The Austrian Investigation into assasination of Archduke Ferdinand

[Sunforged General]

The Austrians own investigation into the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand showed that "There is nothing to prove or even suppose that the Serbian government is accessory to the inducement of the crime, its preparation, or the furnishings of weapons. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that this is altogether out of the question"

Basically this proves that the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia was not about justice for Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but rather was solely an imperialist attempt to take over another sovereign nation. The Serbian government had nothing to do with the assassination, at all.

Doesnt this sink any arguments that claim Austro-Hungary and Germany were not at fault for the war? Austro-Hungary invaded Serbia, unjustly, then Germany gave them total support in their unjust war, then declared war on Russia, Declared War on France, Invaded Neutral Belgium, and thus also Forced Britain into the war to defend their Belgian ally. In what world do Germany and Austria/Hungary not bear 100% of the blame for WW1?

The claims of France and Russia mobilizing, are irrelevant, as that is not a legitimate reason to declare war, a sovereign nation moving around its military within its own borders, is not a reason to declare war. The invasion of entirely neutral Belgium shows Germany was willing to attack anyone, without any pretext for war at all.

In Summarization, Germany and Austro-Hungary bear nearly all the blame for the war, and trying to shift any of the blame onto the defensively reacting Entente is absurd, unjust, and downright tampering with historical truth.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

It is a complicated subject over which libraries of books have been written discussing it from all angles.

However, I tend to agree.

 

[mork77]

The Austrians own investigation into the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand showed that "There is nothing to prove or even suppose that the Serbian government is accessory to the inducement of the crime, its preparation, or the furnishings of weapons. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that this is altogether out of the question"

-> source? link?

Basically this proves that the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia was not about justice for Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but rather was solely an imperialist attempt to take over another sovereign nation. The Serbian government had nothing to do with the assassination, at all.

-> no, this just proves that the serbian GOVERNMENT was not directly involved. The Black Hand for example was involved. The weapons came from Serbia, etc.

Doesnt this sink any arguments that claim Austro-Hungary and Germany were not at fault for the war?

-> no, it doesn´t. As much as i know, no historian today claims that. What is claimed is that the point of view that ALL the fault lies with the central Powers is wrong. see "The sleepwalkers" for example.

The claims of France and Russia mobilizing, are irrelevant, as that is not a legitimate reason to declare war, a sovereign nation moving around its military within its own borders, is not a reason to declare war.

-> At that time, mobilization was considered precisely that. Nobody in all of Europé thought otherwise in 1914. So, not irrelevant. Btw, mobilization is something completely different than "moving around your military". That would indeed be no reason for war, but mobilization is something else.

In Summarization, Germany and Austro-Hungary bear nearly all the blame for the war, and trying to shift any of the blame onto the defensively reacting Entente is absurd, unjust, and downright tampering with historical truth.

-> so, you take one sentence from the Austrian investigation and come to this conclusion? really? seriously? oh boy! What would Historians do without you. Forget all the politics and and Alliances stuff, doesn´t matter.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

I'm sure that if the Austrians wanted war with Serbia, sending a Austrian crown prince to parade around in a convertable in occupied Serbian land would do the trick.

n Summarization, Germany and Austro-Hungary bear nearly all the blame for the war, and trying to shift any of the blame onto the defensively reacting Entente is absurd, unjust, and downright tampering with historical truth.

The entente was mostly comprised of territorially ambitious colonial powers that would maintain very large millitary's and compete with other European nations in the arms race prior to WWI. Ultimatly there was going to be a war after such a long period of "armed peace" simply because the great powers had invested so much in the arms race that it weighed on their economies. ALL sides in WWI tried to continue the war well beyond their senseble capabillety to wage it and with the consequence that they would need to win to gain their money back and throw the looser in the debtpit as a result. I think the best word i can lend to it is "inhumane and irresponsable stuborness", practicly acting like a bunch of kids really, and then it really doesnt matter that much "who started it". I would think given stalemate's or the situation in the east that peace could have been achieved at many junctions earlier in the war but all powers seemed only interrested in complete victory because the debt they were going in. Imperial Russia spawned the soviet revolution trough stuborness in negotiating peace, whereas in the west i think a peace in early 1915 with some colonies changing hand would have saved the world a tonload of problems too.

 

[Sunforged General]

-> source? link?


-> no, this just proves that the serbian GOVERNMENT was not directly involved. The Black Hand for example was involved. The weapons came from Serbia, etc.

4th paragraph.

https://historicalsocietyofgermanmi...ation-into-archdukes-assassination-concludes/

Also, since the Serbian government was not involved, declaring war on them was entirely a war of aggression. You cant hold a country accountible for what a criminal organization and its anarchist assassin do.

Also "Mobilization, in military terminology, is the act of assembling and readying troops and supplies for war." Assembling, moving around troops. The point is, you cant declare war on some one for doing any of those things, at least not legally or with a claim of just war.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Also, since the Serbian government was not involved, declaring war on them was entirely a war of aggression. You cant hold a country accountible for what a criminal organization and its anarchist assassin do.

Regardless of what we know now, it could always have been reasonable for the Austrians to assume that Serbia might have funded rebel movements within it's borders as such afaik is not that uncomman in political history. The real issue is: how even would you establish who is at fault when it comes even to justice among nations? I guess Austrians should have emmediatly shut of the crime scene to maintain pristine conditions and invite a investgation squad from the league of nations??? eh ..... not going to happen in this time. So whatever the Austrians say, there would always been doubt. More important to consider is the loss of prestige for Austria and the sentiments that might boil up in Austrian territory's with lots of serbs whereas punishing Serbia itself would help a lot to smother those rebellious ambitions.

As to Russia, it's just another imperialist power that simmilarly like Austria contains a lot of opressed minority's and who has a tendency of agression and never ending territorial ambition. To say that Russia's mobilisation doesn't mean anything in terms of agression is like saying that it means nothing when Mike Tyson is comming straith at you with his right fist raised as prepped for landing a heavy blow all the while that you have longstanding beef with him.

 

[viale]

Also "Mobilization, in military terminology, is the act of assembling and readying troops and supplies for war." Assembling, moving around troops. The point is, you cant declare war on some one for doing any of those things, at least not legally or with a claim of just war.

You do know that mobilization is the last act a nation can do before going to war. right? Mobilization is by its very nature a hostile action that very loudly signals a given nations' intentions. If Russia mobilizes Germany/Austria has to mobilizes as well, otherwise they lose any possible war. And given the Prussian generals' focus on timetables with regards to their own armies and Russia's, they know they can only win if they move faster than Russia. Speed is Germany's trump card versus Russia. So it follows that in order to utilize that advantage they have to mobilize and declare war before Russia is fully mobilized and ready for war.
This is not to excuse Germany's behaviour, but to put it in a proper context. Germany could have not given carte blanche to Austria and this would most likely have been a regional war, however, as others have pointed out, everyone was yearning for war, so that wasn't going to happen, also, Austrian general von musthaveawaratallcost would have instigated another incident if this had only become a regional conflict.

 

[Sunforged General]

You do know that mobilization is the last act a nation can do before going to war. right? Mobilization is by its very nature a hostile action that very loudly signals a given nations' intentions. If Russia mobilizes Germany/Austria has to mobilizes as well, otherwise they lose any possible war. And given the Prussian generals' focus on timetables with regards to their own armies and Russia's, they know they can only win if they move faster than Russia. Speed is Germany's trump card versus Russia. So it follows that in order to utilize that advantage they have to mobilize and declare war before Russia is fully mobilized and ready for war.
This is not to excuse Germany's behaviour, but to put it in a proper context. Germany could have not given carte blanche to Austria and this would most likely have been a regional war, however, as others have pointed out, everyone was yearning for war, so that wasn't going to happen, also, Austrian general von musthaveawaratallcost would have instigated another incident if this had only become a regional conflict.

A neighboring nation mobilizing warrants defensive preparations. But initiating the conflict, well that heavily supports the narrative that "Germany started the war". In the cases of Russia and France, the Germany literally initiated the war against them.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

A neighboring nation mobilizing warrants defensive preparations. But initiating the conflict, well that heavily supports the narrative that "Germany started the war".

The only way to counter mobilization withought an attack would be to mobilise yourself and to match the troops at youre borders with youre own. Must be said though, having 2 huge army's stand in shooting distance from another is likely going to trigger some shots i reckon, a lot of possibillety there too for a discussion who would have started the war in that case but you can also consider the likelyhood of war extremely high once those troops are mobilized.

From another perspective, afcourse German strategic thinking took the Russian mobilization timetable in mind when they had designed the schlieffenplan, but then Germany's reaction also followed heavily from it's strategic position and fear of a 2 front war and the likelyhood of defeat if it didn't strike decisivly faster.

To be fair, the really misguided part of trying to put the blame so much more with a specific great power during WWI is in failing to see the character of these Empires and the strategic powderkeg they had created. Youre talking about powers who were all to eager to slice up any nation that was weak enough to pound on and in range. Basicly a colletion of globaly dominating western empires who by their ambitions had carved up most of the world for themselves by means of force and who came to the point that there were hardly any scraps left over and the only ones left to fight were eachother. They were all of the expectation that in this enviroment some day they would all fight eachother.

As such, noone with a right mind in Europe had any doubt that Russian mobilisation meant war in practice.

 

[viale]

A neighboring nation mobilizing warrants defensive preparations. But initiating the conflict, well that heavily supports the narrative that "Germany started the war". In the cases of Russia and France, the Germany literally initiated the war against them.

If your winning strategy depends on you being faster than your neighboring enemy at mobilizing, and said neighbor starts mobilizing, then war becomes a reality very fast. Again I'm not defending Germany's actions I'm trying to put them into context for you and show you that to the Germans, Russian mobilization is defacto a war declaration.

As TheFlemishDuck is also trying to tell you, every great power involved had its own reasons for escalating the conflict. So pointing at one power as the sole reason for the conflict is severely ignorant, and betrays the true tragedy that is WW1: everyone wanted it, but no one knew what to do when they got it.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

A neighboring nation mobilizing warrants defensive preparations. But initiating the conflict, well that heavily supports the narrative that "Germany started the war". In the cases of Russia and France, the Germany literally initiated the war against them.

I don't understand the objection to this paragraph.

A German cavalry patrol crossed into France and exchanged fire with the local gentry and its commander is shot in the head, the next day Germany occupies Luxembourg. Because Moltke's ego got in the way of his judgement and longed to emulate his uncle the 'Elder''s brilliant overrun of France in 1870.

How is this not an initiation of the conflict?

The guy who fires first is always to blame. Ask Lincoln, who brilliantly mobilized the North and gave them absolute orders to not shoot first under any circumstances. Or Roosevelt, who dangled a juicy piece of bait for the Japanese and changed the attitude of an entire nation overnight about American willingness to intervene in WWII.

This has nothing to do with reparations and the peace treaty, whole other issue. But Germany fires first. Period.

 

[yerm]

Unlike the union or ww2 americans, the german empire is absolutely not in a position of financial and industrial superiority and just needs to wag the populace into militarizing it. They are a militarized state who needs to avoid losing the support of the populace for said military. Baiting the other side into shooting first and claiming the moral high ground for it does nothing for them when what follows is their vastly larger combined opponents grinds their military into defeat.

If your point was to argue that Russia mobilizing was bait to entice Germany towards national suicide through starting a war... it sure backfired hard on them.

 

[Easy-Kill]

If your winning strategy depends on you being faster than your neighboring enemy at mobilizing, and said neighbor starts mobilizing, then war becomes a reality very fast. Again I'm not defending Germany's actions I'm trying to put them into context for you and show you that to the Germans, Russian mobilization is defacto a war declaration.

This is true if you view Germany as the one being provided into conflict. What about if you are Russia and you know that your only chance of not losing spectacularly rests on being able to start mobilising way ahead of the opposition, because you know it takes you so long to do so.

And what if you appreciate the delicacy and offer to your antagonist that you won't mobilise troops onto their border, but they tell you to jog on anyway.

It takes a brave man to back down - for all Kruschev's faults he was the one to see that Russia needed to back down during the Cuban missile crisis. He trusted that if he didn't provoke the US, there wouldn't be war. Germany wern't so Brave ... At Every opportunity they were active in provoking the conflict, right up to the point that they invaded Belgium, right up to the point they refused to withdraw.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This is true if you view Germany as the one being provided into conflict. What about if you are Russia and you know that your only chance of not losing spectacularly rests on being able to start mobilising way ahead of the opposition, because you know it takes you so long to do so.

This wouldnt make the act of mobilizing less aggressive since noone knows what they do with that mobilized army.

I certainly dont absolve Imperial Germany and their stupid mobilize into Belgium approach without alternatives but to absolve Russia for mobilizing in such a crisis is also absurd.


Also American civil war or Cuba crisis analogies fall flat on their face.
Different time, different enviroment and in the case of the Cuba crisis calm heads as statesmen and the US civil war was a friggin civil war. I ponder if Lincoln would have been so calm if the British build up an army in Canada.

A more correct analogy would be the Soviets mobilize during the Cuban crisis and move their armies towards the borders.

 

[IsadorBG]

The amount of Austro-German apologism in this forum will never cease to amaze me. And it really get tiresome to repeat the same facts over and over again.

But since someone has to do it... .

If Russia is to blame for mobilizing then what of Austria, please ? They are the one who mobilized first with the clear intent to invade Serbia an ally of Russia.

Isn't that a clear sign of "Hostility". Also may I remind that this was only a partial mobilization and that the full process was only engaged after Austria declaration of war on Serbia?

To those that would like to say that Austrian hostility against Serbia was warranted and that Russia is to blame for defending their ally I humbly invite them to read the OP and also like to inform them that Russia pressured the Serbian government to accept the Austrian ultimatum to avoid war which Serbia did accept to avoid war but for one demand.

That after Austria did declare war on Serbia, Russian diplomats obtained from the Serbian government full acceptance of the Austrian demands as a last effort for peace.

Then respected posters please explain why did Austria and Germany did not stop with their "Hostility". Why with their ultimatum now accepted, Austria got to occupy Serbia with their own military force and exert full retribution to whomever arbitrary "enemy" Austria deemed worthy to punished by them and all of this without shedding the blood of a single German all of this thanks to the doves in Moscow.

Why then having obtained literally all they demanded without bloodshed did they still pursue war against Russia and France ? Countries who did their utmost to preserve the peace and not rouse the as we know it so easily excitable Germanic temper. (since apparently this is an acceptable excuse for war let's forego the multitude act of aggression of the Austro-German in that whole thing amirite?)

If the only goal was to humiliate Serbia and maybe avenge the Archduke (which of course as demonstrated by OP is pure horse****) then why after achieving those goals, do they invade their neighbors ?

Now what I am about to say might be completely insane but I shall be brave enough to say it once again: MAAAYBE Germany and Austria actually wanted a war with France and Russia ?
I know that's completely crazy. Please do not report me!

And maybe they did all they could to get a reasonable excuse to sell to their population to go die in the Russian steppe and French plains because Russia dared to order a semi-mobilization (How dare they!)or whatever the propaganda sold to the common man.

I have to admit that German propaganda is impressive as it still works a century later.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This has nothing to do with reparations and the peace treaty, whole other issue. But Germany fires first. Period.

Then Australia is to blame. Australia fired the first shot in ww1.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

The amount of Austro-German apologism in this forum will never cease to amaze me. And it really get tiresome to repeat the same facts over and over again.

But since someone has to do it... .

If Russia is to blame for mobilizing then what of Austria, please ? They are the one who mobilized first with the clear intent to invade Serbia an ally of Russia.

Isn't that a clear sign of "Hostility". Also may I remind that this was only a partial mobilization and that the full process was only engaged after Austria declaration of war on Serbia?

To those that would like to say that Austrian hostility against Serbia was warranted and that Russia is to blame for defending their ally I humbly invite them to read the OP and also like to inform them that Russia pressured the Serbian government to accept the Austrian ultimatum to avoid war which Serbia did accept to avoid war but for one demand.

That after Austria did declare war on Serbia, Russian diplomats obtained from the Serbian government full acceptance of the Austrian demands as a last effort for peace.

Then respected posters please explain why did Austria and Germany did not stop with their "Hostility". Why with their ultimatum now accepted, Austria got to occupy Serbia with their own military force and exert full retribution to whomever arbitrary "enemy" Austria deemed worthy to punished by them and all of this without shedding the blood of a single German all of this thanks to the doves in Moscow.

Why then having obtained literally all they demanded without bloodshed did they still pursue war against Russia and France ? Countries who did their utmost to preserve the peace and not rouse the as we know it so easily excitable Germanic temper. (since apparently this is an acceptable excuse for war let's forego the multitude act of aggression of the Austro-German in that whole thing amirite?)

If the only goal was to humiliate Serbia and maybe avenge the Archduke (which of course as demonstrated by OP is pure horse****) then why after achieving those goals, do they invade their neighbors ?

Now what I am about to say might be completely insane but I shall be brave enough to say it once again: MAAAYBE Germany and Austria actually wanted a war with France and Russia ?
I know that's completely crazy. Please do not report me!

And maybe they did all they could to get a reasonable excuse to sell to their population to go die in the Russian steppe and French plains because Russia dared to order a semi-mobilization (How dare they!)or whatever the propaganda sold to the common man.

I have to admit that German propaganda is impressive as it still works a century later.

There was a nice and civil discussion going on, no one made ridiculous claims so far and then you came along.

 

[IsadorBG]

I am not going to mention names but someone said that Russia was baiting Germany to declare war by mobilizing and another implied that said mobilization was an acceptable reason for war as they were "aggressive".

I merely wanted to enlighten my fellow posters here of the numerous Russian efforts to de-escalate and achieve a non-violent solution to the crisis and the multiple oh so easily forgotten aggressive moves by Austro-German in that whole thing. I did not mention all of them but if you want I can provide more.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I would be surprised if it was not Denmarks fault somehow.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Then Australia is to blame. Australia fired the first shot in ww1.

You mean when the Australian port defenses fired on a (German) ship that tried to run customs and avoid the DOW?

The dates are correct but hardly an offensive operation.