Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

[glenn239]

By that logic Eyre Crowe was the Foreign Minister of Great Britain.

Sorry, I was working under the impression Crowe reported to Grey directly,

Your logic is that whoever writes the draft must be in charge, so Eyre Crowe must have been in charge.

True, but why was war likely with Britain by mid July as Spee was told?

Because the Germans understood why the Austrians were asking them for backing in the first place.

Other that Waldersee and Plessen, all the senior figures were 'away' as detailed by Mombauer in her book on Moltke, Tappen, Falkenhayn, were all on leave iirc, and all returned as the Note expired. Not strange if Germany was supposed to have known these details when they went on leave, but Austria was meant to have kept Germany in the dark even down to the timing until just before the Note was delivered. Again, them returning would have been standard had they been recalled, rather than all timed their leave so perfectly long beforehand.

IIRC? What's the exact source in Mombaurer, keeping in mind this particular historian could not find a charitable explanation for the actions or opinions of Moltke were the Goddess of Charitable Excuses herself to run her over with a Mack truck full of alibis.

Given Conrad, and many others at the time, felt it would take six weeks to crush Serbia in an Austro-Serbian war, waiting wasnt really a good option if you wished to prevent Austria going to war. Then again, why should Russia allow a client state to be crushed unless Austria showed evidence beforehand, and Austria promised such evidence and never produced it.

You stated it was impossible for Russia to await developments. No, it wasn't impossible for them to have done that.

We also have shady links between the German military and Serbian Military Intelligence...

All intelligence organisations have underhanded, weird connectivity. It's the nature of the job. Doesn't mean anything unless one has evidence or an agenda.

...all slithered over the edge into war accidentally, there is far too much info out there now to show politicians in every nation knew they were taking major risks, yet we see such efforts as The Sleepwalkers getting high praise for trying to resurrect such nonsense rather than blame anyone, or even everyone.

The creepiest part of the reality that Sleepwalkers describes is to see it happening again with Russia right now. We're watching the world slither closer and closer to war with Russia, and no one seems to realise how dangerous it is.

[Attrition]

~~~~~The creepiest part of the reality that Sleepwalkers describes is to see it happening again with Russia right now. We're watching the world slither closer and closer to war with Russia, and no one seems to realise how dangerous it is.~~~~~

Washington does, it's resorting to brinkmanship to grab as much as possible as fast as possible.

[glenn239]

So, someone commits a felony, steals something, and his employer is guilty? That how you understand the law?

... The employer can be held responsible if the employee acted on his orders.

The employer is responsible for the actions of his employees whether these were ordered to or not. So, if the employee hits someone with a company truck, the employer can be sued.

These two had no one's orders or authorization and acted against their state and government, in all probability.

It doesn't matter if they had orders to execute the attack or not. Serbia was responsible for their actions either way. Pasic could have done a good job of distancing the Serbian government from the attack by having the Belgrade police arrest Tankosic and Ciganovic, and extraditing the latter to Austria. Or, even better, issuing to Austrian police a copy of the warrant for arrest in Belgrade of Princip and co. after these crossed into Bosnia. But he did not do any of these, probably because he calculated that he would win no matter what the outcome.

. " .. what do you mean by that? The officers should have been summarily shot like the Austrian kangaroo courts have done in Bosnia, with the suspicious Serbs?!

You mean like the kangaroo court that murdered Apis in 1917? No need for that.

Step 1 - arrest.
Step 2 - court marshall
Step 3 - found guilty
Step 4 - Punishment.

As for the ultimatums and wars- a sovereign country can declare war on any grounds - only some sound better to others and the population . You are perfectly aware what Austria wanted with the ultimatum of that kind.

You stated the Austrians accused Serbia for the Sarajevo attack. This is factually incorrect - the Austrians accused the Serbians of creating the atmosphere by which such attacks could be reasonably anticipated in the future.

Now, out of the politeness I tried to keep some matters out of this discussion. But as you insist 20 times on a casual way the Serbs concerned went into the Sarajevo attempt, and as you name them terrorists each time, I will tell you another thing you "ll not want to know: Austrian gallows and massacres in Serbia 1914 were a continuation of it's policies to the Serb population in Bosnia before the war. These pogrom policies of Austrians made the young would- be assassins so tenacious in their wish to retaliate.

Austrian war atrocities are off topic.

The biggest irony in this, to me.. Apis was quite fond of Germans. For some reasons of his own, he wanted to believe they ll ever return such feelings to him and to his people. Most probably manipulated like an idiot from them, he has been shot at the end, and because of him his Serbs have been used as a thrash-can by the Germans and whoever felt like it, for the German Kriegsschuld. And you, my dear Serb lover, would like to continue doing that.

Anything but Serbia being responsible for the actions of the Serbians.

[glenn239]

The Germany of today is not the Germany of 100 years ago, and the same applies to Britain. As to what backfires, I think that will be the market that really boosts German car sales to places that cannot afford them, like Greece, and it will collapse as there is no way to support the PIGS long term. Anyhow, very much off topic and out of the time period accepted here.

The Germany of today is discovering just how dangerous the world the Germany of 100 years ago actually lived in. I think after the fall of the Berlin Wall that the Germans charged into Eastern Europe believing they were going to work without repeating the mistakes of the past, and now they are discovering that things are not so easy as they thought, that history has it's own way of moving matters forward in the wrong direction.

[Slobodan Cekic]

@Glenn239

What motivated the Young Bosnian youths can not be off topic here, as well as what Austria had in mind attacking Serbia.
You are here of topic with alternative, imaginary versions of history, interspersed with yor best wishes for Serbia.
Your writing here belongs to a novel writing thread at best.

Speaking about responsibility, the truth content of your claims does not bother you. You ll avoid the reallity by any means, ignore the unpalatable, declare it off topic..Important how what you painted looks to you.

"You stated the Austrians accused Serbia for the Sarajevo attack. This is factually incorrect - the Austrians accused the Serbians of creating the atmosphere by which such attacks could be reasonably anticipated in the future."

Austria occupied Bosnia, summarily shooting people for 3 months until the job has been finished, then treated the territory like a colony for 30 years. Serbia was then accused because of the atmosphere there. Great. How should anyone be able to disprove such a point?
If no Serbia existed, Bosnian serbs ( 60% of the population at the time) could not look at their brothers in Serbia with hope, is that it?

[Terry Duncan]

Your logic is that whoever writes the draft must be in charge, so Eyre Crowe must have been in charge.

No, my logic is that the head of the department responsible for writing declarations of war or mobilisation can ask whoever he wants within his department to draft the article, not that he is taken by surprise because the head of a totally different department has written it and has been caught getting the head of state to sign it behind the supposedly responsible persons back!!! At the actual meeting, Moltke and the Kaiser had already agreed on the document coming into force, Bethmann arrived, blew his top that he had not even been consulted and stated it was his right to sign the document, and then did exactly as the other two had already agreed. Remember, Bethmann could have been replaced instantly by the Kaiser, appointment and dismissal from the role of Chancellor was entirely at the whim of the Kaiser, and someone like Faleknhayn who was already Prussian Minister of War could have replaced him without even needing to leave the room, and he also wanted to go to war - "Even if we perish over this, at least it will have been fun." being his famous statement from 4th August 1914 as given in Mombauer, but also traslated as "If we go to a doom over this at least it was glorious" in a TV documentary, I dont have the original German quotation, but Mombauer takes it from Afflerbach's book on Falkenhayn, and to my knowledge both are native German speakers. Even then, I am perfectly happy to accept words in German can have different meanings dependent on a lot of things, but even the more charitable indicates what would have happened if he had been appointed to the role due to Bethmann being removed. Plessen and Tappen were also close at hand, as would have been Jagow. Find one who would have objected and insisten on maintaining peace?

Because the Germans understood why the Austrians were asking them for backing in the first place.

Austria only needs support if she already accepts her action must mean war with Russia. Otherwise any Russian attack is covered by the Austro-German alliance. However, the Austrians seem to have accepted from the start that they were intending an aggressive war that would need specific support to be in place before they could act. I agree, Germany fully understood what was going on, as did Italy, hence the Germany attempts to get Austria to give assurances of compensation to Italy, also indicating they accepted Austria fully intended to annex Serbian territory - there seems little dispute they intended to annex the Sanjac of Novi Pazar as part of the 'minor border adjustments for security reasons, although all the security this offered was to cut off Serbian access to the sea through Montenegro, making her fully dependent on Austria for all imports and exports once again.

This rather blows apart the entire 'localisation' policy, as apparently Germany already accepted the worst case scenario (war with Britain) was likely even before they tried to impliment their localisation policy, and really shows Bethmann and Jagow's apparent shock at Grey's warning to Lichnowski on 29th to be entirely lying for effect rather than the collapse of something they ever really believed in anyhow.

IIRC? What's the exact source in Mombaurer, keeping in mind this particular historian could not find a charitable explanation for the actions or opinions of Moltke were the Goddess of Charitable Excuses herself to run her over with a Mack truck full of alibis.

The following are sources cited by Mombauer in footnotes to pp192-193;

Schafer, Generalstab und Admiraistab. Des Zusammenwirken von Heer und Fotte im /Weltkrieg, Berlin 1931, p. 10.

Trumpener, ‘War Premeditated?’, p. 62.

BA-MA, W-10/50661, Tappen, Kriegserinnerungen’, p. 10.

Giess, July 1914, PP 60/61

Giess Julikrise, vol 1, doc, 33, pp 97-98: Muller, Diary, p. 32.

Giess Julikrise, vol 1, doc 32c, pp96-97

Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch und zum Versailler Schuldspruch, herausgegeben im Auftrage des Bayerischen Landtages, o D (1922), Schoen to Hertling, report no. 386, pp 4ff. Schoen pointed out that not even Italy had been confided in.

You stated it was impossible for Russia to await developments. No, it wasn't impossible for them to have done that.

It was as impossible for Russia to await developments as it was for Austria to present what she promised and go to war on the date she wanted, 12th August. Curiously, someone thought this date far too late and kept asking for it to be brought forward! Who was that?

All intelligence organisations have underhanded, weird connectivity. It's the nature of the job. Doesn't mean anything unless one has evidence or an agenda.

Well the agenda is pretty well enough known to not need pointing out every few pages of a thread, the famous 'better war now when we still have a chance than in two years time' added to the Austrians need to prevent their own state falling apart due to internal tensions over minorities wanting their own states or even just representation in the empire.

The creepiest part of the reality that Sleepwalkers describes is to see it happening again with Russia right now. We're watching the world slither closer and closer to war with Russia, and no one seems to realise how dangerous it is.

Yeah, the naughty Russians, the danger of 'invasion from the east' etc that has been touted since Roman times, sometimes correctly, but more often than not, incorrectly. Can you name many wars where Russia has attacked the western nations of Europe?

Incidently, a lovelly little gem came to light in a second reading of Otte's July Crisis p 47;

Largely for that reason, the then war minister General Moritz Baron Auffenberg von Komarow argued, in December 1912, that 'one should fix the summer of 1914 as the moment of an attack (on Serbia).

The source is given as Memo Friedjung (on interview Auffenberg), Dec 1912 (after 12 Dec 1912), F Adlgasser (ed), Heinrich Friedjung; Geschichte in Gesprachen. Aufzeichmungen, 1898-1919 (2vols, Vienna 1997) II, 375.

So we now have an Austrian wanting war in the summer of 1914, at the same time the Germans were also opting for that time being optimal for a war too! I dont seem to remember any Russians being quoted as saying 1914 was a good time for a war, even their enemies didnt think they would be ready until 1917.

Good luck with all the German sources though, I do know one German personally who may have suffered tracking down one for me, not quite as many as above, they are rather busy at the moment and not that much into history anyhow but have been known to help out from time to time as a friend. You may think Mombauer less than charitable, but is there any actual reason for this that can be supported by evidence? I have seen many people criticise her, but when asked, very few ever offer a detailed refutation but rather say X says she is wrong. When it comes to writings on Moltke the Younger though we have few competing sources to compare even now, one reason her book commands such a high price on the second hand book market and Amazon.

[Terry Duncan]

~~~~~The creepiest part of the reality that Sleepwalkers describes is to see it happening again with Russia right now. We're watching the world slither closer and closer to war with Russia, and no one seems to realise how dangerous it is.~~~~~

Washington does, it's resorting to brinkmanship to grab as much as possible as fast as possible.

That would be my take too, all the time crying 'Russian jets fly too close to ours when we fly in the Baltic or Black Sea'. Sadly way out of the time periods allowed for discussion on these boards, though discussing them on other forums is possible if people are interested.

[Terry Duncan]

The employer is responsible for the actions of his employees whether these were ordered to or not. So, if the employee hits someone with a company truck, the employer can be sued.

You are making a major mistake here. When a person is acting under the orders of an employer, or as part of their job, then the employer can be held responsible (though collective guilt isnt allowed, guilt through corporate liability is). however, the employer of someone who goes out and commits murder is not responsible. If you disagree, one well publicised case would be the San Bernadino Shooting, so could you please enlighten me as to when the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health are going to be prosecuted for culpability in the action of Rizwan Farook, especially as his act even took place at a company event. If what you saw were correct, anyone committing a crime would see their employer sued for compensation, and as we know this does not happen, we must presume you are wrong and liability ends when the individual acts outside of their work. Another example, you can usually be dismissed for being drunk and disorderly on a night out where your actions lead to arrest under the clause of bringing the company name into disrepute, but your company could not be sued because you urinated on a police car and hit the objecting policeman.

Austrian war atrocities are off topic.

Yes and no. This topic is not about war crimes true, but what happened when the Austrian army entered Serbia can be used to illustrate the Austrian attitude to Serbians in general - it really didnt take too much to get the Austrian army committing atrocities, sometimes just being Serbian was all that was needed, not even trying to block the roads, reprisal shootings of hostages, or even shooting civillians thought to have shot at troops as happened in Belgium. The attitude on display was very much one of Serbia not having a right to exist, much in line with what Hoyos had said off the record in Berlin, and what Austrian ambassadors everywhere but Russia seemed to be telling people. You only tend to indulge in ethnic cleansing or genocide in places you intend to retain hold of, not places you have no intention of keeping.

[Slobodan Cekic]

And now?

What is so shocking, Empire Germany wanted to break some power from GB which treat Empire Germany always as junior partner and not at any time as power of eye height. The Germans were rejected from GB in favor of Japan at the timeline you cited. they were not amused.

At this timeline as the Darwinism was the general orientation of all major nations and powers, it was a normal pöolicy of all Powers to get influence and to break influence. If this was good or bad or intelligent or stupid is totaly equal, because it was the doctrine of all major powers, it was part of the politics of all countries and major powers

But ist is totaly stupid to do an interpretation of this with the learn effect of two World Wars and the morality of the modern world after two World Wars, it is clearly nothing more then anachronism.
Anachronism is a clear indicator for bad or good historian.

Your whole example is very good to show how Fischer and also you are working and do your intepretation. You don't embed the whole thing in the timeline with the failed alliance of Empire Germany and GB (1902), which was the clear wish of Empire Germany, you pick an arbitrary example to try to proof an agenda, without looking at the whole timeline and political concept.

Thank you for your post it was very enlightened for me and hopefully for other Members.

A power has all the posibillities to pursue it's policies in an egoist manner exclusively, to the detriment of all others. There are 2 variants to this:
1.the power has an international hegemony, and noone can do anything against this power which then rots away for a long time.
2. the power has no hegemony- the chances are, the other powers form a strong alliance against the power destroying it; if they fail, see the case one.

This has not been different from the early days of history.
Germany and AH provoked the forming of Entente in the manner described.

[Don71]

Very very curious!

I can swear I have read at many historians, whose I critized in this and other threads and from a lot of Members in this Forum, the Entente and Triple Entente were NOT formed against A-H and Germany, that this is a common myth by the Germans and basing on their imagination.

The Entente and Triple Entente were exclusively formed for overseas and colonies problems, to sort them out and not to get in conflicts over the imperial interests of the Entente and Triple Entente countries.

It is intteresting that you see the forming of the Entente and Triple Entente with german eyes.

And perhaps you can numerate the issues were Empire Germany, except the Monaco crises has ever bullied around or military threaten any european country.

[Slobodan Cekic]

@TerryDuncan

I think it is at least on two ocassions that Apis commented on Franz Ferdinand being a leader of the war party in Vienna, like you mention, that being the reason for his removal. A colleague officer remarks on being told that from Apis in his memories, and dates it in 1916, I think. The second occasion is the Thessalonniki trial.
I cannot imagine Apis could beleive such a story himself - that helping assasinate the austrian follower to the throne could save Serbia from a war with AH. Common sense would be enough to think of the opposite, and he should have had more than just a common sense at his disposal.
It could more probbably be his attempt on cover-up of his activities, and not a very good one.

What he told the close old friend Antic, who recorded it in his recently and posthumously published memories, sounds nearer to truth, at least to me:
'.. we never wanted to kill him, but frighten him..'

[Don71]

Well, what is total domination, and what is partial domination? Also, there was an aim to break what was seen as the British domination. Bethmann Hollweg wrote in 1903:
"The (Kaiser's) first and foremost idea is to break England's position in the world in favour of Germany. That's why, this is the Kaiser's solid conviction, we need a fleet, and in order to build it we need a huge sum of money. Since only a rich country can acquire this, Germany has to become rich, that's why the industry gets incentives, and the anger of the agrarians who protest against this policy in order to save themselves from ruin."

What should not be unmentioned is, that the german fleet at 1903 was a joke or laughingstock compare to the GB fleet, in numbers and gun caliber (battleships and cruisers).
At 1903 the german fleet wasn't strong enough to even deal with the russian baltic fleet in numbers and gun caliber not to mention a combined fleet of France and Russia (baltic fleet).
So much to the relative strength of the german navy at this timeline!

[Terry Duncan]

Well, what is total domination, and what is partial domination? Also, there was an aim to break what was seen as the British domination. Bethmann Hollweg wrote in 1903:
"The (Kaiser's) first and foremost idea is to break England's position in the world in favour of Germany. That's why, this is the Kaiser's solid conviction, we need a fleet, and in order to build it we need a huge sum of money. Since only a rich country can acquire this, Germany has to become rich, that's why the industry gets incentives, and the anger of the agrarians who protest against this policy in order to save themselves from ruin."

What should not be unmentioned is, that the german fleet at 1903 was a joke or laughingstock compare to the GB fleet, in numbers and gun caliber (battleships and cruisers).
At 1903 the german fleet wasn't strong enough to even deal with the russian baltic fleet in numbers and gun caliber not to mention a combined fleet of France and Russia (baltic fleet).
So much to the relative strength of the german navy at this timeline!

An interesting choice of dates. Given the 2nd Naval Law is pretty much undisputed as being the start of the Anglo-German Naval Race, and that it took the Germans at this time roughly three years to put a sip in the water, the state of the navy in 1903 is hardly of interest, unless of course you could the ships under construction, or expect ships to appear instantly? Concurrent with the formulation of the 2nd Naval Law was the design and authorisation of the Wittelsbach class of five ships, soon followed by the five ships of the Braunschweig class, then the five ships of the Deutschland class, suddenly catapulting the German navy into second place by 1905/6. So from a joke to second only to the RN in six years. Even this is being slightly generous, as if we look at the changes from 1898 when the First Navy Law passed it really leaves little to the imagination as to what the intended opponent of the fleet was to be. From Wikipedia;

In his first program, Tirpitz envisioned a fleet of nineteen battleships, divided into two eight-ship squadrons, one ship as a flagship, and two in reserve. The squadrons were further divided into four-ship divisions. This would be supported by the eight Siegfried- and Odin classes of coastal defense ships, six large and eighteen small cruisers, and twelve divisions of torpedo boats, all assigned to the Home Fleet (Heimatflotte). This fleet was secured by the First Naval Law, which passed in the Reichstag on 28 March 1898. Construction of the fleet was to be completed by 1 April 1904. Rising international tensions, particularly as a result of the outbreak of the Boer War in South Africa and the Boxer Rebellion in China, allowed Tirpitz to push through an expanded fleet plan in 1900. The Second Naval Law was passed on 14 June 1900; it doubled the size of the fleet to 38 battleships and 20 large and 38 small cruisers. Tirpitz planned an even larger fleet. As early as September 1899, he had informed the Kaiser that he sought at least 45 battleships, and potentially might secure a third double-squadron, for a total strength of 48 battleships.

So, as early as 1899, who do you suppose Tirpitz thought he would need 48 battleships to fight? Russia? Well, if we go back to ships of the 1860's, combine every Russian fleet, include ships that had sunk at their anchorage due to lack of maintenance, then maybe? France? The 'navy of prototypes' where one class took over a decade to build and each ships was pretty much a class of its own? Maybe if we add all the sensible Russian ships and French ships together? No, even then, 48 battleships is still way above what others can muster in reality. Only one navy could muster anything close to that total, would you need reminding who it was?

[Terry Duncan]

Very very curious!

I can swear I have read at many historians, whose I critized in this and other threads and from a lot of Members in this Forum, the Entente and Triple Entente were NOT formed against A-H and Germany, that this is a common myth by the Germans and basing on their imagination.

The Entente and Triple Entente were exclusively formed for overseas and colonies problems, to sort them out and not to get in conflicts over the imperial interests of the Entente and Triple Entente countries.

It is intteresting that you see the forming of the Entente and Triple Entente with german eyes.

And perhaps you can numerate the issues were Empire Germany, except the Monaco crises has ever bullied around or military threaten any european country.

The Entente with France in 1904 was exclusively about colonial issues, and then Germany decided to try and destroy this agreement with the 1st Moroccan Crisis by pressuring France with the threat of war, hoping Britain would not do anything about it. Sadly for Germany it was all too obvious what was intended, and Britain did intervene. The result was that Britain and France drew closer together, and by 1907 the Anglo-German naval race was in full swing, making agreement with Russia on colonial issues sensible, especially as it was clear both faced a likely common enemy by this point.

As for bullying, Germany may have come late to that tendency, but she did try to set up an anti-British alliance during the 2nd Boer War, bully France in 1905 over Morocco, did bully Russia in 1908/9 over the Annexation Crisis, tried again with France in 1911 at Agadir, only really not becoming involved in such a way in the Balkan Crisis of 1912/13.

[Slobodan Cekic]

You mean like the kangaroo court that murdered Apis in 1917? No need for that.

Step 1 - arrest.
Step 2 - court marshall
Step 3 - found guilty
Step 4 - Punishment.

Anything but Serbia being responsible for the actions of the Serbians.

If you are asking for my opinion, Apis has probably been convicted for something he has not done, because he could not be tried for what he had done.
Something like three coup d' etat attempts, and pro-German intended policies, together with suspected collaboration with this foreign power to reach that goal - that would make for a high treason indictment anywere.
Only they could not indict him for that; would look bad to the allies.

1922-23 Dragisa Stojadinovic, a Radical and a son in law of the Radical interior ministar Ljuba Stojanovic-Patak, spent 2 years studying the German archives to prove the collaboration of Apis with the Germans. His book has never been printed and disappeared in the early 50, taken from the author by secret police of Tito's regime.

Your real feelings to Serbs come out when you forget your guard. So I know by now what kind of collective responsibility you have in mind. For the unproven actions of two officers acting on their own, the whole country, a snake's nest, should have been laid down to ashes and executed without trial.

That is the kind of Serbian responsibility you have on your mind and even more in your heart. Of course, you do not want that as a topic here.