly serves to illustrate that hard, incontestable, unarguable proof of anything is not in the cards. Good conjecture, inference, speculation, surmise, and supposition is the order of the day.)

[Terry Duncan]

As I pointed out on the old History Channel board, Apis lied about his motive.

The problem is that Apis lied rather a lot, that is why people think he is not a good person to cite as any dort of evidence to what actually happend unless people simply want to cherry pick one part because it suits some purpose.

But Apis could hardly have been confused as to who headed the military party.

Princip and his merry little band had already decided to kill Franz-Ferdinand, and where, so Apis telling lies about what he says was the role of the victim in Austrian politics is immaterial.

Apis had no choice but to lie. He could hardly admit that his purpose was to start a war with Austria.

It is more likely that he acted to try and retain influence in Serbia after his Officers Coup to oust Pasic had failed so badly only week earlier. Tankosic at least seems to confirm this;

Jovan Jovanovic, the former Serbian Minister at Vienna, relates that after the outrage a rumour went round Belgrade that when Tankosid was asked why he gave the conspirators arms in May 1914 his reply was: ‘To make trouble for Pasic and the Radicals'

This was also the core of the dispute with his good friend Pasic

Apis does not seem to have been any friend to Pasic by 1914, trying to overthrow his government prior to the assassination and trying again during the war too. It would be most interesting to see any evidence they were still friends, as this argument has been refuted by Jon before.

Isvolsky requested the post of ambassador to France for the purpose of promoting war with the Central Powers for the mutual benefit of France and Russia and, hopefully, Britain.

Isvolsky was certainly happy to take the post in Paris to work for the three nations to become closer, but there is next to nothing to show that this was to promote war. He would certainly not counsel restraint if Germany threatened anything again - after all it was for that reason he was ending up in Paris - but that is not the same as plotting a war.

When he learned in September of 1913 that the Austrian Crown Prince planned to visit Bosnia, he arranged with Russian ambassador Hartwig the appointment of the notorious assassin, Apis, as Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence.

Already dealt with by Jon earlier in this thread if you read his posts;

Oh dear not this nonsense again! The visit of Franz Ferdinand was first discussed on 29 September 1913 at a meeting between Conrad and Potierek. Conrad's record of the meeting showed that:

We discussed the possibility of action against Serbia. Potiorek thought that we could count on the Moslems and the Croats. Then he raised questions of prime importance, which had been freely discussed since 1907. Finally he told me that the Heir Apparent, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, wanted the manoeuvres of the 15th and 16th Army Corps under Potierek's command to take place in North Bosnia in 1914. He wished to be present at these manoeuvres and said that the Duchess also desired to accompany him on this occasion.

Apis cannot therefore have been appointed to organize an assassination during a visit that hadn't then even been thought of at the time he was appointed!

On January 6, Isvolsky sent his famous telegram announcing Poincaré’s intention to visit Russia “at the first opportunity” because if the planned assassination was successful, it would be necessary for Poincaré to see the Czar personally to be absolutely certain that France and Russia were on the same page.

I think you will find that the main cause of the talks was the Russian desire for a Naval Agreement with Britian, the talks had just started and were due to conclude in August if the war had not interrupted them.

When Apis’ murder plot proved successful, Isvolsky immediately departed for St. Petersburg in utmost secrecy.

There seems to have been no secrecy about it, nor would there need to be. As Jon has pointed out, almost every ambassador in Europe was on leave in the early days of that July, some only returning in the last week or so.

His purpose was to prepare the hesitant and irresolute Czar for Poincaré’s arrival and to insure a suitably firm Russian response to the Austro-Serbian crisis.

In which case he failed utterly. The Russian response to Austrian action was very uncertain and certainly not the actions of a state determined to go to war.

(And, not incidentally, to exact a measure of revenge for the humiliation of 1908.)The die was irrevocably cast when Russia mobilized on July 30.
(While Nicholas Romanov approved of Russia’s military preparations and acquiesced all-to-easily to his subordinates, the best evidence indicates that he was probably ignorant of the Sarajevo murder plot.)

The problem is that Russia would not have mobilized if Austria had shown even the slightest willingness to talk. The Tzar did not give in at all easily to his subordinates and took days to respond to what was blindingly obvious provocation from Austria. From the moment the Note was seen Austrian intent was clear, as Sazonov noted' You are setting fire to the map or Europe!'

Whadaja think?

To anyone with little detailed knowledge reading you ideas it may seem reasonable, but it falls apart when you look at the actual events in each nations that ensured war. It most certainly was not some great conspiricy.

[glenn239]

This is a very long way from supporting Peter's claims that Apis was paid by Artamanov.

It is neither a long way nor a short way. It leaves open a possibility and proves nothing. Artamanov states,

They had been on the friendliest terms but had never discussed the impending Austro-Hungarian manoeuvres in Bosnia-Herzegovina

That is not a believable statement, that the two men would not discuss this. My guess on putting the pieces together - I would go for the simplest explanation possible that connected the dots, and this is not Peter's theory. The Apis and Arty Show had nothing to do with the assassination, it was cooked up as Princip’s crew said it was. But word will have rapidly spread through Belgrade with Apis and Artamanov soon in the loop as to what was afoot. Hence, Artamanov’s departure on the eve of manoeuvres that Albertini rightly concludes he would never have missed.

This is the essential detail that Peter should think about; since Apis was not in the loop in the original plot, when he discovered it he was incentivized to talk to Artamanov immediately because of the potential for Serbian disaster. That is to say, the odds Artamanov is brought into in the know increase if Apis didn’t orchestrate the attack. Read Apis’ statement again in this light,

I decided on this definitely only after Artamanov had assured me that Russia would not leave us undefended if Austria attacked us. On this occasion I did not mention my intention for the assassination, and my motive for asking his opinion about Russia’a attitude was the possibility that Austria might become aware of our activities, and use this as a pretext to attack us.

Apis does not say that Arty wasn’t told of the assassination. Apis says that the didn’t tell the Russian of his own ‘intention’ to carry it out. We assumed that Apis meant he didn't mention Princip's adventure, but what he technically said was that Arty was not told the attack was his own creation.

[Terry Duncan]

I think you are relying far too much on semantics, unless we are to suppose the original document was written in English, which it was not, and that Apis functioned like a politician in his wording to allow for anyone to read into it what they wish - we know he was a long way off being the match for politicians when it came to words and how to use them to best effect, otherwise it may have been Pasic being executed in Salonika.

At the best you could use this line to show people knew of the plot and did nothing to stop it, though even that is debated, which is a long way from what Peter started out claiming.

[peterhof]

A few points:

-I have read a number of possible dates on which it became known that Archduke Ferdinand planned to visit Bosnia. I don't think this can be narrowed down beyond the summer/early fall of 1913. Jon's date is only one of many and therefore does not undermine my conspiracy theory.

-This applies equally to the date Apis' appointment as Intelligence Chief. Various dates have been given but the best guess is sometime during the summer/early fall of 1913.

-Poincaré had already visited Russia in 1912 to conclude a Naval Convention. On that occasion he had stated that with the signing of the Naval Convention (the primary reason for the visit), the rapprochement with England, and resolution of the problem of building strategic railroads, all outstanding problems had been resolved and the Franco-Russian Alliance was now complete and secure.

This again points up the fact that there were no outstanding issues between France and Russia that required a face-to-face meeting other than the Sarajevo crisis. But if this was the purpose of the meeting, how do we account for the January announcement of said meeting? (unless - GASP - Poincare had prior knowledge of the murder plot)

(Note to Terry: All premeditated murders involving more than one person are conspiracies)

[Jon Clarke]

Also for the record, here is my conspiracy theory. Yes, it is only a theory:

I was somewhat amazed, although on reflection not unduly surprised, that you have chosen to re-post your theory absolutely unchanged from the last (?) time you posted it in 2009 despite the fact that many of the claims in it have been shown to be factually incorrect. Very much against my better judgement, I will make one last effort to correct the errors in your 'theory' if only to ensure that any posters new to your 'theory' are aware of its flaws.

When he learned in September of 1913 that the Austrian Crown Prince planned to visit Bosnia, he arranged with Russian ambassador Hartwig the appointment of the notorious assassin, Apis, as Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence.

As I have already pointed out Apis was appointed in JUNE 1913 three months before you claim Isvolsky learnt of the meeting. In reality Isvolsky probably learnt of the Archduke's visit in March 1914 when it was first announced in the Austrian press.

On January 6, Isvolsky sent his famous telegram announcing Poincaré’s intention to visit Russia “at the first opportunity” because if the planned assassination was successful, it would be necessary for Poincaré to see the Czar personally to be absolutely certain that France and Russia were on the same page.

I would re-iterate that the July dates were originally proposed by the French in a telegram sent by Doumergue on 6 January. Furthermore on 20 January 1914, Declasse replied saying that:

The visit to the Crimea, whither the Imperial Family must return in March, owing to the health of the Empress and the Heir to the Throne, renders the visit impossible for May. It is very probable, indeed, that the Imperial Family will not return to Petersburg before June. The period that appears to be most convenient to the Emperor is between July 7 and 20, Russian style ; that is to say, July 20 and August 2, in our style.

So contrary to your claim of sudden departures, the date of Poincare's visit was set even before the Austrians had decided when the Bosnian manoeuvres (the reason for the Archduke's visit) would take place. It cannot therefore have been arranged so that Poincare could meet the Tsar 'if the planned assassination was successful'.

When Apis’ murder plot proved successful, Isvolsky immediately departed for St. Petersburg in utmost secrecy.

Once again I will ask for the source of this claim that Isvolsky immediately left for St Petersburg in 'utmost secrecy'. Stieve only said that there was a gap in Isvolsky's correspondence 'from the beginning of July'. In reality, there was no sudden departure, the requirement for Isvolsky to return to St Petersburg at some point in July was effectively set on 20 January when the dates for Poincare's visit were agreed.

His purpose was to prepare the hesitant and irresolute Czar for Poincaré’s arrival and to insure a suitably firm Russian response to the Austro-Serbian crisis.

I'll just remind you of what I posted on the HC board in October 2009:

I was just glancing through Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert Massie and two extracts caught my eye. The first extract is:

'Three days before the events at Sarajevo, the Russian Imperial family sailed from Peterhof on their annual summer cruise along the Baltic coast.'

Later on, Massie tells us that:

'On July 19, the Standari [the royal yacht] returned its passengers to Peterhof. Alexi, still suffering from a swollen ankle, was carried ashore. Nicholas and Alexandra plunged immediately into preparations for the state visit of the President of France, Raymond Poincare, who was due in St. Petersburg the following day.'

This would mean that the Tsar was absent from Russia during the period 25 June to 19 July, the very period Peter tells us that Isvolsky secretly went home in order 'to prepare the hesitant and irresolute Czar'. This would have been very difficult with Isvolsky (possibly) in St Petersburg and the Tsar hundreds of miles away in the Baltic! We should also note that this was an 'annual' cruise so Isvolsky would have been well aware that the Tsar would be in St Petersburg at this time.

Given that you acknowledged this information back in 2009, I have to wonder why you have chosen to persist with this claim two years later.

Whadaja think?

Your 'theory' fails even the simplest of tests. Apis was appointed before the Archduke had even requested to go to Bosnia. The dates of Poincare's visit were known 6 months in advance and before the dates of the Archduke's visit to Bosnia were decided upon. Isvolsky did not vanish suddenly on 29 June, the need for him to leave Paris would have been known about months before. The Tsar was not in St Petersburg until the day before Poincare's visit so Isvolsky had no opportunity to 'prepare' him. Etc. Etc.

[peterhof]

A few further points:

Various and differing dates have been given by for both Apis' high appointment, and the knowledge that Ferdinand planned to visit Bosnia. Therefore these dates cannot be ascertained with certainty.

I did not not know that the Czar was absent from St. Petersburg, but Nicholas II did not make the important decisions. He merely rubber-stamped decisions made by others. He did have a day with Isvolsky (his former Foreign Minister] and may have been informed that the decision had been made to act with "firmness" and "dignity" and that Poincare and Viviani were arriving tomorrow to deliver the message personally.

Stieve was an expert on Isvolsky's diplomatic correspondence and says that there was a gap in said correspondence starting in early July. There is also no notification in Paleologue's diary of Isvolsky's arrival. This is suspicious because Paleologue kept a daily, detailed diary, and the two men were friends.

So . . .

-Why was there a gap in Isvolsky's correspondence beginning in July? (What happened to your promise to search his daughter's writing for clues?)

-What was the purpose of Poincare's July 20-23 visit?

[Jon Clarke]

Poincaré had already visited Russia in 1912 to conclude a Naval Convention. On that occasion he had stated that with the signing of the Naval Convention (the primary reason for the visit), the rapprochement with England, and resolution of the problem of building strategic railroads, all outstanding problems had been resolved and the Franco-Russian Alliance was now complete and secure.

Poincare proposed to visit Russia as President (i.e. the Head of State) whereas his previous visit had been as Prime Minister. In terms of ceremonial significance the two visits were entirely different. Since 1894, Presidents of France (all three of them) had visited Russia early in their term of office and as Poincare had already exchanged visits with the British in 1913, he could hardly delay visiting Russia (the older alliance) much longer.

With regards to your earlier claim that it was Nicholas' turn to visit France, you are wrong as Poincare's visit was not that of a Head of State, protocol did not require a return visit by Nicholas.