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.