10 interpretations of who started WW1

[alfred russel]

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.

I think that in the case of the 9/11 bombings, depending on how it would have played out, we may very well have gone to war even if a great power (say China) backed up Afghanistan. However, if we are going to stick with a 9/11 comparison, what happened would have been somewhat similar to the US invading Afghanistan after Afghanistan agreed to turn over Bin Laden.

[Malthus]

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.

There is no question that "Apis" supported terrorism. But there most certainly are two very relevant questions:

1. To what extent was "Apis" acting with support of the actual Serbian state; and

2. To what extent did "Apis" actually know what the terrorists were intending.

Remember, that quite staggering levels of Austrian security incompetence, and plain bad luck and bad judgment, were necessary for the heir to die that day. It was hardly a smooth, well-thought-out plan by the Serbian government. More like the Black Hand handing over some guns to Serbian hotheads. It certainly did not necessarily amount to a de facto declaration of war. Obviously it was very embarrasing and compromising for Serbia, and rightly would lead to Austria making some demands - but choosing to regard it as an excuse to demand surrender of the state? That was totally unreasonable. Anarchist and fanatic outrages were common at the time, and it most certainly was not known at the time what, if any, direct knowlegeable involvement the Serbian state had (it still isn't).

I can't pin the blame for this on Russia - sure they could have acquiesced, but they certainly were not obliged to do so because Serbia was clearly in the wrong on this. A-H was squarely in the wrong, for making demands that went well beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances - indeed both expecting and wanting Serbia to reject them, so as to pave the way for war.

Sure, Serbia was an unpleasant expansionist state, but that does not excuse A-H's actions. 

[jimmy olsen]

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.

I think that in the case of the 9/11 bombings, depending on how it would have played out, we may very well have gone to war even if a great power (say China) backed up Afghanistan. However, if we are going to stick with a 9/11 comparison, what happened would have been somewhat similar to the US invading Afghanistan after Afghanistan agreed to turn over Bin Laden.

Don't see why China would have gotten involved. I could see a scenario where we went to war with Pakistan over it though.

[Malthus]

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.

What if after the 9/11 attacks the US presented a list of demands to Afganistan - including that they hand over Bin Laden and anyone else involved, and that they allow the US to send its officials in to arrest whom they wanted in the country - and Afganistan agreed to them all except the last one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia

[alfred russel]

What if after the 9/11 attacks the US presented a list of demands to Afganistan - including that they hand over Bin Laden and anyone else involved, and that they allow the US to send its officials in to arrest whom they wanted in the country - and Afganistan agreed to them all except the last one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia

I think the demands list was another of a long list of mistakes leading to the war. It was made so that it really couldn't be accepted by Serbia. However, while Serbia didn't accept all of it, they actually far more than Austro-Hungary ever thought they would. I doubt it made a difference, but that gave Russia another reason not to back down--the ultimatum allowed Serbia to appear it was bending way over backwards to be conciliatory. (and allowed Malthus to be making the argument he is now)

[The Brain]

If I were a Jew I wouldn't blame the victim.

[garbon]

What if after the 9/11 attacks the US presented a list of demands to Afganistan - including that they hand over Bin Laden and anyone else involved, and that they allow the US to send its officials in to arrest whom they wanted in the country - and Afganistan agreed to them all except the last one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia

Well it looks like we did make demands to the Taliban and they did make counter offer(s) that we rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#The_case_for_war

The State Department, in a memo dated 14 September, demanded that the Taliban surrender all known al-Qaeda associates in Afghanistan, provide intelligence on him and his affiliates and expel all terrorists from Afghanistan.[86] On 18 September, the director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, Mahmud Ahmed conveyed these demands to Mullah Omar and the senior Taliban leadership, whose response was "not negative on all points"

As one bit and then rest of that section has where we basically refused to negotiate.

[garbon]

What if after the 9/11 attacks the US presented a list of demands to Afganistan - including that they hand over Bin Laden and anyone else involved, and that they allow the US to send its officials in to arrest whom they wanted in the country - and Afganistan agreed to them all except the last one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia

I think the demands list was another of a long list of mistakes leading to the war. It was made so that it really couldn't be accepted by Serbia. However, while Serbia didn't accept all of it, they actually far more than Austro-Hungary ever thought they would. I doubt it made a difference, but that gave Russia another reason not to back down--the ultimatum allowed Serbia to appear it was bending way over backwards to be conciliatory. (and allowed Malthus to be making the argument he is now)

They only agreed because they felt they had no other option (Russia wasn't declaring to stand for them yet). Seems to me that it was unlikely Serbia would actually fully comply with all but that one point.

[Valmy]

They only agreed because they felt they had no other option (Russia wasn't declaring to stand for them yet). Seems to me that it was unlikely Serbia would actually fully comply with all but that one point.

Russia really did not want to fight the war.  If Austria-Hungary had accepted the offer I doubt they would have done so anyway.  How could Serbia have gotten away with it?  What trump card were they going to play?

[Malthus]

What if after the 9/11 attacks the US presented a list of demands to Afganistan - including that they hand over Bin Laden and anyone else involved, and that they allow the US to send its officials in to arrest whom they wanted in the country - and Afganistan agreed to them all except the last one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Content_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_ultimatum_to_Serbia

I think the demands list was another of a long list of mistakes leading to the war. It was made so that it really couldn't be accepted by Serbia. However, while Serbia didn't accept all of it, they actually far more than Austro-Hungary ever thought they would. I doubt it made a difference, but that gave Russia another reason not to back down--the ultimatum allowed Serbia to appear it was bending way over backwards to be conciliatory. (and allowed Malthus to be making the argument he is now)

Well, that, and that the Austrians (1) refused to extend the 48 hour deadline, and (2) refused to let the Russians see what actual evidence they had of Serbian complicity (because, at that time, they basically had none).

Essentially, those arguing that Russia should have acquiesed in A-H crushing Serbia, are arguing that Russia should have taken A-H's word that Serbia was responsible (a point that is, in fact, still controversial to this day). Why, exactly, should Russia have believed them, when it was clear A-H was milking the crisis as an excuse to crush those troublesome Serbs and absorb their country?

Again, a more reasonable response from A-H would have made it much more difficult for Russia to intervene - but then, a more reasonable A-H, and there would have been no war.

[alfred russel]

They only agreed because they felt they had no other option (Russia wasn't declaring to stand for them yet). Seems to me that it was unlikely Serbia would actually fully comply with all but that one point.

Which is just another reason not to give them a list like that--if their word means nothing, they can just say whatever is to their advantage (up to the point of follow through of course).

[garbon]

They only agreed because they felt they had no other option (Russia wasn't declaring to stand for them yet). Seems to me that it was unlikely Serbia would actually fully comply with all but that one point.

Russia really did not want to fight the war.  If Austria-Hungary had accepted the offer I doubt they would have done so anyway.  How could Serbia have gotten away with it?  What trump card were they going to play?

Just buying time really. After all, given those demands it wouldn't be impossible to be really slow about them and/or eventually fail to live up to all of them.

[garbon]

They only agreed because they felt they had no other option (Russia wasn't declaring to stand for them yet). Seems to me that it was unlikely Serbia would actually fully comply with all but that one point.

Which is just another reason not to give them a list like that--if their word means nothing, they can just say whatever is to their advantage (up to the point of follow through of course).

Oh I agree the list if foolish. Just countering the Malthus/Valmy contention about how Serbia was already agreeing - as if Serbia's word was money in the bank.

[Valmy]

Just buying time really. After all, given those demands it wouldn't be impossible to be really slow about them and/or eventually fail to live up to all of them.

If that is the case why not just accept all of them?

[The Brain]

Why is it so important for some people to defend Serbia's actions? Why do they think it was OK for Serbia to send death squads to assassinate VIPs in a different country, but A-H being less than perfection in the way it responded is worse than Hitler? I'm guessing childhood trauma and/or deficient skull shape.