10 interpretations of who started WW1

[The Minsky Moment]

Serbia had been fomenting terrorism in Austria-Hungary for decades, and the highest levels of the Serbian military intelligence had just conspired to murder the Austrian heir. Even if that's not considered a de facto declaration of war, why would Austria be willing to trust the Serbian government's investigation into the assassination? The Serbian government had just acquiesced in/conspired to the murder. Why should Russia's support for this terrorist state be thought inevitable and/or unworthy of reproach? The Tsar's government decided to go to war to save a terrorist state (a scenario France had beforehand specifically agreed would trigger the alliance); it was this action and Russian mobilization that directly caused the world war.

You are confusing "bad" and "worthy of reproach" with acting deliberately or recklessly to trigger a global conflict.
A terrorist act in the Balkans while unfortunate was hardly an unusual or unexpected event.  It should not in itself have triggered world war.  And given the concessions Serbia was prepared to make in response, it really should not have. 

[Valmy]

And I'm still laughing from when Sheilbh told me that no one took the "German guilt" myth seriously anymore. 

The myth is that Germany was bent on conquering the world on a road paved with the bloated corpses of Belgian children.  The role that Germany played in starting the war is no myth but based on actual historical evidence.

[Valmy]

You are confusing "bad" and "worthy of reproach" with acting deliberately or recklessly to trigger a global conflict.
A terrorist act in the Balkans while unfortunate was hardly an unusual or unexpected event.  It should not in itself have triggered world war.  And given the concessions Serbia was prepared to make in response, it really should not have. 

Yep.  I also object to the characterization of Serbia as a terrorist state.  It certainly had a murderous clique of military officers (who, IIRC had actually assassinated the King of Serbia a few years before) but it was not like the Prime Minister and King were secretly training terrorist groups and sending them abroad.

[Sheilbh]

Yep.  I also object to the characterization of Serbia as a terrorist state.  It certainly had a murderous clique of military officers (who, IIRC had actually assassinated the King of Serbia a few years before) but it was not like the Prime Minister and King were secretly training terrorist groups and sending them abroad.

No, but the head of military intelligence was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Dimitrijevi%C4%87

And Serbia was an aggressively expansionist in their goals, they tried to destabilise all of their neighbours in the hope of grabbing more land.

[The Brain]

Valmy also doesn't believe that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

[Valmy]

No, but the head of military intelligence was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Dimitrijevi%C4%87

And Serbia was an aggressively expansionist in their goals, they tried to destabilise all of their neighbours in the hope of grabbing more land.

Yeah that guy being the head of the murderous clique of generals I was referring to, he had an impressive list of victims that included many people in the Serbian government including the last King.  And yes they were very destabilizing, their victories in the Balkan Wars had them very dangerous due to their prestige and due to their popularity amongst other Southern Slavs.  But likewise Serbia agreeing to a humiliating set of demands by Austria-Hungary, and the assassination itself doing tons of damage to their stature amongst many Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they could have been defanged.

[Berkut]

Serbia had been fomenting terrorism in Austria-Hungary for decades, and the highest levels of the Serbian military intelligence had just conspired to murder the Austrian heir. Even if that's not considered a de facto declaration of war, why would Austria be willing to trust the Serbian government's investigation into the assassination? The Serbian government had just acquiesced in/conspired to the murder. Why should Russia's support for this terrorist state be thought inevitable and/or unworthy of reproach? The Tsar's government decided to go to war to save a terrorist state (a scenario France had beforehand specifically agreed would trigger the alliance); it was this action and Russian mobilization that directly caused the world war.

To the extent that any of this is true (and my understanding is that the involvement of the Serb state in the assassination is still pretty much unknown) it certainly was not known at the time.

So arguing that A-H had no choice but to make demands of Serbia A-H certainly DID know they could not possibly meet is rather disingenuous.

[grumbler]

The choice is really between German stupidity and German malice/greed (all referring to the leaders/decision makers, of course). Either the Germans did not know that they were committed, or they did but thought the game was worth the risk.

In any event, there is very little any of the other powers could do to prevent war, without basically capitulating to unacceptable outcomes. Russia could have stood by and let Serbia be crushed I suppose, but there was nothing France or the UK could reasonably have done to stop the war.

In contrast, Austria could have stopped the war by being more reasonable with Serbia, and Germany could have stopped the war by not backing Austria up with its aggressions. 

I don't think that we can completely dismiss Russian stupidity.  Russia may have been so committed to a murderous, moronic and unstable regime in Serbia that they couldn't back down without losing face, but they were certainly in no worse position in that regard than AH was. There wouldn't have been a general war without Russia's intervention, and Russia's interests in Serbia were purely selfish ones.

That isn't to say that I blame the Russian leaders the most; I'd divide the blame about 30% AH, 25% Russia, 20% Germany, 15% Serbia (not higher, because I don't think that they were rational enough to be fully responsible for their actions) and maybe 10% France (for funding a dangerously aggressive Russian railroad scheme and encouraging Russian intransigence regarding the Balkans).  If Britain shared any blame, it would have been for not making it clear to Germany that Britain wouldn't stand by in the case of a general war on the Continent.  I regard that as a serious British mistake, but not an (in)action for which they can be blamed.

[Razgovory]

Serbia had been fomenting terrorism in Austria-Hungary for decades, and the highest levels of the Serbian military intelligence had just conspired to murder the Austrian heir. Even if that's not considered a de facto declaration of war, why would Austria be willing to trust the Serbian government's investigation into the assassination? The Serbian government had just acquiesced in/conspired to the murder. Why should Russia's support for this terrorist state be thought inevitable and/or unworthy of reproach? The Tsar's government decided to go to war to save a terrorist state (a scenario France had beforehand specifically agreed would trigger the alliance); it was this action and Russian mobilization that directly caused the world war.

You are confusing "bad" and "worthy of reproach" with acting deliberately or recklessly to trigger a global conflict.
A terrorist act in the Balkans while unfortunate was hardly an unusual or unexpected event.  It should not in itself have triggered world war.  And given the concessions Serbia was prepared to make in response, it really should not have.

It seems to me that assassinating the heir to the throne is more then just another terrorist attack.  It's not like blowing up a post office somewhere.  The situation seems similar to the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Afghanistan.

[Kleves]

To the extent that any of this is true (and my understanding is that the involvement of the Serb state in the assassination is still pretty much unknown) it certainly was not known at the time.

So arguing that A-H had no choice but to make demands of Serbia A-H certainly DID know they could not possibly meet is rather disingenuous.

The A-H government knew there was some involvement by the Serbian government pretty quickly; their ultimatum called for the arrest of a couple of them.

[Barrister]

Serbia had been fomenting terrorism in Austria-Hungary for decades, and the highest levels of the Serbian military intelligence had just conspired to murder the Austrian heir. Even if that's not considered a de facto declaration of war, why would Austria be willing to trust the Serbian government's investigation into the assassination? The Serbian government had just acquiesced in/conspired to the murder. Why should Russia's support for this terrorist state be thought inevitable and/or unworthy of reproach? The Tsar's government decided to go to war to save a terrorist state (a scenario France had beforehand specifically agreed would trigger the alliance); it was this action and Russian mobilization that directly caused the world war.

You are confusing "bad" and "worthy of reproach" with acting deliberately or recklessly to trigger a global conflict.
A terrorist act in the Balkans while unfortunate was hardly an unusual or unexpected event.  It should not in itself have triggered world war.  And given the concessions Serbia was prepared to make in response, it really should not have.

It seems to me that assassinating the heir to the throne is more then just another terrorist attack.  It's not like blowing up a post office somewhere.  The situation seems similar to the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Two things - late 19th - early 20th century there were a whole hell of a lot of bombings and terrorist activity going on.  They were a hell of a lot more desensitized to it.

Also - the US invaded Afghanistan because there was no great power to stop them (hell the Russians even gave them some assistance).  Back when Cuba was trying to forment revolution all over the place the US did not invade, because that would've risked war with the USSR.

[Syt]

The choice is really between German stupidity and German malice/greed (all referring to the leaders/decision makers, of course). Either the Germans did not know that they were committed, or they did but thought the game was worth the risk.

In any event, there is very little any of the other powers could do to prevent war, without basically capitulating to unacceptable outcomes. Russia could have stood by and let Serbia be crushed I suppose, but there was nothing France or the UK could reasonably have done to stop the war.

In contrast, Austria could have stopped the war by being more reasonable with Serbia, and Germany could have stopped the war by not backing Austria up with its aggressions.

I generally agree, but that Austria-Hungary dragged their feet for a month in their reaction to the assassination probably didn't help things. Conrad called for mobilization against Serbia almost immediately, but instead of a decisive action (anything - for or against war) there was a lot of hemming and hawing among the torn government, and waiting for German approval.

[alfred russel]

That isn't to say that I blame the Russian leaders the most; I'd divide the blame about 30% AH, 25% Russia, 20% Germany, 15% Serbia (not higher, because I don't think that they were rational enough to be fully responsible for their actions) and maybe 10% France (for funding a dangerously aggressive Russian railroad scheme and encouraging Russian intransigence regarding the Balkans).  If Britain shared any blame, it would have been for not making it clear to Germany that Britain wouldn't stand by in the case of a general war on the Continent.  I regard that as a serious British mistake, but not an (in)action for which they can be blamed.

That seems fair.

[Neil]

The stream of anarchist bombings in the 19th and 20th centuries generally weren't state-backed attempts to destabilize and destroy another state though.  The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a different kettle of fish.  If a terror group organized by the Revolutionary Guard assassinated the US VP, Iran would be getting bombed post-haste.

[grumbler]

I generally agree, but that Austria-Hungary dragged their feet for a month in their reaction to the assassination probably didn't help things. Conrad called for mobilization against Serbia almost immediately, but instead of a decisive action (anything - for or against war) there was a lot of hemming and hawing among the torn government, and waiting for German approval.

A good part of the delay was because the Emperor was off on vacation at his mountain chateaux, and decisions had to be hand-carried to him for ratification.