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

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

#76

Post by glenn239 » 08 Sep 2015, 17:59

Slobodan Cekic wrote:
You possibly even read the document on the Kaiser's war council, Dec. 1912., but maybe with your glance averted most of the time. Your comments are unrelated to this document.
You have exaggerated the importance of the December 1912 conference, your motive appearing to be to seek exoneration for Serbia for its responsibility in bringing about the 3rd Balkans war when elements within its own army participated in a terrorist attack inside Austria-Hungary.
Third Balkan.. who invented the nice term, would you know :) ? AH and Serbia , two Balkan powers.. in a war unrelated with WW I.
This is even less easy for me to follow than your IWC session comments. To be frank, an opinion incoherent at the first sight, does not attract a second one.
The term 3rd Balkans War has been around since before the 21st Century, describing the potential for an Austro-Serbian war fought in isolation in 1914. These days, while Russia would support Serbia in a confrontation with Germany, there is simply no chance whatever that either Britain or France would do so. Alas, this wisdom of the danger to anti-German games in the Balkans coming a century too late in London and Paris.

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

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

#77

Post by Terry Duncan » 08 Sep 2015, 19:54

glenn239 wrote:your motive appearing to be to seek exoneration for Serbia
Where do you get that idea from? Quite a few authors have found the 1912 council meeting to be significant, and the Germans obviously thought it was as they denied it even took place until Fischer found the minutes of it. It has very little to do with Serbia.
glenn239 wrote:for its responsibility in bringing about the 3rd Balkans war when elements within its own army participated in a terrorist attack inside Austria-Hungary.
'Elements'? As in one person who supplied aid but did not participate in any attack, and border guards that let people cross the border, which was hardly uncommon at the time. There was no reason the assassination had to end in war, the previous attempt to kill Franz-Joseph in Sarajevo in 1910 didnt even cause a major incident, it could have been settled with justice taking its course against the individuals responsible if time had been allowed to do so.
glenn239 wrote:These days, while Russia would support Serbia in a confrontation with Germany, there is simply no chance whatever that either Britain or France would do so.
Germany would struggle to do very much to Serbia as there is no common border, so support would make little difference.
glenn239 wrote:Alas, this wisdom of the danger to anti-German games in the Balkans coming a century too late in London and Paris.
Strange how the independence of the Slav people in the area is taken as being 'anti-German' in any form, especially as German foreign policy had been supportive of Serbia in 1914. The assassins could be described as anti-Austrian or anti-Hungarian possibly, or maybe even 'patriots', but Germany figured very little in their thoughts it seems.


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

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

#78

Post by glenn239 » 08 Sep 2015, 20:35

Terry Duncan wrote: Where do you get that idea from?
From the fact that he assigns no responsibility to Serbia for its army participating in a terrorist attack inside Austria while at the same time, exotic theories on German causation stemming from 1912 or even earlier are bantied about, with several posters competing with each other for earlier and earlier dates when the Austro-Germans decided for war.
'Elements'? As in one person who supplied aid but did not participate in any attack, and border guards that let people cross the border, which was hardly uncommon at the time.
Only with the assistance in Belgrade from elements of the Serbian army did the attack even become possible.
Germany would struggle to do very much to Serbia as there is no common border, so support would make little difference.
Serbians today might be quite surprised to discover that when NATO was pounding them back in the 1990's (fairly or unfairly is up for debate) that the British and French were on a side other than Germany's.
Strange how the independence of the Slav people in the area is taken as being 'anti-German' in any form, especially as German foreign policy had been supportive of Serbia in 1914.
The British and French fought a world war instead of holding the ring for Austria and Serbia. Both could have just as easily taken on a pro-Austrian position, but did not. One need look no further than the rivalry with Germany to explain why.
The assassins could be described as anti-Austrian or anti-Hungarian possibly, or maybe even 'patriots'.
Anti-Hapsburg I would guess from the fact they murdered the heir and his wife in cold blood.

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

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

#79

Post by Terry Duncan » 09 Sep 2015, 03:44

glenn239 wrote:From the fact that he assigns no responsibility to Serbia for its army participating in a terrorist attack inside Austria while at the same time, exotic theories on German causation stemming from 1912 or even earlier are bantied about, with several posters competing with each other for earlier and earlier dates when the Austro-Germans decided for war.
But what happened in Serbia in 1914 has nothing to do with what was discussed in Germany in 1912, the meeting was either important or it was not. The fact it was covered up indicates there was some importance placed on the meeting by the Germans. Did it cause the war is another matter, the assassination didnt do that either, but it does give people the ability to speculate how genuine the opinions voiced in the meeting were.
glenn239 wrote:Only with the assistance in Belgrade from elements of the Serbian army did the attack even become possible.
I do believe pistols wer commonly available in the Balkans in 1914, if anything there were rather a lot of them. There were also claims that it was Serbian finance that made the attempt possible, though it appears the group were funded by relatives and friends, mostly unknowingly.
glenn239 wrote:Serbians today might be quite surprised to discover that when NATO was pounding them back in the 1990's (fairly or unfairly is up for debate) that the British and French were on a side other than Germany's.
From memory Germany didnt take any part in the bombing of Serbia.
glenn239 wrote:The British and French fought a world war instead of holding the ring for Austria and Serbia. Both could have just as easily taken on a pro-Austrian position, but did not. One need look no further than the rivalry with Germany to explain why.
Why should they 'hold the ring for Austria'? That is simply sophistry for 'all look the other way while Austria quietly strangles Serbia. The Austrians were the ones being unreasonable. I think the Vietnamese had a good case for overthrowing Pol Pot, but the US still recognised him as the rightful Cambodian leader until he died, politics is strange like that, nations dont make common cause with rival alliance systems for obvious reasons.
glenn239 wrote:Anti-Hapsburg I would guess from the fact they murdered the heir and his wife in cold blood.
Cold blood with regards Franz-Ferdinand certainly, but the shot that killed Sophie was supposedly meant to be at Potiorek, which fits with Mlada Bosna's previous attempt on his life, and is what Princip said afterwards. Given she was between Princip and Franz-Ferdinand (Franz-Ferdinand sat on the left side of the car with Sophie to his right, they always sat in this way and photos from the visit show this arrangement), the chances are that it was a simple stray shot, we know people grabbed at Princip as he raised the gun and fired, so that would fit with the shot to Franz-Ferdinand hitting him in the neck and Sophie being hit in the abdomen. With the range being so short, it is likely Princip aimed at the head with the first shot, and then the gun was forced down as he fired the second, he was so close it is most unlikely he would aim towards the head area on one shot and then aim for the abdomen for a second if his intention had really been to kill Sophie, she was even closer to him after all. Lets face it, she wasnt even the second most important target in the car from the Austrian point of view either, and the assassins would have gained far more from killing the archduke and the hated governer at the same time.

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

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

#80

Post by Slobodan Cekic » 09 Sep 2015, 08:02

glenn239 wrote:
Slobodan Cekic wrote:
You possibly even read the document on the Kaiser's war council, Dec. 1912., but maybe with your glance averted most of the time. Your comments are unrelated to this document.
You have exaggerated the importance of the December 1912 conference, your motive appearing to be to seek exoneration for Serbia for its responsibility in bringing about the 3rd Balkans war when elements within its own army participated in a terrorist attack inside Austria-Hungary.
Let's make one distinction:
1)The theme of this thread is about the leading historians for this period suspecting privately that Germany might have been involved in Sarajevo assassination. There is no documentary evidence for this, but there seem to be indices pointing that way. Still, for Germany's role in Sarajevo there is no proof at all. (none that i know of).

2)On the contrary - that Germany bears the primary responsibility for the war- there is no shade of doubt about that, because it has been proven above any doubt in the today's history. The documents show German leadership wanted the war at that moment, and did everything in their might to make it happen; that is why.

For example, take a look at the excellent and most detailed article on the July crisis, Wikipedia. Shows the actions and intentions of the leading groups all sides.
I think you could find it unpalatable and too long, and in that case, try this: A year ago BBC asked 10 leading historians, who is most responsible for this war? 9 out of 10 say AH and Germany, in differing order.

December 1912 document is only a small part of the documentary evidence for such a view on the outbreak of the war, it's main importance the awakening of the science to the fact that Germany removed or destroyed many such documents from it's archives after the war, it's propaganda at the same time churning a thoroughly falsified historical picture of war happening as a pure chance.
In the last decades, the historians dug up every piece of paper, including the private correspondence of the relevant persons, even the game theory analyses have been made, etc, etc.


Now you say, I am trying to exonerate Serbia? From what?

Third Balkan.. who invented the nice term, would you know :) ? AH and Serbia , two Balkan powers.. in a war unrelated with WW I.
This is even less easy for me to follow than your IWC session comments. To be frank, an opinion incoherent at the first sight, does not attract a second one.
The term 3rd Balkans War has been around since before the 21st Century, describing the potential for an Austro-Serbian war fought in isolation in 1914. These days, while Russia would support Serbia in a confrontation with Germany, there is simply no chance whatever that either Britain or France would do so. Alas, this wisdom of the danger to anti-German games in the Balkans coming a century too late in London and Paris.
I cannot be sure from your sentence, but 3. Balkan seems to be an imaginary war which would have been fought only between AH and Serbia, if the war didn't spread. You repeat it again again, so it seems to be some wishful-thinking kind of war of yours, where the 10 times bigger country would be left free to butcher up Serbia. You love Serbia, obviously.

Anyway, I imagine we are talking history, not alternate history. I am still not going to mark your words as banter.

Image

You know, AH made several incursions into Serbia 1914, and each time they stayed days, rather then weeks only. They still found time to make many such pictures.
In your alternate history of the 3 Balkan war, there would have been even more such pictures. Ever thought of that?

AH has been thrown out of Serbia each time it attacked, alone. Only after the Germans and Bulgarians joined in, could AH win.
So how do you know your wishful alternate version of history would 've helped AH, if it was to fight alone :) ?

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

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

#81

Post by glenn239 » 09 Sep 2015, 18:55

Slobodan Cekic Now you say, I am trying to exonerate Serbia? From what?
Provoking war with Austria-Hungary. To even conceive of the idea that Germany, of all places, would murder the heir to the Austrian throne is ridiculous. You have to account for the principles inherent to the eastern thrones at this time - such underhanded terrorism was just not going to hit the German radar in 1914, where war was to be declared "by the book".

Also, recall that Germany had the means for it's war with Russia already - the Limon von Saunders crisis. This was a pitch perfect opportunity for war, if Germany wanted it. Why would Berlin come up with the solution that makes the crisis go away if they wanted war?
The theme of this thread is about the leading historians for this period suspecting privately that Germany might have been involved in Sarajevo assassination. There is no documentary evidence for this, but there seem to be indices pointing that way.
The Sarajevo plot was some kids from Bosnia went to Belgrade and pitched a terrorist attack to the Serbian army, who apparently thought it was a grand idea and sent then on their way with the kit they needed to do the job.
On the contrary - that Germany bears the primary responsibility for the war- there is no shade of doubt about that, because it has been proven above any doubt in the today's history.
Germany had nothing to do with the Serbian army’s terrorist attack in Sarajevo. The Austrian reaction was already patterned along its Crisis lines before Vienna approached Berlin, the Russian position was also largely set, as was the French, as was the British. It may actually be the case that the Power least able to influence events after 28 June 1914 may well have been Germany, because of the Austro-Russian feedback loop leading towards war. (Germany did have considerable influence on Tisza (Hungarian), but whether this was enough?)
For example, take a look at the excellent and most detailed article on the July crisis, Wikipedia. Shows the actions and intentions of the leading groups all sides.
Actions are one thing – these can be verified because they happened.

Intentions are quite another – intentions are where an interested party can paint any form of nonsense they wish about any player in the 1914 crisis, and use anything as proof.

For example let me talk about Pasic’s intentions, with me using the same standard of evidence that Fischer used. That is to say, no standards at all. I'll just throw whatever out there that those inclined to accept might believe. I think Pasic knew all about the Sarajevo plot by 1 June 1914 and decided he wanted it to happen because he sensed an opportunity to dispose of Apis (a show trial) and also tame the army by way of sending them all to the front. Do you agree with my assessment of Pasic’s motives? That he deliberately decided to make a war with Austria happen after the terrorist attack because he calculated he would come out the winner no matter what happens?
December 1912 document is only a small part of the documentary evidence for such a view on the outbreak of the war, it's main importance the awakening of the science to the fact that Germany removed or destroyed many such documents from it's archives after the war…
So documents were destroyed but the December 1912 meeting, which would have obviously been destroyed in any purge because of its bellicose nature, was not destroyed? That doesn't make sense.
You repeat it again again, so it seems to be some wishful-thinking kind of war of yours, where the 10 times bigger country would be left free to butcher up Serbia.
A localised war fought in the fall of 1914, then over, was by far and away the better outcome than a world war, the atrocities you posted pictures of notwithstanding.
AH has been thrown out of Serbia each time it attacked, alone. Only after the Germans and Bulgarians joined in, could AH win.
Yes, with the Russian attack into Galicia, Austria simply did not have the strength to defeat the Serbian army, at least until the Bulgarians intervened.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#82

Post by ljadw » 09 Sep 2015, 19:01

Of course, you are "forgetting" to add that the Russian attack into Galicia happened only AFTER the Austrian DOW on Russia,DOW which was forced on the Austrians by Germany .

And, you "forget" to mention that when Austria attacked Serbia, this did not result in a Russian DOW on Austria .

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

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

#83

Post by Slobodan Cekic » 09 Sep 2015, 20:31

There is no proof of the German involvement in Sarajevo, like I said. There is more than enough proof for the war starting thru German and Austrian decisions in the first line.

quote glenn239: 'To even conceive of the idea that Germany, of all places, would murder the heir to the Austrian throne is ridiculous. You have to account for the principles inherent to the eastern thrones at this time - such underhanded terrorism was just not going to hit the German radar in 1914, where war was to be declared "by the book"'.

Well, this opinion of yours is not even close to an argument.

Russia found itself in war after German and Austrian declarations of war, for example; that s how the war escalated. I understand your regrets about that.
Still, Archduke has been killed in Sarajevo by a young AH national and an ethnic Serb. Neither the Serbian government nor the hanged peasant women did it, or helped it i any way.

But I suppose you wouldn't care much about that.

Ah, yes. About your past-time war that never was, but should have been.

Even without a war between the CP and Russia; both AH und Germany would have to keep quite many troops along the Russian border, or trust Russia deeply.
That's exactly where the two CPs were quite thin, though.
So, AH would have to do without much more than what it had really used. It had almost 2:1 as it was, with more and better weapons and equipment.
How much should it need against the Serbs, then.
Last edited by Slobodan Cekic on 10 Sep 2015, 07:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

#84

Post by glenn239 » 09 Sep 2015, 22:31

Slobodan Cekic wrote:
Well, this opinion of yours is not even close to an argument.
Your theory that Germany orchestrated the Sarajevo Crisis is as compelling to me as my theory that Pasic calculated he will win in all scenarios in a war with Austria is to you.
Russia found itself in war after German and Austrian declarations of war, for example; that s how the war escalated. I understand your regrets about that.
The German doctrine was that mobilization was an act of war. Russia mobilized.
Still, Archduke has been killed in Sarajevo by a young AH national and an ethnic Serb.
Some kids went to Belgrade and pitched a terrorist attack to elements of the Serbian army (Tankosic, perhaps Apis), who thought it was a great idea. A probable Norodna Odbrana agent (Ciganovic) was also instrumental.
Even without a war between the CP and Russia; both AH und Germany would have to keep quite many troops along the Russian border, or trust Russia deeply.
Back on topic. You stated that Germany was seeking a pretext for war after 1912. In fact, Germany had a textbook opportunity with Russia in January of 1914 when a German officer - Limon von Sanders - was sent to the Ottoman Empire to reform the Ottoman Army. The Germans could have played this crisis to trigger a war with Russia. But they didn't.
So, AH would have to do without much more than what it had really used. It had almost 2:1 as it was, with more and better weapons and equipment. How much should it need against the Serbs, then.
The Serbs were better soldiers than the Austrians by maybe half , with about what, 300,000 Serbs in the army? The Austrians would therefore have needed about 500,000 men continuous, losing 150,000 for every 100,000 Serbians lost. The Serbians have no replacements so would have to fall back into the mountains to avoid attrition and stretch the Austrian supply lines in winter. The international situation would have pressured for a ceasefire.

I think the Serbians are still holding Nish 4 months into the Austria on Serbia solo war, and Russia would be losing patience by the 2nd or 3rd month and threatening general mobilization.

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

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

#85

Post by glenn239 » 09 Sep 2015, 22:39

ljadw wrote:Of course, you are "forgetting" to add that the Russian attack into Galicia happened only AFTER the Austrian DOW on Russia,DOW which was forced on the Austrians by Germany .
The Russian attack occurred as quickly as logistics would allow, and that would have been the case had Austria not declared war.

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

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

#86

Post by Terry Duncan » 09 Sep 2015, 23:28

glenn239 wrote:Well, this opinion of yours is not even close to an argument.
The idea is actually attributed to John Rohl. He isnt generally seen as holding extreme or unsupported views, which is why I posted the information in the first place. Something must make the man suspiscious of Germany being behind the assassination, rather than just an attempt to vilify Germany that he has never bothered to put into print.
glenn239 wrote:Back on topic. You stated that Germany was seeking a pretext for war after 1912. In fact, Germany had a textbook opportunity with Russia in January of 1914 when a German officer - Limon von Sanders - was sent to the Ottoman Empire to reform the Ottoman Army. The Germans could have played this crisis to trigger a war with Russia. But they didn't.
Well, two important things were not in place in Jan 1914 that were in July 1914. First the Kiel Canal was finally ready, and the first dreadnought rushed through it as soon as possible just to make sure, which was something agreed to in the 1912 meeting as being a prerequisite even if Moltke had been correct that the navy would never really be ready. Second, though it was originated long before, it was only passed by the Duma in early June 1914, and would have seen the German army eclipsed by the Russians alone by 1914, making a war against France and Russia unthinkable somewhat before that point (this was the evaluation of the GGS, not mine).

So you have one important piece of infrastructure not ready until after the von Sanders dispute (and Austria was not at all bothered over the matter either, so reducing her likely support) and a final spur still yet to be confirmed. Quite a lot of authors have noted that although the war would be fought with German direction, it had to arise from a critical Austrian interest in order to ensure Austria would support Germany, something she had failed to do in every crisis other than the Annexation Crisis.

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

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

#87

Post by Attrition » 10 Sep 2015, 07:55

It's worth a thought, even if only from the "cui bono?" point of view. Like the Reichstag Fire and the New York kamikaze, something like this was bound to turn up though, so why take the risk of being caught instead of preparing for the certainty [of a pretext]?
Last edited by Attrition on 10 Sep 2015, 14:13, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#88

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2015, 09:23

glenn239 wrote:
ljadw wrote:Of course, you are "forgetting" to add that the Russian attack into Galicia happened only AFTER the Austrian DOW on Russia,DOW which was forced on the Austrians by Germany .
The Russian attack occurred as quickly as logistics would allow, and that would have been the case had Austria not declared war.
Would : how do you now ?

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

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

#89

Post by glenn239 » 10 Sep 2015, 18:07

ljadw wrote:
Would : how do you now ?
Because the Russians did not alter their mobilization plan from the "A" Variant to the "G" variant after Germany declared war on 1 August.

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

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

#90

Post by glenn239 » 10 Sep 2015, 18:21

Terry Duncan

The idea is actually attributed to John Rohl.
It an absurd theory. The last power on earth Germany was going to risk war with was Austria-Hungary and the last reason on Earth would be regicide. My theory that Pasic let the war happen because he calculated he'd win no matter what happened is actually much more likely.
glenn239 wrote: Well, two important things were not in place in Jan 1914 that were in July 1914. First the Kiel Canal was finally ready, and the first dreadnought rushed through it as soon as possible just to make sure, which was something agreed to in the 1912 meeting as being a prerequisite even if Moltke had been correct that the navy would never really be ready.
The Kiel Canal was not important to the opportunity presented in the Limon von Saunders crisis because January 1914 was close enough to the opening date for the canal not to matter, even if for some reason Bethmann and Moltke thought it was important, (neither did). (Campaign season in the North Sea was about from March or April onwards, certainly little was lost waiting in the Baltic until June, since the HSF had no plan anyways). The Kiel Canal is a good example of arguing by opportunity - to better affix motive to Germany one has to hunt for stuff around the timeframe.
Second, though it was originated long before, it was only passed by the Duma in early June 1914, and would have seen the German army eclipsed by the Russians alone by 1914, making a war against France and Russia unthinkable somewhat before that point (this was the evaluation of the GGS, not mine).
That reasoning doesn't fit the charge. Slobodan suggests that in 1912 the Germans wanted a war of aggression, in which Russian planning did not matter. Now you're suggesting the motive only arose in June 1914.
Quite a lot of authors have noted that although the war would be fought with German direction, it had to arise from a critical Austrian interest in order to ensure Austria would support Germany, something she had failed to do in every crisis other than the Annexation Crisis.
[/quote]

Another example of Fischer's opportunistic incoherence. On one hand, Austria is Germany's puppet, yet at the same time, Germany is fearful that Austria might not enter the 'wrong' war, thus demonstrating that Austria was not Germany's puppet. Would the real Austria please stand up?

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”