America enters the War, the controversy

Well at the end of the day history shows that the German-Austrian Alliance suffered for trying to dominate Western Europe, surely the military planners in the Prussian High Command had thought about the possibility of the US getting involved, but reckoned on taking over France, Belgium, and possibly the United Kingdom before the USA got involved.

Germany suffered, Austria suffered, Romania suffered in fact all the countries suffered and the chain of events that started the whole conflict can be traced back to the hand of a man from Serbia, a fool who was trained by a group of renegade Serbian officers, assisted across the border, on his way to kill Franz-Josephs nephew, by Serbian officers, and now the whole world has been re-shaped by the "shot that was heard around the world"

Kevin in Deva

Hi NCR,

"The shot that was heard around the world" did not start WWI. It was the device used by a small number of war-mongers in the German and Austrian foreign ministries to trigger a wider war that would settle the hegemony of Europe in their favour.

Cheers,

Sid.

somehow i don't think Austria-Hungary overreacted. based on examples of recent "events", not at all.

Hi Sid

we agree to disagree,

my point was about who got the ball rolling, not who ran with it

Kevin in Deva

Hi NCR,

I see history as a continuum. Everything has it earlier causes. For example, if Austria-Hungary had not annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina (in 1908?) then Franz Ferdinand would not have been touring Sarajevo.

However, while most consequences are unintentional, a few are quite deliberate.

Twenty years later Croat and Macedonian nationalists assasinated the King of Yugoslavia while he was on tour in France. This did not provoke a war because nobody then felt it was in their interest.

There was no need for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to have provoked war either, because the Serbs gave way on almost every detail of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum that followed it. The Serb state desperately did not want war with a major power like Austria-Hungary. However, some within both the Austro-Hungarian and German foreign ministries did. They chose to make the assassination the excuse for a war that was by no means its inevitable consequence.

Cheers,

Sid.

then it would have probably happened in Croatia. if Germany wanted to go to war they would have done so 1905 when the french army wasn't fully armed and ready.

this doesn't explain the mobilization which they ordered first. just as A.H. had backing from Germany (which could be summerized into "whatever you do, if Russia goes to war against you we go to war against Russia", which they were bound to do by treaty anyways) Serbia had backing from Russia where the panlavist movement was in full swing (and the czar the chairman of the society for perpetuating panslavism).
you can go ahead and question the right of existence of a compulsory multinational state like A.-H. but, by the standards of that time, letting anyone to get away with the assasination of a heir would be the nail in coffin of that monarchy. so for A.-H. the affair was existential and same for Germany who could not afford to lose the only (politically) reliable ally.
then we can go ahead about french revanchist claims (debatable or not) and we have a recipe for desaster which, Germany didn't encourage much beyond reasonability and other's didn't care to undertake steps (to a similar degree of reasonability) to avoid a war.
the result is *BOOM*.

since they were part of Yugoslavia then, it would be hard to declare war on Croatia. this was a yugoslavian internal affair. just like if a czech would've shot the archduke.

Hi d-c,

The fact that Germany may have missed the optimum moment to provoke a wider European war doesn't in any way alter the proposition that elements in its foreign ministry were central to provoking a wider European war in 1914.

Serbian mobilisation was in response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum and is entirely explicable on pragmatic grounds when a small country is threatened by a much larger one.

Russia did not encourage Serbia to resist the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.

France also did not encourage Serbia to resist the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.

Britain offered to mediate.

Serbia therefore gave in on almost every detail of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.

However, a small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians, particularly in their foreign ministries, were determined on war. They held back some key facts from the German Kaiser, who was on holiday for most of August 1914 and Austria-Hungary went to war.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. No. The assassination of the Yugoslav king was not a purely internal Yugoslav affair. The Croats and Macedonians who carried it out were sponsored by Italy.

P.P.S. It is also worth pointing out that Gavril Princip was a Bosnian Serb and therefore technically an Austro-Hungarian citizen. The murders of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and King Alexander were both carried out by technical citizens of their own countries sponsored by foreign intelligence services.

Sid.

the same can be said then about France&Britain in 1939.

the imperial german gov. assured A.-H. of their total support in this affair.
if was clear that if Russia will mobilize, then Germany will do so too. from then war is inevitable.

then why did they mobilize on july 28th against A-H?

the german chancellor was actually against war but he issued a statement that the russian mobilization (or lack thereof) would decide wether germany would mobilize (and declare war).
who exactly did hold back what from the Kaiser?

france was bound by treaty to aid russia in case they would have war declared upon themselves. which was again obvious in case russia would wage war against A-H.

the "black hand" however was a serbian panslavistic organisation. of which he was part of.

yeah and in our context this proves what? that the kingdom of Yugoslavia was a peace-loving nation because they didn't declare war on Italy. in order to do so you need to have not only the intention but also the means.

The causes were far deeper. Allaince system, arms race, the impact of the railroad on troop mobilisation and movements.
In my view though Austria-Hungary and Serbia are to blame for the local conflict, Russia is to blame for widening it. They ordered a general mobilisation on the 28th, on the 30th Germany asked them to stop their mobilisation, they didnt and on the 1st Germany declared war. Even if Russia was unaware of the Schlieffen plan, surely they realised a war with Austria Hungary meant war with Germany? And that meant a general European war. Was Serbia that important for them?
What was Germany supposed to do? Even if they didnt have a Schlieffen Plan, they would no doubt have been involved against Russia when the conflict between it and A.H. started. And that again, would have meant world war.
For Russia Serbia was not crucial, not as crucial as A.H. was for Germany at least. Asking Germany to stay out while A.H. faced Russia in war is far harder than to ask Russia to stay out while Serbia faces A.H. Russia could sacrifice Serbia, they still had France and England, Germany could not sacrifice A.H.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 13, 2006 04:05 pm

Hi d-c,

Yes, the same can be said about France and Britain in 1939. The difference is that it would be wrong, because it was Nazi Germany that was the prime instigator of what became WWII. The difference on that occasion was that the impetus to war in 1939 came from Germany's head of state, Hitler, rather than from belligerent subordinates, as in 1914.

Russia partially mobilised because it looked as though Austria-Hungary would not accept Serbia's agreement to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum and launched a war of aggression. That is exactly what happened, even though Serbia had accepted almost all Austro-Hungarian demands and an outside power was offering to mediate.

The fact that Britain had offered to mediate and the fact that Serbia had conceded to almost all Austro-Hungarian demands were both held back from the Kaiser, the latter until after the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum had expired.

Yes. France was bound by treaty to Russia. But not to Serbia. France had nothing to do with events in the Balkans. It got dragged in later.

The fact that the Black Hand was Pan-Slavist is insignificant in terms of the timing of the outbreak of war. The important point was that it received support from some within the Serbian state. This is what gave the assassination an international diplomatic dimension. Austria-Hungary couldn't declare war on Pan-Slavism or the Black Hand. It could on Serbia.

Your last paragraph merely emphasises my point. It was not the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that started WWI. It was the factors surrounding it that did - specifically the actions of some within the Austro-Hungarian and German foreign ministries.

When King Alexander was assassinated 20 years later, it was not the act of assassination that was significantly different, it was the circumstances surrounding it that were. In 1914 there were some influential people who wanted to use assassination as an excuse for war. In 1934 there were not.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the excuse for Austria-Hungary going to war, but it was not the reason it did so.

Cheers,

Sid.

on this we actually never disagreed. the very moment was determined by the assasionation. other than that it was not a question of "if" it was a question of "when", given the political environment and maybe the "Zeitgeist". but the responsability of the nature of this environment lies with pretty much everybody (albeit to a lesser degree with Britain).

again that depends. yes, nazi germany annexed austria. but austria was forbidden of joining the reich in 1919 even though a referendum showed overwhelming majority. yes germany invaded czechoslovakia. but the situation with the sudetenland was similar with austria.
yes germany invaded poland, this time not only to recover "lost" provinces but to completley destroy it (lebensraum). but with the large support of the soviet union which felt threatened by the "capitalist world" since its formation and whose aim was to "encourage" any war between the "capitalist powers" to secure its existence (a doctrine repeated throught pretty much every congress of the CPSU in the 20ies and 30ies).
also the framework for WW2 was laid at Versailles and poeple like Hitler used it to gain power.
the peace of 1871 left problems unsolved. so did the peace of 1878. and the peace of 1919. those whose problems were left unsoleved prepared for a follow-up war.

exactly. but the same thing you could say about Germany. that's the problem if you commit to an alliance. and france wasn't exactly rejecting the idea of a war with Germany. the was never a "cool down" message to the czar just like there was no german "cool down" message to A-H.

absolutely correct. if my posting implied something else, then it's due misformulation which is entirely my fault.

the assasination was the reason for A.-H. to go to war with Serbia. not with Russia and the rest of the world. i do agree however that there might have been other reasons eventually, if this one would't have appeared. something like a new russian-turkish war. or more likeley (as i don't see A.-H. looking forward to a war as they were the great power with the most internal problems) something like the Morroco-crisis which would touch vital interest of both Germany and France.

Hi d-c,

I wouldn't even agree that the moment of the assassination determined when WWI would begin. There was no absolute inevitability about war.

The assassination took place on 28 June. There followed a whole month during which almost nobody thought a war was in the offing except for a small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians who were planning that there should be one. The key date was probably 7 July when, after several days consulting the Germans, the Austro-Hungarians decided that they would deliver their ultimatum to Serbia two weeks later. In the meantime senior officials of both countries were to take their normal holidays "to keep up an appearance that nothing is going on". At 1800 on 23 July the ultimatum was delivered.

On 24 July the Russian council of ministers advised Serbia not to resist an Austro-Hungarian invasion, but to let the great powers resolve the issue. At 1800 on 25 July Serbia accepted most Austro-Hungarian terms but requested clarification on on some. On 27 July the German Foreign Minister, von Jagow, pressed Austria-Hungary to act without delay. Austria-Hungary tells Germany that it will declare war not on 12 August, as originally planned, but on 28 July. On 28 July Kaiser Wilhelm, who has been on extended holiday, is finally shown the Serbian reply to the A-H ultimatum. He thinks it acceptable but is too late to stop A-H declaring war at noon.

Yup. In 1919 there is little doubt that most Austrians wanted union with Germany. However, this would have left a defeated Germany larger and more homogenous after WWI than before. This was clearly out of the question, so Anschluss was understandably banned by the Versailles treaties. What is more, by the early 1930s Austrians were overwhelmingly voting for parties that were not in favour of union with Germany. As a result the Nazis had to resort to a coup attempt in July 1934, in which they assassinated the Austrian chancellor but were soundly defeated. Hitler occupied Austria militarily in 1938 because he was worried that a cleverly worded plebiscite by the Austrian government would reject union with Germany. He then held his own plebiscite which was conducted in an extremely dubious manner. Austrian public opinion on the matter of union with Germany fluctuated over time.

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. It was actually a rather less punitive treaty than Nazi propaganda would have it and it was not even imposed in full. Have you read it?

I would suggest that Germany was not dragged into what became WWI later, like France. It was a prime instigator almost from the start. On 28 June Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. On 29 June the A-H chief-of-staff proposed immediate mobilisation against Serbia. On 1 July the well-connected German publicist Naumann assured the A-H diplomat Hoyos of German support and urged quick action against Serbia. On 2 July the German ambassador assured Franz Joseph of Germany's support in defence of A-H's "vital interests". On 4 July France and Russia advised Serbia and A-H to remain calm. On 5 July Hoyos arrived in Berlin to confirm German intentions. The Kaiser offered German support (the so-called "blank cheque") to A-H. On 6 July the German chancellor assured Hoyos of German support and urged immediate action. On 7 July Hoyos told the Austrian Foreign Ninister and Chief-of-Staff that Germany will back Austria-Hungary even if operations against Serbia bring about "the great war". Germany was there almost from the start.

I think both world wars were started by the Austro-German governments of the time deliberately launching what they hoped would be short, localised, victorious wars against much weaker opponents. Although they did not want a wider war, they were prepared to risk it on both occasions. They miscalculated both times and were detroyed.

Cheers,

Sid.

yes. Versailles was pretty much a pre-requisite, indeed not the cause. it's not that simple and i'm aware of that. the cause was the invasion of Poland of course. but the Versailles treaty had the aim to damage the economy on a mid-to-long range. the effect was amplified by the great depression which brought popular suport to a radical right wing (that phenomenon is even visible today, albeit on a much smaller scale).

about the rest i'll get back when i'm home again.

cheers

Hi d-c,

I would differentiate between direct causal contributors to events (i.e. Hitler's will) and the infinite number of events that lie along the time-line of events but are not direct causal contributors (i.e. the famous butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon).

I would suggest that while Versailles undoubtedly lies on the time-line of event that precede WWII, it need not have led to war. It was Hitler's will that decided that there should be war.

Versailles was intended to be economically punitive, but this was inevitable, even reasonable, given the immense material damage done to northern France and Belgium by the German invasion in WWI, while Germany itself had suffered very little material damage by virtue of having fought almost the entire war on foreign soil. What is more, the financial clauses were lifted even before Hitler came to power.

Cheers,

Sid.