Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Slobodan Cekic
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: 24 Aug 2015, 19:59
Location: Munich

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#16

Post by Slobodan Cekic » 29 Aug 2015, 17:35

Terry Duncan wrote:Hi and welcome to AHF :welcome:

I agree with the events you mention, and the close links between Apis, Bogicevic, and the German military, though it is not clear they consulted over events such as the Balkan Wars or the assassination. What I find odd is that a distinguished historian, one that is felt by his peers to be the worlds leading expert on Wilhelmine Germany, should voice such suspicions in such a way they find their way into print, unless he felt there was a very good chance he was correct. The security in Sarajevo was certainly poor, but how much of that was down to the archduke, incompetence, or a possible plot is hard to say. It does need to be noted that the Serbs seem to have given a veiled warning to Bilinski, and that Potiorek was not fond of Franz-Ferdinand, but this does not mean they conspired to kill him. Also, Apis may well have had links to the German military, but links between him and Princip are tenuous at best, so even if the security was poor, and people had wanted to take this opportunity for war, the rather amateur nature of the actual assassins would make them unlikely choices to commit the deed. To my mind if Germany and at least some in Austria had decided to kill Franz-Ferdinand as a pretext, it is more likely that a group of professional assassins would have been in Sarajevo to kill the archduke, but by a 'happy accident' Princip and Co got to act first.
Thank you for your nice welcome :) Being welcome is a nice feeling.

I am sure Röhl has a much more complete and detailed picture of the events than me. In his very large puzzle it looks quite probable that the Germany could have been involved in Sarajevo, but there are large gaps in the picture, and exactly at the most interesting places. The gaps allow many a different guess, and the fact has no versions. I can imagine the frustration of Mr. Röhl; his heap of such coincidences must be much larger than mine.

For example, the line connecting Apis, Bogicevic and the Germans may seem to have likely carried information or agreements in both directions; so likely as it may look, this cannot be substantiated by a document.

If the Germans and Austrians needed a pretext for war in the summer of 1914, like the Dec. 1912 War Council document implies, that doesn't mean they needed the Duke dead at any price.
Even if nothing else happened after the bomb attempt on the Archduke's life, if it could have been proven Serbia was behind, I think that would have done for an ultimatum and for blowing the event up in the press, as well.*
Yet, the worse the things that really happen in Sarajevo,the better the case for the ultimatum, of course.
The Crown Prince was unpopular, but it is one thing to look the other way when someone is after him, and another one to kill him.

You just reminded me of a book by Malte Olschewski, Austrian journalist and historian, which I read some time ago.
Olschewski points out the many very amateurish details about the plot, too. He thinks Apis never intended or expected the attempt to succeed. At that time, he was at the height of his conflict with the PM Pasic, so he gave the preparation of the plot to the people known to be in good relations with the PM.
The arrest and questioning of the students in Bosnia, before or after the attempt, should than have meant Pasic has to resign.

The book was fascinating to read, ..but has to be considered a speculation, at least in some important parts. I am not sure at all how probable this hypothesis is.
But the story of Olschewski does make one point at least. If It is possible to create many different hypotheses which are apparently consistent with the documents known, then some rather big parts of the picture are missing. That is how it looks to me, at least.



* If you take a look at the notes of the German Imperial War Council session from Dec. 1912, the reasoning for the war ASAP appears to be the Russian rearmament program in the first place. Starting the arms race, Germany had a lead that was melting fast.
Now, the completion of the Kiel Canal reconstruction, the naval necessary prerequisite, has been scheduled for October of 1914, originally. The work has been accelerated, though, for some 4 months and ended in June of the same year. The project took seven years, so four months less does not seem to count that much there, at the first glance.

The second glance tells you, these months do count, indeed. If the war was to be started immediately on the canal completion, the October is an unfavorable month, at the winter beginning. That would mean further delay until the spring; another half a year of the German advantage melting fast.

Under that kind of urgency to start the war, the Central Powers would have had to do with the best pretext they could get their fingers on in the early summer months of 1914, I suppose. If the big maneuver, Archdukes visit on a sensitive date and the rest provoked no reaction, the troops could have been used for border incidents or simillar, puting the blame on the other side, of course. Anything is good as an excuse, only some excuses are better.

What, indeed, has happened was a jackpot, and even if the Central Powers did a bit to help their luck here, they needed and got even more help from this same Fortuna on the occasion..

..If what followed could be called luck.

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

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#17

Post by Terry Duncan » 30 Aug 2015, 16:31

There is also an interesting detail I saw in one book (I cannot recall exactly but think it was Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers') that said Franz-Ferdinand didnt want to go to Sarajevo and was ordered to go by Franz-Joseph, the only consolation being he could take his wife and have her treated as an archduchess away from the court.

Bogicevic is not a man I would trust on anything really, he had pre-war German sympathies, vanished soon after the war started only to surface working for the Germans, and after the war was paid in gold by the War Guilt Section to write pieces that blamed others for the war. People like him and Apis are a good illustration why little can be taken at face value from their statements and 'confessions'.

As to the assassination, I tend to go with the idea that it was just a group of amateur assassins that got very lucky, and events then spun out of control as statesmen tried to use the event for their own ends. This does not mean people didnt conspire to keep security low, or that the chance of a second assassination squad waiting to act are wrong, too many authors over the years and people at the time have suggested strange decisions that cannot be explained sensibly, and at least one person said that they thought it would have been a miricle if Franz-Ferdinand had goot out unscathed. The major hurdle with the conspiricy idea, especially when it comes to Germany being involved or responsible, is that very little was done in Germany let alone Austria, to prepare the policies an assassination or attempted assassination would let them put in place. True, these policies do come into discussion almost instantly afterwards, and some had been discussed before, but no actions had been taken to ease them, such as the harvest leave in Austria-Hungary that prevented them acting prior to 12th August.

I think the idea Apis may have been involved as a way of getting at Pasic is all too likely, if he was involved at all, as that is far from clear even now, he had just tried to overthrow the government with another officers coup in May that had led to the king abdicating, so his position was tenuous at best unless something made him valuable again.

With regards to the timing, Fisher had noted that Germany would move as soon as the Kiel Canal was ready (he made a similar prediction about WWII with fairly good accuracy too) but he was of the school of removing an enemy quickly, whoever it was, France, Russia or Germany, and presumed the same reasoning applied in Germany too. Certainly without the canal, Germany is unable to make much use of her fleet. One of the most critical events along this line in my mind is the Russian Great Program, only enacted a month earlier, as this was the reform that would finally eclipse the German military. This is possibly where Rohl has a far greater advantage over many, in that his understanding of internal German politics and the governing classes is way beyond that of most people, as we often hear about the Junkers losing their grip on power, the desire to curb the advances of the SDP and so on, but few of us know to what extent this was seriously discussed, or how urgently, let alone were people suggesting extreme methods to solve the problem.


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

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#18

Post by glenn239 » 01 Sep 2015, 19:03

Slobodan Cekic But the story of Olschewski does make one point at least. If It is possible to create many different hypotheses which are apparently consistent with the documents known, then some rather big parts of the picture are missing. That is how it looks to me, at least.
Some kids from Sarajevo went to Belgrade and made a pitch to some Serbians that they commit a terrorist attack, and they got their requested support. Seeing anything different than that is reading too much into the situation, IMO. Terry writes,

As to the assassination, I tend to go with the idea that it was just a group of amateur assassins that got very lucky, and events then spun out of control as statesmen tried to use the event for their own ends.

We've gone over it all backwards and forwards for a decade. That's basically what it looks like happened -some kids being armed by some Serbian army officers.
With regards to the timing, Fisher had noted that Germany would move as soon as the Kiel Canal was ready…
Moltke basically wrote the navy off in 1912, saying that it would never be ready.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#19

Post by AJFFM » 01 Sep 2015, 22:28

German self-flagellation at its best. If this is the quality of a "Wilhelmite Germany" expert I wonder what is the quality of your average historian.

This "expert", like many in the "Germany is the source of all evil" crowd, omits that the balance of power between German and France was tilted towards France (in terms of number of active troops and reserves) well before 1912 let alone the rapidly expanding and improving French financed Russian army which was committed to France in an alliance that in Black and white was affirmed time and time again will coordinate an attack against Germany on D+15.

Germany was not ready for war in 1914 nor was it ever ready before that although getting close in 1912 finally convinced the peaceniks of the SDP to increase Army financing after years of opposition which was too late. Nor was there any logical, political, military or otherwise cuckooland reason for Germany to replace a reliable ally like the Grand Duke with an imbecile or an infirm emperor. There was a dozen ways Germany could have started a war with both countries and the stupidest argument is that of using the Grand Duke as one.

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

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#20

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Sep 2015, 12:41

AJFFM wrote:Nor was there any logical, political, military or otherwise cuckooland reason for Germany to replace a reliable ally like the Grand Duke with an imbecile or an infirm emperor.
You mean other than his intended adoption of Trialism, something he knew would cause the Hungarians to object to the point of disolving the Dual-Monarchy, for which eventuality he had consulted with the army about deploying it against Hungary to bring them into line? An ally having a civil war is of little or no use if a major war starts, and with Franz-Joseph almost dying earlier in 1914, such an event could quite easily have seen Germany pass the point where the Russian Great Program had reached a point Germany would be unable to win a war with Russia, expected in 1917. The Great Program was enacted only weeks before the assassination.
AJFFM wrote:There was a dozen ways Germany could have started a war with both countries and the stupidest argument is that of using the Grand Duke as one.
Curiously the Germans felt it was far more limited than this, that it had to come from an Austrian interest (Austria had a good record of not supporting Germany in any crisis), not a German one, and that it had to be something that could be sold in both Austria and Germany as a defensive action. That rather limits things.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#21

Post by ljadw » 02 Sep 2015, 17:14

AJFFM wrote:
Germany was not ready for war in 1914 nor was it ever ready before that although getting close in 1912 finally convinced the peaceniks of the SDP to increase Army financing after years of opposition which was too late. .
France also was not ready .

And,an increasing army financing did NOT depend on the SPD,but on the allies of B-H :these were the people who would have to pay more taxes for the army,not the average worker .

Besides, if country A was ready for a war,and war erupted, this does NOT mean that country A started the war .

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#22

Post by Attrition » 02 Sep 2015, 17:18

Peaceniks? The SPD had sold out before 1912.

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

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#23

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Sep 2015, 19:04

AJFFM wrote:German self-flagellation at its best. If this is the quality of a "Wilhelmite Germany" expert I wonder what is the quality of your average historian.
Rohl is Anglo-German, but has lived and worked in the UK mostly since WWII. His thoughts are hardly 'German self-flagellation' of any type, and his quality as an historian is attested to by his peers, both in the UK and Germany.
AJFFM wrote:This "expert", like many in the "Germany is the source of all evil" crowd, omits that the balance of power between German and France was tilted towards France (in terms of number of active troops and reserves) well before 1912 let alone the rapidly expanding and improving French financed Russian army which was committed to France in an alliance that in Black and white was affirmed time and time again will coordinate an attack against Germany on D+15.
The Franco-Russian alliance committed both nations to move troops to the German border on M+15, as it stated, to make Germany fight in unfavourable circumstances. It does not mention attacking Germany, that option was left open unless Germany attacked one of the two parties;
2. In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/frrumil.asp
AJFFM wrote:Germany was not ready for war in 1914 nor was it ever ready before that although getting close in 1912 finally convinced the peaceniks of the SDP to increase Army financing after years of opposition which was too late.
The SDP had hardly blocked defence spending, the money was being spent on building up a huge navy prior to 1912, there simply was not enough mobey to increase the army and build a huge navy at the same time, whilst the army increases of 1912/13 were the largest ever enacted in peacetime.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#24

Post by AJFFM » 02 Sep 2015, 19:37

Terry Duncan wrote:
You mean other than his intended adoption of Trialism, something he knew would cause the Hungarians to object to the point of disolving the Dual-Monarchy, for which eventuality he had consulted with the army about deploying it against Hungary to bring them into line? An ally having a civil war is of little or no use if a major war starts, and with Franz-Joseph almost dying earlier in 1914, such an event could quite easily have seen Germany pass the point where the Russian Great Program had reached a point Germany would be unable to win a war with Russia, expected in 1917. The Great Program was enacted only weeks before the assassination.
This begs the question how committed was he to the idea of trialism and how much internal or external opposition would he have really had? The grand Duke was far more liberal (as far as I know) and wanted a true parliamentary system with some federalism in it.

Terry Duncan wrote:

Curiously the Germans felt it was far more limited than this, that it had to come from an Austrian interest (Austria had a good record of not supporting Germany in any crisis), not a German one, and that it had to be something that could be sold in both Austria and Germany as a defensive action. That rather limits things.
The thing is what happened in Sarajevo was, by all accounts including German one, an internal affair that the Russians with French, help and British positivism, poked their noses in.

The decision to take on Serbia was taken first in Vienna not Berlin.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#25

Post by AJFFM » 02 Sep 2015, 19:41

ljadw wrote: France also was not ready .

And,an increasing army financing did NOT depend on the SPD,but on the allies of B-H :these were the people who would have to pay more taxes for the army,not the average worker .

Besides, if country A was ready for a war,and war erupted, this does NOT mean that country A started the war .
As proven by the 3 year service law, the affirmation of the Russo-French alliance with a viable mobilisation and combat plan, the adoption of a new plan (plan XVII) that embodies the spirit of offensive (for the first time in 40 years of French planning) and counts explicitly on Russian availability. Not to mention the massive increases in military spending especially on the Army.

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

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#26

Post by glenn239 » 02 Sep 2015, 20:02

France also was not ready .
Nobody was ready in hindsight. But beforehand everyone (except maybe the Austrians) thought they were more than ready. All these armies chomping at the bit, actually.
Besides, if country A was ready for a war,and war erupted, this does NOT mean that country A started the war
No, but when country A’s army officers help murder the heir to the throne of country B, and their only defence is some unproven story about some secret society in which they haven’t got a shred of credible evidence was a factor, then…
This begs the question how committed was he to the idea of trialism and how much internal or external opposition would he have really had?
It also begs the question as to whether the Germans had given the matter much thought. AFAIK, the only significant precaution they’d taken against the unexpected death of Franz Joseph was to cultivate good personal relations between the Kaiser and Ferdinand.
The thing is what happened in Sarajevo was, by all accounts including German one, an internal affair that the Russians with French, help and British positivism, poked their noses in.
I think some kids went to Belgrade and pitched a terrorist attack to officers of the Serbian army. I don’t think the Germans, Russians, British, French, Austrians, Italians, UFO’s, or anyone else caused that to happen. But I do think its possible, even likely, that after the pitch was made and the kids were on their way, that different groups in Belgrade came into the know and political games started to get played.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#27

Post by AJFFM » 02 Sep 2015, 20:05

Attrition wrote:Peaceniks? The SPD had sold out before 1912.
The Reichstag where the SDP or SPD (I don't know German so forgive my mistakes) commanded a majority refused repeatedly to increase the Army budget in order to conscript a higher percentage of the class or to arm them. Of course conservatives also helped (as Strachan points out if I am not mistaken) bringing this down too but the socialists were not shy of their opposition to militarism.

Slobodan Cekic
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: 24 Aug 2015, 19:59
Location: Munich

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#28

Post by Slobodan Cekic » 02 Sep 2015, 23:58

Terry Duncan wrote:
With regards to the timing, Fisher had noted that Germany would move as soon as the Kiel Canal was ready (he made a similar prediction about WWII with fairly good accuracy too) but he was of the school of removing an enemy quickly, whoever it was, France, Russia or Germany, and presumed the same reasoning applied in Germany too. Certainly without the canal, Germany is unable to make much use of her fleet. One of the most critical events along this line in my mind is the Russian Great Program, only enacted a month earlier, as this was the reform that would finally eclipse the German military. This is possibly where Rohl has a far greater advantage over many, in that his understanding of internal German politics and the governing classes is way beyond that of most people, as we often hear about the Junkers losing their grip on power, the desire to curb the advances of the SDP and so on, but few of us know to what extent this was seriously discussed, or how urgently, let alone were people suggesting extreme methods to solve the problem.
Despite his certainly quite good information on German strategic position and intents, Admiral Fisher's war prediction does demonstrate the brilliant mind of his, and in a very impressive manner, as well.
To be able to say exactly what the opponent is going to do and when, years in advance and then with such a deadly precision, he needed some very clear thinking and a capability of abstracting the clutter of quite many interesting but less relevant facts from the ones that really counted.

I ll confess gladly, Fisher gives me goosebumps here and I certainly do not think this feat of his has simply been a lucky bet.

So, let us try assuming how his premises for this conclusion, how his picture of the German and European strategic situation could have looked like.

Something like two decades before the Fisher's prediction of 1908, Germany started arming itself, discontent with it's political role in Europe. The arms race which resulted escalated into a fleet event a decade before his war prediction.
Being the first to the start arming, Germany could attain a qualitative lead for it's Army. It has been better equipped, organized and led than the rest.
The naval superiority was more difficult to reach; once the British got the wind of the German intentions and started building the ships themselves, it was very clear that Germany cannot attain even a parity; after 1912, Germans stopped even trying.

Now, Germany confronted the countries with the much larger population, territory and gross domestic product. Once these countries start arming themselves in earnest, the German lead cannot last very long.

Further consequences of this were as follows:

1.Germany could win only in a quite short war. The much larger human and material resources of the opponents would survive the attrition of a protracted war much longer then the German ones could.

2.Germans had to knock their opponents out in a fast sequence. If the France was to be attacked first, it had to be defeated in a month or two - NOT longer. After that time, the main German force would have to leave to meet the Russians, or let the sparse defenses there allow them to endanger the eastern German frontiers.
If the attack on France was to fail - there could have been NO second tries, because the troops would have to be moved east, fast.

3., and the most important : This stop-watch timing of events was not to begin only after the war has started. It has already been running from the very beginning of the arms-race. It must have been very clear to the Germans that their initial lead would dwindle very fast, once their powerful adversaries really start their war preparations.

Now, we have got:

1. The Fisher's war prediction:
Seeing that Germany obviously needs the war ASAP, and knowing their naval strategic prerequisite for the war, the Kiel Canal, is scheduled to get completed in 1914, Fisher makes his statement quite short and clear: the Germans begin the war in 1914, right after the Canal completion.
It is so darn logical that it could now seem easy for him to do; don't get duped, this could only have been a needle/haystack kind of situation; he had to know where to look, and he knew. Seeing many that even today do not, one has to admit Fisher a brilliant performance here. Not that it lagged behind elsewhere.

2. The session of the German Imperial War Council, Dec. 8, 1912.
You can see from the points above already, how thin is the rope the German victory has been hanging on. No margin for a mistake, no reserve for any time lost, everything had to be working like a Swiss watch, without any delay and exactly like planned.
Now, if you would like to know how the Germans felt as their rope started straining, swaying and even fraying - there is a short description of this Imperial War Council meeting in Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Im ... ember_1912

Moltke wants the war at once; not in 1914, but in 1912. The Kaiser supports him. The Navy opposes him, but he is not easily dissuaded.
Seeing the Russians arming fast and himself in an worsening position, he retorts to the Navy more or less like this : 'Why wait till 1914? The Navy is not going to be ready even then, and the army is in a less and less favorable position daily.'
Kaiser finally gave his support to the Navy, and Moltke had to wait till the second half of June, 1914, the Canal completion date.

At the end of his notice, Admiral Müller wonders at Moltke not even thinking first about an ultimatum,which would transfer the war responsibility onto the opponents. He was simply demanding the war now, at the very moment - midst in winter, in December 2012.

If Moltke considered the war pretext a marginal point, who can blame him. Such pretexts can sway the public opinion at home or abroad, and get the population support for a war. Once the hostilities begin, this comes from itself, anyway.
But if any of the Germans ever thought, a good pretext can, for example, keep Britain out of the war - well, no politician would ever put a noose around his countries neck for the sake of a good looking pretext. Ugly ones fare no better, of course.
And Moltke would have known that, I bet.

3. And now, the Reality:
Reality has said the I World War started one month after the Kiel Canal was opened to the seagoing traffic at the end of June 1914.

Each of these three members of our historical jury has followed the reasoning of his own and nonetheless, all of them, Fisher, the German War Council and the main juror, Reality, have come to the exactly same conclusion:

Germans begin the War in 1914 immediately after the Kiel Canal completion.

So, talking about Sarajevo, we are talking about a minor point. If it had failed to bring a pretext, another one would have been quickly erected.
As the history shows, anything is good enough for a pretext. As it was, Sarajevo was a jackpot, and the German propaganda has capitalized on this event very much. Even today, many are quite convinced that in spite of two decades of the German ( and later not only German) most intensive war preparations, it was Sarajevo that caused the First World War.
Last edited by Slobodan Cekic on 03 Sep 2015, 21:47, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#29

Post by Attrition » 03 Sep 2015, 00:06

AJFFM wrote:
Attrition wrote:Peaceniks? The SPD had sold out before 1912.
The Reichstag where the SDP or SPD (I don't know German so forgive my mistakes) commanded a majority refused repeatedly to increase the Army budget in order to conscript a higher percentage of the class or to arm them. Of course conservatives also helped (as Strachan points out if I am not mistaken) bringing this down too but the socialists were not shy of their opposition to militarism.
Yet they endorsed the bosses war two years later....

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

#30

Post by AJFFM » 03 Sep 2015, 00:12

Attrition wrote:
AJFFM wrote:
Attrition wrote:Peaceniks? The SPD had sold out before 1912.
The Reichstag where the SDP or SPD (I don't know German so forgive my mistakes) commanded a majority refused repeatedly to increase the Army budget in order to conscript a higher percentage of the class or to arm them. Of course conservatives also helped (as Strachan points out if I am not mistaken) bringing this down too but the socialists were not shy of their opposition to militarism.
Yet they endorsed the bosses war two years later....
Well what did you expect from them when their brethren in socialism in France and Russia were just as militant about war as the regressive bourgeois?

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”