Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#61

Post by glenn239 » 15 Oct 2011, 17:15

Please cite where I have done this. I am serious, I wish to see where I have done what you say. I see no mention of any distinction of mobilization, partial or full,
I have always understood Peter to be talking of Russia's 30th July general mobilization whenever he talks of 'mobilization'.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#62

Post by Jon Clarke » 15 Oct 2011, 18:04

Peter
(BTW: The book to which your link points, is the same book I have on my Kindle-for-PC)
Are you 100% certain about this? The text that you have previously posted from Strachan is actually from his short history of the war and does not appear in the Strachan book Terry is referring to.

To be fair it is easy to see why you might be confused as Strachan has published at least three books with the title The First World War - I should know because I have all three! Two of these books are essentially the same book text-wise and cover the entire war whereas the third one only covers the first part of the war but in much greater depth. It is also much longer than the other two books at some 1200+ pages. To add to the confusion the first section of the two 'abridged' books is called 'To Arms' but the text is entirely different to that of the third book!

To my mind it's not a big issue but it is probably useful if everyone is referring to the same book which I don't think is the case in this instance.

Jon


Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#63

Post by Jon Clarke » 15 Oct 2011, 18:05

Anyway getting back to what Strachan says about the German decision on 31 July, he writes in To Arms that:

In retrospect Russian prevarication over the pattern of its mobilization had little effect on the outcome of the July crisis. The crucial decisions, given the nature of Germany's war plan, were taken on 24 July. Any military preparations by Russia, even if designed to counter Austria-Hungary alone, would have been sufficient to prompt German mobilization. This is obviously true if Germany is seen as an aggressive power, already committed to European war, and certainly not disposed to pass up the opportunity of having its eastern frontier protected by Austrian operations against the Russians and so being freed to concentrate in the west. But it is also applicable in the context of a more reactive interpretation, of Germany’s self-imposed image as the tragic victim: the sense of being in a corner, the preoccupation with time which not only the mobilization timetable but also the political management of the crisis generated, combined with the fear of Russia and the obligation to Austria Hungary to make Russia’s partial mobilization as intolerable to Germany as general mobilization.

He later writes that:

On 30 July Moltke's respect for Bethmann's wish to await the Russian response had - as his message to Conrad testified - evaporated. That evening he got the chancellor to agree that a decision on general mobilization would be made by noon on 31 July. Moltke was quite clear that the Tsar's equivocation over general or partial mobilization could make no difference to the German decision. Five minutes before their self-imposed deadline, Moltke and Bethman Hollweg heard that the Russians had finally decided on general mobilization.

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 00:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#64

Post by Jon Clarke » 15 Oct 2011, 18:05

Fay said: "Mobilization means war." He said this without qualifications of any sort.
You own quote shows this to be incorrect.

By ordering general mobilization about 6:00 P.M. on July 30, Russia had now taken the step which military men everywhere clearly understood almost certainly meant war.

Indeed Fay generally qualifies the statement that mobilization means war throughout his book by adding something like 'to military men everywhere'. For example:

“Mobilization means war.” This was a political maxim which for years had been widely accepted by military men
on the Continent everywhere.


Or

it still represented the conception of military men that general mobilization means war.

This clearly is not the same as everyone accepting that mobilization meant war which was certainly not the view in diplomatic circles. When, for example, Berchtold told Shebeko during the afternoon of 30 July that it had been decided to order Austrian general mobilization, he stated that :

Considering the circumstance however, that Russia was evidently mobilising against us, we too had to extend our mobilisation, while 1 expressly mentioned, that these measures, it goes without saying, constituted no hostile move against Russia and were merely lo be considered as the necessary counter-move lo the Russian mobilisation.

If mobilization meant war, Berchtold could hardly describe it as constituting 'no hostile act' nor would Shebeko have reported to Sazonov that the conversation 'bore the most friendly manner'.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#65

Post by Terry Duncan » 16 Oct 2011, 18:04

Peter,

I am asking you to substantiate the claim against me you have seen fit to make. Unless you do so, I am sure people here are perfectly capable of judging for themselves the substance behind the claims and the reason you have made them.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#66

Post by glenn239 » 17 Oct 2011, 19:01

OK, sure. Here's a minor example from the Schlieffen thread on another site. I had written,

Note that talking past one another with rote talking points isn't of much interest.

You responded,

Pots and kettles anyone...

Your response about pots and kettles refers to the saying of the pot calling the kettle black. This took the original observation and placed it out of context. I had said it in the plural - "one another" - meaning that I included myself. Retorting pots and kettles was a distortion of the original comment because it implies that I had not included myself in the comment.

Naturally, I didn't bother to respond such a minor thing.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#67

Post by Terry Duncan » 17 Oct 2011, 19:46

Glenn,

Strange you needed to edit the exchange here in order to create an impression you desire. My actual reply was as follows, with the sections of your post left in bold;
Mr. Zuber mentioned it on quite a number of occassions in this thread and you've been made aware of it perhaps 50 times in other discussions.

Terence Zuber is just as much entitled to his views as anyone else, but he is not the final arbiter of what the correct determination of this argument is, for example I do not believe Strachan reaches the same conclusions.

Note that talking past one another with rote talking points isn't of much interest.

Pots and kettles anyone...
Given my reply neither singles you out, excludes myself, nor suggests you are unique - though your often demonstrated refusal to accept anyone else might be right on any number of issues (Nish, strange things to do with ships etc) might be taken by some to imply that this could alsmost be true - and that the exchange took place on a subject where others were demonstrating no different refusal to accept others views, your motives for trying to portray it differently here can only reflect on you. Lets look at exactly what Peter said;
I see you have not forgotten your old trick of misquoting people. Previous mobilizations for the purpose of buttressing diplomacy had been PARTIAL mobilizations as Fay mentioned.
Given I have never cited Fay, the idea I had somehow misquoted Fay is improbable. My initial statement was that Strachan had noted how the German decision to mobilize was made prior to the knowledge of Russian full mobilization, to which Peter responded by suggesting that Strachan had not said the things I claimed, and later confirmed that he has exactly the same Strachan book I refered to - I still do not think this is correct as he seems to not have much of the information contained in it, and think that the problem rests in the problem Jon has highlighted, although as this was highlighted to Peter on THC only a few months ago it is not a problem he is unaware of.

I have not deviated from the source of my original comment, presuambly you too are unable to see where I have misquoted anyone here, as otherwise you would have highlighted where I had done so. It would also seem perfectly reasonable to presume that after three days of Peter refusing to even indicate where he claims I have misrepresented him in this discussion, that his accusation is without substance.

peterhof
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 01:18
Location: Laguna Woods, CA
Contact:

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#68

Post by peterhof » 17 Oct 2011, 21:21

We have just returned from a mini-vacation in La Jolla. I'll reply in a day or so.
We have met the enemy and he is us.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#69

Post by Terry Duncan » 17 Oct 2011, 21:51

We have just returned from a mini-vacation in La Jolla. I'll reply in a day or so.
I hope you had a nice holiday. Whilst away you managed to start the Versailles thread on 15th, and make two posts in that thread on the 16th, so it must have been a very mini vacation indeed.

peterhof
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 01:18
Location: Laguna Woods, CA
Contact:

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#70

Post by peterhof » 17 Oct 2011, 21:53

My wife has a laptop.
We have met the enemy and he is us.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#71

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Oct 2011, 12:37

Hi Glenn,

Selective editing of my posts now? I asked you before to keep it clean.

And this on top of pretending you had earlier asked me a question when you hadn't!

I ask again, Please keep it clean.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your Boer war question is purely hypothetical. What you postulate did not happen. But let us examine it anyway.

Firstly, nobody declares a world war. It grows organically by the successive addition of new combatants to a smaller conflict.

The key point is when the first participant decides to forego diplomacy in favour of military action in settling the original trigger dispute. If they do so premeditatedly and unreasonably, then they are culpable for the outbreak of a world war. (This does not absolve others from all responsibility for their own subsequent stupidities, but they are only joining an existing war, not creating one.)

If Britain or the Boers had been the first party that decided premeditatedly and unreasonably to use war instead of diplomacy to settle their mutual dispute, and if other parties had joined in on a global scale, then they (the British or Boers) could have been the root cause of a world war. But, as we know, this did not happen, so your hypothetical question has no more relevance than any other notional conflict you care to contrive between any other initial participants, real or imaginery, that you care to mention.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In WWI Austria-Hungary, with Germany foreknowledge and support, decided to escalate its dispute with Serbia from the diplomatic to the military plane at the cabinet meeting of 7 July, despite that the fact that ity had no evidence of Serbian state involvement.

Having answered your question, I ask you yet again: "Perhaps you would care to give the date of delivery of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia and the date of the Russian mobilization?"

Cheers,

Sid.

chronos20th
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
Location: UK.

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#72

Post by chronos20th » 18 Oct 2011, 14:09

I see discussion has not moved further forward.

The sequence is;-

30thJune, foreign ambassadors begin to report to their governments that the "military party" (the military group around Col. Apis) is involved and the Austro-Hungarians are aware of this.

The British ambassador also reports that the Russian ambassador appears to be helping the conspirators.

The French ambassador emphasises reports that the A-H's are aware of the Serbian Involvement.

The youthful assassins have been rounded up and make detailed confessions naming Apis, his assistants and giving details of training and journeys.

1st July Serbian ambassadors in Paris and Berlin issue statements that a warning was given.

2nd July Nikolai Pasic, Serbian PM. issues statement that no warning was in fact given.

3rd July Armitoff, the Russian military attache issues statement that Russian money was provided to Col. Apis' group, but he was not aware of the details and was away on leace.

Supervisory of group, now arrested makes bizarre confession he had been at a meeting in Paris in April with a Serb nationalist group and French intelligence officers present.

4th July assistant military attache issues statement confirming he had distributed money but knew nothing about an assassination, he then disappears.

All the above means some form of military action will be taken against Serbia unless its government states that it was a private group and takes action under criminal law, as the head of military intelligence has been implicated.

In these circumstances Imperial Germany would have to support its ally, but this is not foreknowlege and support for war or egging on A-H to start it as continuously claimed by British partisans.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#73

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Oct 2011, 16:27

Chronos,
30thJune, foreign ambassadors begin to report to their governments that the "military party" (the military group around Col. Apis) is involved and the Austro-Hungarians are aware of this.

The British ambassador also reports that the Russian ambassador appears to be helping the conspirators.

The French ambassador emphasises reports that the A-H's are aware of the Serbian Involvement.
I dont imagine you want to support these claims with any actual details? From memory you are greatly overstating the case here.
The youthful assassins have been rounded up and make detailed confessions naming Apis, his assistants and giving details of training and journeys.
None of the assassins named Apis in any confession - they did name Tankosic and Ciganovic, both far lesser figures - for the good reason none had ever met him or knew of any tenuous link to the assassination he might have had. Please support your claim with some evidence or further posts like this will be subject to deletion without warning.
3rd July Armitoff, the Russian military attache issues statement that Russian money was provided to Col. Apis' group, but he was not aware of the details and was away on leace.
Given the Russian military attache was Artamanov, and he was away on holiday, this is yet another inventin presumably.
Supervisory of group, now arrested makes bizarre confession he had been at a meeting in Paris in April with a Serb nationalist group and French intelligence officers present.
Even with knowledge of the July Crisis and a copy of books at handd it is almost impossible to know what you mean by this.
4th July assistant military attache issues statement confirming he had distributed money but knew nothing about an assassination, he then disappears.
Artamanov was alive and well when Albertini conversed with him many years later, as pointed out above, he was on leave - in Italy iirc at the time of the assassination, and then returned to Russia.
All the above means some form of military action will be taken against Serbia unless its government states that it was a private group and takes action under criminal law, as the head of military intelligence has been implicated.
There appears to have been nothing to implicate Apis until the time of the later trial in Salonika, therefore the head of military intelligence was not implicated. Even the supposed confession at the Salonika trial date has a lot of rather obvious lies in it, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere previously, if only you read what others posted.
In these circumstances Imperial Germany would have to support its ally,
You could argue that Germany had a right to do so, but that right would have existed as a sovereign state anyhow, the assassination did not invoke and clause under the treaty as such therefore Germany was fully at liberty to persue any policy she chose in response.
but this is not foreknowlege and support for war or egging on A-H to start it as continuously claimed by British partisans.
The German Foreign Office instructions to Vienna are perfectly clear, you were shown them only recently on THC so pretending you did not see them in another discussion you took part in lacks credibility.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#74

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Oct 2011, 19:23

Hi Chronos,

After consulting Germany in the preceding days, on 7 July 1914 the Austro-Hungarian cabinet (with one temporary exception) decided to risk war with Serbia.

At that stage, Austria-Hungary's own investigation into the Archduke's assassination had not yet reported.

Indeed, when it did later report, it did not implicate the Serbian Government.

Nevertheless, this did not deter Austria-Hungary from going ahead with the issuing of the ultimatum to Serbia that had been decided upon on 7 July. Contagion spread and WWI followed.

There is no doubt that the Austro-Hungarian Government decided to risk war, with German foreknowledge and support, regardless of whether or not the Serbian Government was implicated.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Who Really Murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

#75

Post by glenn239 » 18 Oct 2011, 19:30

Selective editing of my posts now? I asked you before to keep it clean.
In terms of discussion mechanics, I find it useless in most cases to reply to a full posting quote – we’ve all read the original, there is no need to post it again. I routinely drill down on highlights for discussion, and fully expect other posters will as well. I do not complain when my original comments are taken out of context (which happens all the time), but simply post a correction. If you feel a quote and reply is not indicative of your opinion, then simply post the correction.
And this on top of pretending you had earlier asked me a question when you hadn't!
In post 18:06 of October 11 I had thought that I had framed a question when this was not in fact not clearly done until 18:26 of October 12th, and you replied on 18th October. In terms of promoting 'clean' discussion, your second sentence should have read,

And this on top of your thinking you had earlier asked me a question when you hadn't!

The altered version is ‘clean’ while the original most decidely was not.
If Britain or the Boers had been the first party that decided premeditatedly and unreasonably to use war instead of diplomacy to settle their mutual dispute, and if other parties had joined in on a global scale, then they (the British or Boers) could have been the root cause of a world war.
That is the logical conclusion from your principle that,

‘The key point is when the first participant decides to forego diplomacy in favour of military action in settling the original trigger dispute.’

The problem is that the responsible party to a world war is not necessarily a member to the original dispute. It can also be any party that escalated the dispute without cause. The fictional example of Britain and the Boers highlights this; if this war had gone global it is unlikely either Britain or the Boers would be responsible for that. Another example would be Hitler from 1937. In the Hossbach (sic?) memorandum, Hitler openly declared his wish to use a Franco-Italian war as an excuse for promoting German aggression. I can provide the exact text if you’d like. Had Hitler’s scenario come to pass as he imagined it in 1937, it would be impossible to state that France or Italy was responsible for the world war even though France and Italy would have been the first countries to go to war.

As the Hitler example of exploiting a third-parties war to cause a world war is pitch-perfect for the principle I am highlighting, we can cease with the hypothetical Boer War analogy and concentrate solely on it. (I would have used it the first time instead had I thought of it).

The responsible party in the Hitler example is what in hockey is the ‘third man in’; the one that enters a dispute and escalates it into a team on team brawl (the hockey equivalent of world war). The two original skaters on the ice are responsible for starting their dual. But they are not necessarily responsible for any bench-clearing brawl that happens along because of it. This is caused by whoever ‘jumped in’ the fight between the first two, causing an avalanche that otherwise would not have occurred.

Locked

Return to “First World War”