glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
MarkN wrote: ↑19 Nov 2018, 21:34
Absolutely. Even though there appears to be direct links to the Saudi rulers, Turkey is not talking about war as the way to resolve this and the US (at least the WhiteHouse) is doing everything it can to appease the Saudis!!!!!
I didn't think an example of where a state ordered an attack and then tried to cover it up, now by moving to execute its own officials, would be the example you were looking for to convince people that the Serbians weren't covering up in 1914, also executing their own officials.
The two cases are quite, quite different. But have no more, or less, in common than with your attempt to equate Russia today with Austro-Hungary in 1914.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
The group was called Mlada Bosna and came from Bosnia which had been annexed by Austria. They were citizens of Bosna, ie Austro-Hungarian citizens, acting against their own ruler. They were acting against what they saw as Austro-Hungarian occupation and oppression.
According to the Serbians, their Chief of Intelligence of the Serbian general staff orchestrated the attack. Was this man an Austrian or a Serbian?
3 years later the Serbs wanted to get rid of Dragutin Dimitrijevic. That seemed another 'good' charge to level against him. The Serbian accusation is no stronger than the Austro-Hungarian one earlier. It's now been over a 100 years since the event and plenty of people have spent an enormous amout of time trying to come up with the evidence. Still looking.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
So? The point is: was war with a neighboring state that was not responsible for perpetrating the crime the only solution?
No, the point is that after the Austrian overreacted the Entente had longstanding precedent to mediate while fighting continued. All the talk of "crushing" and "swallowing" and "annexing was just that - talk. The Germans had vowed none of this, so if they'd tried to alter the deal the Russians could mobilize in January 1915 and the Germans couldn't effectively attack France in response because of the weather.
What are you on about????
Do you really think it is OK to smash up a country on false pretenses as long as a friend such a Germany promises that you won't
annex or
swallow?
The Russians were trying to prevent bloodshed. I appreciate that's too much for you to swallow as it undermines your argument.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
99.8% is deliberately meant as a bit of fun. Clearly lost on you. Remember, I attributed 1% to Belgium for having sickly chocolate and dreadful beer.
So what's the actual estimate then? I can live with 66% CP, but I personally think it more like 50/50 between the sides. The Austrians overreacted, but then having done so, the Entente also overreacted.
I believe it is quite wrong to see this as a zero-sum equation. Divvying up blame into 100 parts and allocationg to one or another is just plain wrong. The idea that as one 1% part gets allocated to a certain party that 1% cannot be allocated to someone else is daft. It is the calculation of those trying to unburden responsibility onto another.
WW1 became the conflaguartion that it was due to a series of events and decisions. Clearly it takes two to party and some of those decisions were made by Russia, France and Britain. Some of those decision made were done in the best interest of peace, but were then manipulated and exploited by others to their advantage to get the war they wanted. The idea that an exploited 'good' decision gets awarded 'responsibility percentage' is, as I wrote, an attempt by some to unburden responsibility onto another.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
Yes, you've decided that you set the rules.
No, the pattern was that wars broke out then were mediated before they could spread. Why did the Entente reverse that rule of thumb and spread the conflict before the war broke out? The Entente professed worry over the fate of Serbia, but I think it closer to the mark that the Russians were concerned about the fate of Austria-Hungary.
OK. It is quite clear, from across a series of exchanges that we have had, that you have an understanding of the world and history quite different to mine and what has been documented.
I challenged you on making up the rule that you get to decide that Austro-Hungary should smash up Serbia and that that decision should be accepted and respected by Russia and everone else. Continuing to ignore that challenge by banging on about your own ahistorical theory does not help.
States who want war tend to just get on with it. Like Austro-Hungary and Germany in 1914.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
I have noticed this is a common posting tactic (probably thought process too) of yours: introduce your own personal opinion into a wider historical context, conflate the two then, when questionned on your opinion, counter by referencing the historical.
It was you, not I, that suggested the Entente was acting properly to draw lines in the sand before an Austrian campaign against Serbia was even underway. I would have thought, when challenged on that point, you'd have provided more examples in the 100 years prior of wars that drew neutral power in before the fighting had even started. Yet, you have provided not a single one. Where is this war, where a Great Power attacked a large or small country, and the neutral powers poured into the war before the fighting had even begun?
Russia was trying to prevent bloodshed. Drawing a line before the bloodshed starts is a bit of a no brainer. It least it is to me.
And no "
neutral powers poured into the war before the fighting had even begun" in 1914. You're making up nonsense.
It seems so you have got so wrapped up in your own theory, you've lost the plot.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
In my opinion, Austro-Hungary had no case to justify war against Serbia.
Insufficient I can see. "No" case at all veers back towards that 99.8% figure you said was a joke.
I repeat, In my opinion, Austro-Hungary had no case to justify war against Serbia. For that part of the chain of events, I award 99.99% to Austro-Hungary and 0.01% to Belgium for supplying the murder weapon. I would award more to Belgium, but no sickly chocolates or dreadful beer had any part in this element of the narrative.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
Trying to prevent a war without any bloodshed sounds like a damn good idea to me.
The Russians had let Serbia fight two Balkans wars without getting involved, there was no need to dive into a third before it had even started. Now, if the Central Powers had proved completely incorrigible on terms and gone back on their word in the fall, and moved towards annexations, maybe the Russians need to review their neutrality. But that never happened, the Russians jumped the gun, so eager were they to get at the Austrians before the winter made campaigning in Galicia too difficult.
The connection between this and the decision-making in 1914 is entirely of your own making to somehow lend credibility to your theory. Just like all the references back to invasions of Denmark and so on.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
But good of you to reinterpret it as 'evidence' of "Russia's intention was to smash the Austro-Hungarian Empire once and for all".
Perhaps then the Russians were desiring to invite the Austrians to a picnic by sending in 50 divisions and trying to go over the Carpathians to Budapest?
You have lost the plot.
The Russians invaded Austro-Hungary and were making their way to Budapast before Austro-Hungary declared war on Russia? I think not!!!!
The Czar mobilized some of his army to leverage/influence Austro-Hungarian thinking over its aggressive stance towards Serbia. It was a plan that didn't work. In fact, it backfired, because that mobilization was then used and manipulated by Moltke initially, and then Germany as a state.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
If Russia's (sole) intent was to go to war with Austro-Hungarian, it could have declared war on 26 July immediatly after the Austro-Hungarian declaration against Serbia.
Austria declared war on Serbia on 28 July, Russia commenced mobilization on 29 July. They could not have pulled the trigger on a pretext any faster.
My apologies on the typo. 28 was indeed the date.
The direction, incremental nature and time of each step of the Russian mobilization were direct responses to Austro-Hungarian efforts pointed at Serbia. If, as you want us to believe with your theory, that Russia truely was exploiting the Austro-Hungarian/Serbia matter for their own ends, then they would have been pro-actively mobilizing according to their own strategic and tactical demands - just like the Austro-Hungarians did; just like Germans did.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
But it didn't. The Czar mobilized against Austro-Hungary to try to influence its decisionmaking and prevent war.
The Russians mobilized for the purpose of attacking Austria-Hungary.
That's your ahistorical theory designed to shift responsibility for the bloodshed.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
If the point was to influence decision making they'd have held back and put pressure on the Germans to reign in their ally in exchange for holding off mobilization.
Which is exactly what Moltke would have had a wet dream over!
Russian diplomatic efforts (perhaps others to) seem to have been working on Austro-Hungary. They dillied and dallied for what, 4 weeks, before they finally got around to declaring war on Serbia. And will still far from ready themselves militarily. And it was only that early based on support and 'encouragement' from Berlin.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:41
Grey's position throughout was governed by the Cabinet. When the Cabinet's 'mood' changed, then Grey could act differently.
Which cabinet ruling on 28 or 29 July are you referring to with regards to the Austro-Serbian war?
I haven't mentionned any cabinet ruling on 28 or 29 July. That was something you introduced. Another of your tricks?
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:49
MarkN wrote: ↑19 Nov 2018, 21:44
I appreciate that you seem quite happy for Austro-Hungary to smash up Serbia willy nilly - or at least based upon a tenuous link and chasm leap between crime and punishment. The rest of what you post is attempting to then appease that initial warmongering attitude and act.
The Russians wanted to smash the Austrian Empire once and for all.
Yes. I know that's your ahistorical theory designed to shift responsibility for the bloodshed.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:49
Now true, had Austria backed away from war in 1914 so too the Russians. But the war to smash Austria would come so long as the Entente itself held, for the motive was paramount and aggressive. I know not how anyone can look at a war where Russia acted at all turns to crush a Great Power, even to the point of utter self-destruction rather than swerve from that intention, and then conclude that Russia bore no responsibility for the obviousness of its aims.
It was certainly Moltke's, probably most other people's too - probably by mine too if I studied the details closely enough - that the relative strength of Russia against Germany (and Austro-Hungary) was growing with time but that, in 1914, Germany still had a head in front. That's why Moltke felt he stood a chance in 1914 and was not willing to wait any longer for the European war.
If the Czar truely had his eyes on breaking up Austro-Hungary, and I see that as being a reasonable long term goal, 1914 was NOT the time to do it. It was very much in the Czar's interests to wait. History shows that to be correct. The Czar lost everything because the war started in 1914.
glenn239 wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 21:49
You tell me 66/33 on responsibility, I can live with that, even while holding to 50/50 myself. So what's the ratio?
As mentionned above, the zero-sum equation is not appropriate.
Austro-Hungary is FULLY responsible for annexing Bosnia and governing it in the way that they did.
The members of Mlada Bosna who planned and implemented their murder in Sarajevo are FULLY responsible for their actions.
Austro-Hungary is FULLY responsible for turning a domestic criminal act into an international incident and for commencing a war against a neigbor without credible justification or reason.
Germany is FULLY responsible for turning that incident into a pan-Europe wide conflaguration.
Russia is FULLY responsible for trying to prevent the initial, unjustfied and unnecessary Balkan bloodshed and then being outmanouvered and having its good intentions manipulated and exploited.
France is FULLY responsible for its decision to stand by its alliance with Russia.
Luxembourg and Belgium are FULLY responsible for being in an inconvenient geographical location.
Belgium is additionally FULLY responsible for seeking help when attacked by Germany.
Britain is FULLY responsible for honouring its prior obligation to Belgium.
And finally, Belgium is 100% guilty of having sickly chocolates, dreadful beer and for supplying the weapon that started this terrible mess.