Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

[Don71]

@Don71

You are just describing it.. Germany felt in encirclement from Russia and France. Now, these two countries are strange bedfellows, dont you think? What brought together a liberal republic of revolutionary origin , and a conservative monarchy?

They were afraid of Germany, that is the only answer. I am letting you think over why for yourself. What made them afraid of Germany?
You cannot look at the things only from one, your point of view, if you want to understand. Go over to the shoes of others, they deserve that consideration.

From what afraid?
What did Empire Germany from 1871 till 1914 what could afraid any Country in Europe?
Were there any provocations at Europe? Were there any claims to other countries at Europe?
They stand to their allied AU nothing else, Empire Germany had NO GOALS at Europe till September, October 1914!
If you are other opinion, proof it from sources!

The Goals of the Entente are described at Mcmeekin and Clark, also at Ferguson.

And by the way, it was contradicted, that Roehl, Mombauer and Fisher, clearly described a direct way from the formation of the german empire to Auschwitz, so please describe what was the german Sonderweg, compare to other powers from 1871 to 1914.
The so called empire german Sonderweg is a central claim from this revisionist historians. So what was this Sonderweg from facts and primary sources at empire germany?

[Slobodan Cekic]

To summarise, because Moltke was talking to Jagow, means the war would 've come anyway, Sarajevo or no Sarajevo is pure revisionist history, because you have not a single proof to that, not a single.

See my post above - Slobodan's hypothesis for Sarajevo is shaped by a core principle that Serbia should not be responsible for anything, and that it was victimised by forces in Europe over which it had no control.

You can not punish a whole country for an unprooved deed of two persons - with a war or butchers bills of any other kind - that is collective responsibillity, a concept prohibited by the international law.

My countrywomen had certainly done nothing to Austria, anyhow. And if you think 1914 was the first time Austrians did that - they have been using the gallows in Bosnia overtime, much before June, 1914. That was the reason the tuberculotic kid was so difficult to shake off to Tankosic. He wanted the revenge.

And as for the vipers nests - these are your words. If you regret that you used them, say so.

[Slobodan Cekic]

@Don71

You are just describing it.. Germany felt in encirclement from Russia and France. Now, these two countries are strange bedfellows, dont you think? What brought together a liberal republic of revolutionary origin , and a conservative monarchy?

They were afraid of Germany, that is the only answer. I am letting you think over why for yourself. What made them afraid of Germany?
You cannot look at the things only from one, your point of view, if you want to understand. Go over to the shoes of others, they deserve that consideration.

From what afraid?
What did Empire Germany from 1871 till 1914 what could afraid any Country in Europe?
Were there any provocations at Europe? Were there any claims to other countries at Europe?
They stand to their allied AU nothing else, Empire Germany had NO GOALS at Europe till September, October 1914!
If you are other opinion, proof it from sources!

The Goals of the Entente are described at Mcmeekin and Clark, also at Ferguson.

And by the way, it was contradicted, that Roehl, Mombauer and Fisher, clearly described a direct way from the formation of the german empire to Auschwitz, so please describe what was the german Sonderweg, compare to other powers from 1871 to 1914.
The so called empire german Sonderweg is a central claim from this revisionist historians. So what was this Sonderweg from facts and primary sources at empire germany?

Germany and Austria made an alliance 1879. Germany estranged itself from Russia, turned itself to Austria only. That was worrysome to Russians. French felt themselves threatened as well, arms race getting ever faster :

http://www.funfront.net/hist/wwi/military.htm

It was not until 1894 that Russia and France made an alliance, as well.

So, they reacted to a perceived threat. You say there was none. I say, they certainly felt there is one, or France and Russia would not make an alliance. They were quite far from one another in almost everything.

Now, as if that has not been enough, the Kaiser decided to throw the glove to the British, starting a naval arms race.. that provoked Britain, indeed, and so on...

Even if the larger Entente had more men and GNP than CP, German army had an advantage of the headstart in the race, and in the quality of the troops, equipment and leadership, being the most advanced country in the military science at that time.
As Entente was only caching up with Germany in the years before the war there has been every reason for them to feel insecure. Things would have changed radically in 1917 with the Russian enlargement and modernisation programme finished, so for the Entente there was every reason to try avoiding war in 1914 if at all possible.

[Don71]

The German and Austria connection existed since 1000 years, same speech and same culture, also the religion and economy bindings between the german southern states and A-U.

A-U was THE NATURAL Allie for Germany and especially the southern citizien were binded (social. economy and religion) in many many ways to A.U and would be never ever willing to accept A-U as an enemy.

The whole Pan-Slavism was basing on the orthodox church/ religion and you are making the same basing to an accuse of the alliance of Germany and A-U?

[Don71]

@ Terry Duncan,

to me it is more then symptomatic, that Chuchill, Haldane, Lord Fisher, Eduard VII. and other from 1905 forward, were deeply convinced from primary sources, that the German Empire would start a war in Europe against GB and all of this, because Enpire Germany didn't want the lick the boots of GB!
So much to the GB "neutrality", there was no single issue from Germany to GB for this opinion, more the opposite.
GB saw a natural enemy at the economy strenghts of the German Empire, which was the main reason for the Triple Entente and the World War of 1914!

[Terry Duncan]

From what afraid?

Bismarck was worried France would ally with any other power in order to reverse the results of the Franco-Prussian War and made his web of alliances in order to prevent this from happening.

What did Empire Germany from 1871 till 1914 what could afraid any Country in Europe?

Well France seems to have troubled Germany from the moment it paid off the reparations enforced on it many years early due to public subscription, leading to Moltke the Elder and others to advocate war as an option as early as 1878.

Were there any provocations at Europe? Were there any claims to other countries at Europe?

There were several provocations, from agitation during the 2nd Boer War, to active or background roles in Morocco 1905, the Annexation Crisis 1908/9, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1912-13, The Liman von Sanders Affair, all involving Germany to one degree or another. A lot depends on what you call provocations, but in several of these crisies, the threat of war or suggestion of taking sides was mentioned to another power, often openly.

Empire Germany had NO GOALS at Europe till September, October 1914!

Moltke the Elder and others believed that if, or rather when, a future Franco-German war broke out, Germany would have to reduce France to the status of a second rank power in such a way it would be impossible for her to ever attain great power status again. This aim ran through German policy as an aim in any future war from 1978 onward, in just the same way France always intended to regain Alsace-Lorraine if any future war broke out. They were long term latent aims that would both become reality when a war did start.

If you are other opinion, proof it from sources!

Well I could suggest Mombauer for one, but you dont like her so is there much point? Zuber mentions some of Moltke the Elders plans and what Germany would want in future wars in 'Inventing The Schlieffen Plan', many authors cover what happened or was said in the various crisies prior to WWI.

The Goals of the Entente are described at Mcmeekin and Clark, also at Ferguson.

Where they do there best to invent aims rather than stick to what was planned or stated officially at the time, Ferguson notably wandering off into alternate history many times.

And by the way, it was contradicted, that Roehl, Mombauer and Fisher, clearly described a direct way from the formation of the german empire to Auschwitz, so please describe what was the german Sonderweg, compare to other powers from 1871 to 1914.
The so called empire german Sonderweg is a central claim from this revisionist historians. So what was this Sonderweg from facts and primary sources at empire germany?

Fischer may well have done as you claim, but I am not sure Rohl or Mombauer have made such claims, let alone other modern historians. Strachan for one certainly doesnt believe such a line was 'inevitable' or even unavoidable. Germany wasnt even the most anti-Semitic nation at the time of WWI, and quite a few were anti-Semitic in general, where things may have ended in a similar manner if things had gone slightly differently. As far as I am aware, no modern historian suggests there is any direct link from Bismarcks Wars of Unification to Auschwitz, so it is a claim you are defending against even though nobody here is making it, or indeed in print as far as I know. Auschwitz would have been avoided if Papen hadnt thought it a good idea to invite Hitler to be Chancellor, or quite likely if Zimmerman & Co had not sent Lenin to Russia with a lot of money! There was nothing inevitable in German history that led to Auschwitz, suggesting so is utterly absurd.

[Terry Duncan]

@ Terry Duncan,

to me it is more then symptomatic, that Chuchill, Haldane, Lord Fisher, Eduard VII. and other from 1905 forward, were deeply convinced from primary sources, that the German Empire would start a war in Europe against GB.
So much to the GB "neutrality", there was no single issue from Germany to GB for this opinion, more the opposite.
GB saw a natural enemy at the economy strenghts of the German Empire, which was the main reason for the Triple Entente and the World War of 1914!

It had a lot ot do with Tirpitz and the German Navy League pretty much telling Britain they were challenging her when the 2nd Naval Law was enacted. When you openly make gestures that challenge another power, you should expect it to respond, and Britain had not got her empire by allowing other nations to build a fleet designed to challenge hers, and others had certainly not openly said they were doing such a thing in times of peace like Germany did. Britain had no requirement to be neutral, in every previous European war Britain had taken some role or other, most often active, from 1550-1914, or as in 1871 had made her neutrality conditional. The same applied in 1914. Britain would not have gone to war unless Germany challenged the blance of power, wars tended to be bad for profit. Germany had no more right than Napoleon to expect British neutrality.

There was also a lot of ill-feeling over the way Germany went about seeking colonial concessions, it was felt she almost or actually did go about it almost like a blackmailer. This was not what Germany intended, but it was how it was recieved. Later there was also much ill-feeling over the naval expansion of 1912, where Britain wanted to cut expenditure on arms by not building ships. Germany would only have an agreement that allowed her to build a lot of ships. Naturally they did not reach agreement, and Germany passed the law, only to then not build the ships it allowed for, making insisting on them uttely stupid. Germany was only really interested in a European understanding with Britain on two matters, Germany building a huge fleet, and Britain remaining neutral in any future war. Both threatened the balance of power and were against British interests.

I can use a quote form Lloyd-George to the German ambassador in 1908 iirc that is mentioned in the BBC 'The Great War' series from 1964 where he is quoted as saying 'it is not Germanys commerce that causes concern and ill-feeling in Britain, but the ever growing German fleet.

As Slobodan has said, what was it that made republican France find an ally in absolutist Tzarist Russia? What unifying issue concerned both of them? Then with Britain, what was it that led Britain to ally with both her traditional enemies? What threat pushed them together?

And lets not forget, it was to Germany that Britain turned to first for an understanding in the 20thC, only to be presented with demands for colonial concessions and no intent to ever reach an ageement even then from the Germans, because as was said at the time when Britain walked away from the idea, 'they will return on our terms, they have no other alternatives open to them'* which has to stand as one of the greatest mistakes in calculation of the 20thC.

* Not the exact words, but their exact meaning.

[Don71]

Niall Ferguson = Havard University
Sönke Neitzel = University of Glasgow, London School of Economics, University of Potsdam
Christopher Calrk = Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge
Herfried Münkler = Humboldt University of Berlin
Sean McMeekin = New York University

John C. G. Röhl = University of Sussex
Annika Mombauer = University of Sussex
Fritz Fischer = University of Hamburg

Which of these persons are Professor of the more known Universities?

[Terry Duncan]

Niall Ferguson = Havard University
Sönke Neitzel = University of Glasgow, London School of Economics, University of Potsdam
Christopher Calrk = Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge
Herfried Münkler = Humboldt University of Berlin
Sean McMeekin = New York University

John C. G. Röhl = University of Sussex
Annika Mombauer = University of Sussex
Fritz Fischer = University of Hamburg

Which of these persons are Professor of the more known Universities?

Hew Strachan = Oxford University. Are we just listing historians???

Your point is? Ferguson is an economic historian, quite apt considering how economic he is with real history and evidence, not to forget really out of his field when WWI is considered. Clark is well known mostly for receiving honours for improving Anglo-German relations (I wonder how he would do that? Surely it would be that was the aim of his writings?), and trying to peddle the tired old lie that Lloyd-George started, that nobody was really to blame (obviously it had nothing at all to do with any politicians anywhere) it somehow just happened, an all too obvious lie at the time, and one even more badly exposed over time as more evidence has been shown that the politicians knew exactly what they were doing. McMeekin is actually far more well known for working at Bilkent and Koc in Turkey where he was for well over a decade, has a Turkish wife, and has some, lets say, 'unusual' views on the Armenian Genocide in that he sort of blames the victims and the Russians. His two books on the origins of WWI are contradictory, and his idea about the naval aspect so badly flawed it is easily dismissed as being the work of someone with no understanding of the ships he based his case around.

That said you are rather 'economic' with what you write about Rohl's career. From Wiki;

Röhl was appointed to a Lectureship in History in the School of European Studies at the then new University of Sussex at Brighton in 1964. He was promoted to Reader and in 1979 Professor of European History. Between 1982 and 1985 he served as Dean of the School of European Studies. He also taught Modern European History at the University of Hamburg and at the University of Freiburg. He was elected to a Fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in 1970, at the Historisches Kolleg in Munich in 1986-87, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at Washington DC in 1989-90, the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1994, and the National Humanities Center in North Carolina in 1997-98. He was given emeritus status by the University of Sussex in 1999.

There seem to be rather a lot of prestigious teaching posts there, somehow overlooked earlier.

Mombauer too has an overlooked post of some significance, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History in the History Department at the Open University.

Of course, whilst this is very interesting, it has nothing at all to do with who is actually correct. McMeekin I can easily comment on in detail if you like as I have his book on the July Crisis to hand, so can therefore point out all the obvious well known factual details that are incorrect of missing etc, things anyone can check from almost all comprehensive coverage of the period. I dont think I have Clark's book still, I will look and see, but one real major point to show he is far from offering a full coverage of events I can note her. He fails to mention German efforts to push Austria to war after relations were broken off, notably the well known discussion between the Austrian ambassador and Jagow who told him that it was important Austria hurry up and go to war before the Entente found a peaceful solution - presumably not a good snippet of info if you want to suggest it was all an accident, or 'improve Anglo-German relations!!! Here are two notable dispatches from Szogyeny after talking with Jagow that Clark doesnt include, from Albertini's The Origins of the War of 1914;

Here it is universally taken for granted that an eventual negative reply by Serbia will be followed by a declaration of war from us and military operations. Any delay in commencing military operations is regarded here as a great danger because of the interference of other Powers. They urgently advise us to go ahead and confront the world with a fait accompli.

So it doesnt seem Germany was expecting Austria to 'slither over the edge' to use Lloyd-George's phrase, but rather she hurry up and jump with full German support for such a policy. Wonder why that got left out when he waxed lyrical about how poor accomodation standards were for diplomats in Russia compared to western European postings, as it obviously wasnt a lack of space that saw it left out?!

The of course we have this one sabotaging mediation proposals;

The Secretary of State told me very definitely in a strictly confidential form that in the immediate future mediation proposals from England will possibly (eventuell) be brought to Your Excellency’s knowledge by the German Government. The German Government, he says, tenders the most binding assurances that it in no way associates itself with the proposals, is even decidedly against their being considered, and only passes them on in order to conform to the English request. In so doing the Government proceeds from the standpoint that it is of the greatest importance that England at the present moment should not make common cause with Russia and France. Consequently everything must be avoided that might disconnect the telegraph line between Germany and England which till now has been in good working order. Were Germany to say flatly to Sir E. Grey that she is not willing to pass on his wishes to Austria-Hungary, by whom England believes these wishes will sooner find consideration if Germany is the intermediary, then the situation would arise which, as has just been said, must at all costs be avoided. The German Government would, moreover, in respect of any other request of England to Vienna, assure the latter most emphatically that it in no way supports any such demands for intervention in regard to Austria-Hungary and only passes them on to comply with the wish of England. For instance only yesterday the English Government approached him, the Secretary of State, through the German Ambassador to London and directly through its own representative here, asking him to support the wish of England in regard to a toning down by us of the note to Serbia. He, Jagow, gave answer that he would certainly fulfil Sir E. Grey’s wish and pass on England’s desire to Your Excellency, but that he could not support it himself, since the Serbian conflict was a question of prestige for the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in which Germany was also involved. He, the Secretary of State, had therefore passed on Sir E. Grey’s note to Herr von Tschirschky, but without giving him instructions to submit it to Your Excellency; thereupon he had been able to inform the English Cabinet, that he did not directly decline the English wish, and had even forwarded it to Vienna. In conclusion the Secretary of State reiterated his standpoint to me and, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, asked me to assure your Excellency that, also in the case just adduced, he, in acting as intermediary, was not in the slightest degree in favour of consideration being given to the English wish.’

So, 'please dont consider moderation, the war must go ahead, we are actively lying to the British in order to gain time'. Meanwhile Clark did manage to include pretty much every single act from Sazonov that could be said to make it look like Russia was pushing for war, whilst not atually blaming anyone in his conclusions. Strange that he bypassed notable information that has been well known since the 1930s. It is probably better if we deal with trying to show if and why certain incidents like the 1912 Council meeting should be ignored, or why there might be some suspicious coincidences that cannot be explained with regards to events in Sarajevo, than to discuss the merits of various historians careers or books. If you like, start another thread about McMeekin's July 1914 book and we can discuss its merits there, I would say the same about Clarks The Sleepwalkers but do not think I still have it and it will take time to get it from the library in order to discuss it in detail.

[Slobodan Cekic]

The German and Austria connection existed since 1000 years, same speech and same culture, also the religion and economy bindings between the german southern states and A-U.

A-U was THE NATURAL Allie for Germany and especially the southern citizien were binded (social. economy and religion) in many many ways to A.U and would be never ever willing to accept A-U as an enemy.

The whole Pan-Slavism was basing on the orthodox church/ religion and you are making the same basing to an accuse of the alliance of Germany and A-U?

Only a decade before the alliance of 1879 Prussia and Austria have been in a war, and a big one at that. So, natural or not, the alliance AU-Germany was a surprise to many.

In 1848 it has been the Tsar with 160 000 Russian troops who saved the Austrian Empire from going into history at that very instant. He has been rewarded by Austrians taking side of Russian enemies only a several years later in the Crimean War. Russia never really trusted Austria after that. And reversing of the Russian victory over Turkey by the Berlin Congress of 1878, a collusion of AU and Germany in the first place, sealed that.

Russia was a long time ally of Germany, although Germans are not orthodox as far as I know.
In any case, I don't think it has been the Russian xenofoby that was spoiling her relations to Germany and Austria.

Whole parts of Russian nobility were German in origin, and the dynasty has been deeply intertwined. The xenofoby in the international relations there came mostly from the AU and Germany, as you can see. The Russians felt it, and went to the French almost against their will - AH and Germany were monarchies, like Russia, the France was certainly not.

I am quite certain, both sides have felt threatened from each other, and while there are always two sides to such feelings of mistrust and perceived threat, it has been the CP that made an alliance in 1879, and Russans and French in 1894. Not the other way round.

And, of course, you can mistrust someone who has no bad intentions at all. You can mistrust him, because of your own bad intentions, even(Most often the case). But by acting mistrustful, you make him mistrust you as well, and so goes the merry-go-round, until a war breaks out. The human is like a mirror - smile to a kid, and it smiles back. If you frown..

[Terry Duncan]

Only a decade before the alliance of 1879 Prussia and Austria have been in a war, and a big one at that. So, natural or not, the alliance AU-Germany was a surprise to many.

So natural that there was consideration on all sides for Austria allying with France in 1870, something that never got off the ground because of the speed the French army was defeated.

In 1848 it has been the Tsar with 160 000 Russian troops who saved the Austrian Empire from going into history at that very instant. He has been rewarded by Austran taking side of it's enemies only a several years later in the Crimean War. Russia never really trusted Austra after that. And reversing of the Russian victory over Turkey by the Berlin Congress of 1878 , a collusion of AU and Germany in the first place, sealed that.

As you note, Austria wasnt exactly the most 'trustworthy state either, as in 1848, the Year of Revolutions, she had needed Russian troops to hold the empire together, only to repay the debt by telling Russia to remove its troops fromthe Danube area in the Crimean War only five years later! Overturning the San Stefano Treaty was also a major affront, and pretty much entirely for Austria's benefit as she hoped to be the one taking advantage as the Ottoman state fell apart and not Russia. Arenthal's crossing Russia in 1908 was just the last straw.

Russia never really trusted Austra after that. And reversing of the Russian victory over Turkey by the Berlin Congress of 1878 , a collusion of AU and Germany in the first place, sealed that.

Russia was a long time ally of Germany, although Germans are not orthodox as far as I know.

There was also the problem of balancing Russian and Austrian interests in the Balkans that plagued the Reinsurance Treaty period, it proving very hard for Germany to balance things while not telling either of the other nations she had a treaty with their rival! This seems to have been the main reason Germany dropped the Reinsurance Treaty as she decided Austria was the better bet as an ally, though by 1914 this atttitude had changed to one where some were openly discussing absorbing the German part of the empire when it finally fell apart, and the notable comment about how wise it was for Germany to tie herself to this phantasm of a state!

[Slobodan Cekic]

@Terry Duncan

To try summing up what you said, other European states feelings of mistrust to CP which made them ground their own alliances later were not without a reason or two..
When I look at this all, as you have described, together, I get an impression that the German and especially Austrian exterior policy did not try to look at themselves thru the eyes of their neighbors very much. Only their own viewpoint was relevant to them. Well, this seems a sure recipe for conflicts with the neighbors, doesn't it..

Terry Duncan wrote:
"There was also the problem of balancing Russian and Austrian interests in the Balkans that plagued the Reinsurance Treaty period, it proving very hard for Germany to balance things while not telling either of the other nations she had a treaty with their rival! This seems to have been the main reason Germany dropped the Reinsurance Treaty as she decided Austria was the better bet as an ally, though by 1914 this atttitude had changed to one where some were openly discussing absorbing the German part of the empire when it finally fell apart, and the notable comment about how wise it was for Germany to tie herself to this phantasm of a state!"

Well, I could not help laughing at that one

[Don71]

You should both read something about the connection of Bayern and Würtenberg with Austria, which was basing on 1000 years!

Empire Germany was a federal State, with a federal constitution, and a political balance between Prussia and the southern states. Also the southern states always saw Russia much more as a stranger, then Prussia and Austria much more as a friend. War against Russia dominated much more the memory of these states then frienship, because they were not Prussia.

Empire Germany wasn't only Prussia and the east prussian Junkers, the band between the southern states with Austria was very very deep, on the economical side, the catholic religion on most on the mixed marriages of citizien for several 100 years. Blood relationship between the citizien of Austria and Bayern and Würtenberg was the norm not the acception.
Bismarck failed with his culture war against the catholic party on the opposition of the southern citizien, not the noble citizien, the majority of all citizien of this states.
The foundation of Empire Germany without Austria was always seen as an annoyance at the southern states, deeply fixed at their whole citizien.
An alliance from Empire Germany with Russia against A-U was politically not enforceable, because the unity of the Germans would be endangered.

[Slobodan Cekic]

You should both read something about the connection of Bayern and Würtenberg with Austria, which was basing on 1000 years!

Empire Germany was a federal State, with a federal constitution, and a political balance between Prussia and the southern states. Also the southern states always saw Russia much more as a stranger, then Prussia and Austria much more as a friend. War against Russia dominated much more the memory of these states then frienship, because they were not Prussia.

Empire Germany wasn't only Prussia and the east prussian Junkers, the band between the southern states with Austria was very very deep, on the economical side, the catholic religion on most on the mixed marriages of citizien for several 100 years. Blood relationship between the citizien of Austria and Bayern and Würtenberg was the norm not the acception.
Bismarck failed with his culture war against the catholic party on the opposition of the southern citizien, not the noble citizien, the majority of all citizien of this states.
The foundation of Empire Germany without Austria was always seen as an annoyance at the southern states, deeply fixed at their whole citizien.
An alliance from Empire Germany with Russia against A-U was politically not enforceable, because the unity of the Germans would be endangered.

Well Austria , Germany and Russia were in an alliance at that time, beginning 1873, named Dreikaiserbund. That was another possibility, don't you think, instead of Austria and Germany teaming up against Russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of ... e_Emperors

It was exactly because of this teaming up against her that Russia found herself an unlikely ally in France.

Your thinking is on the line of Germanics agaist Slavs. I can clearly tell you, such polarizations force the smaller countries to join A or B even against their will. Serbia has allways been seen as an Russian asset by that school of thought. And what do you think, would a leader of any state chose indepedence or the alliance with a much stronger state, if not forced to make this second choice?
What choice has Serbia had, confronted with the animosity of Austrians to 'Slavic Orthodox Russian natural allies?" Serbia has been simply given no other choice, but to align with the Russians in this situation of international confrontation; Russians, of course, did not mind the orthodoxy.

But had this international polarization had to happen, in the first place?

[Terry Duncan]

You should both read something about the connection of Bayern and Würtenberg with Austria, which was basing on 1000 years!

Empire Germany was a federal State, with a federal constitution, and a political balance between Prussia and the southern states. Also the southern states always saw Russia much more as a stranger, then Prussia and Austria much more as a friend. War against Russia dominated much more the memory of these states then frienship, because they were not Prussia.

Empire Germany wasn't only Prussia and the east prussian Junkers, the band between the southern states with Austria was very very deep, on the economical side, the catholic religion on most on the mixed marriages of citizien for several 100 years. Blood relationship between the citizien of Austria and Bayern and Würtenberg was the norm not the acception.
Bismarck failed with his culture war against the catholic party on the opposition of the southern citizien, not the noble citizien, the majority of all citizien of this states.
The foundation of Empire Germany without Austria was always seen as an annoyance at the southern states, deeply fixed at their whole citizien.
An alliance from Empire Germany with Russia against A-U was politically not enforceable, because the unity of the Germans would be endangered.

There was a feeling that Germany may look to Russia for an alliance rather than Austria by 1914, partly why Austria felt she needed to follow a strong line to convince Germany of her worth, while some in Germany in turn wondered if supporting Austria always wasnt counterproductive to German interests, and if these would not be better served by looking to ally with Russia instread, something Britain was somewhat concerned was a possibilit too. Bethmann had part of his aims for the July Crisis to detatch Russia from a France and Britain that would not support her, and thus make her ripe for an agreement with Germany - or if not, isolated and easy to defeat if it did come to war. Nobody is suggesting that there were some strong ties between German peoples, but there were also some dislikes too, with many not overly happy at Prussian leadership by 1914.