10 interpretations of who started WW1

[alfred russel]

My answer is unchanged.  I think President Boehner feels he has to respond but is unwilling to go too far or else risk all out war with China.  I think a major bombing raid over various DPRK cites linked to the Kim family and the military will be hit, and then matters are over.  I also think China and ROK are given a quiet heads up to limit the risks of escalation, and to allow ROK to prepare for potential counter-attack.

There are some factors that are unknown here. If no allies will support us (South Korea, Japan), there is only so far we can go. But I think you are wrong--we wouldn't back off short of something that could pass for regime change.

[crazy canuck]

I think the polices he favored were the reason he was assassinated.

Why do you think that Raz?

The consensus version seems to be that he was a excellent target of opportunity for the Black Hand.  I am not sure that his private musings about wanting peace and forming a kind of United States of Austria were widely known. 

[jimmy olsen]

I think a more analogous comparison would be if Pakistan had backed the Afghan government after 9/11 (assume the ISI took Musharraf sometime before).

I have no doubt that nuclear power or not, there would have been war.

[Malthus]

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.

I don't think Austria-Hungary was evil so much as incompetent and divorced from reality.

That is easy to say with Hindsight.  But if you had said that at the time it is you who would have been accused of being divorced from reality.  A-H had been able to successfully bully Serbia when it annexed Bosnia in 1908.  Russia backed down and Serbia was forced to accept the annexation.  After the second Balken War Serbia was isolated from its one time allies in the Bulkan League and it may have seemed likely that Russia would back down once again.

Add to that the fact that Serbia had become the biggest threat to A-H.  You certainly would have been viewed as incompetent if you had suggested at that time not to take advantage of an opportunity to eliminate the threat.

A-H persisted in its course even when it was clear Russia wasn't backing down.

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

To say that A-H was having serious problems with its ethnic minorities would be an understatement. Assuming A-H had succeeded in absorbing Serbia, it would not take a genius to see that those problems would increase substantially. A-H had convinced itself that eliminating Serbia would ameliorate its internal problems with its ethnic minorities - but there was no reason to believe that this was in fact true.

All of this was known at the time, and said, by some observers.

[Malthus]

I think the US probably makes a retaliatory strike against North Korea but does no more.  China allows it to happen because it knows the US has to respond.

It is really hard to equate killing Franz Ferdinand to US assassinations. On the one hand, he was relatively powerless and waiting for the head of state to die, just as Joe Biden is.

But on the other hand, he had the potential to be the head of state and influence policy for decades, and in a way completely different than an alternate candidate. Biden and Obama have similar politics. The death of Obama would likely minimally impact government policy. The Civil Rights Act didn't end when Kennedy was assassinated, for example. But the policies that Franz Ferdinand was expected to try to implement were significantly different than what would otherwise be in place, and that in fact seems to be why he was killed. It is like killing Kennedy and getting Goldwater as a replacement.

The ironic thing was that by all accounts Franz Ferdinand, while unloved in his own country, was the one significant leader is A-H who was serious about not indulging in a ruinous war.

I think the polices he favored were the reason he was assassinated.

I think he was assasinated because of who he was, not what his policies were (which were not, as far as I know, widely known at the time).

[jimmy olsen]

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

If they had actually positioned the majority of forces against Russia, while leaving just enough on the Serbian border to hold them in place so they could be dealt with later, instead of dividing the nation's forces and invading Serbia in force they would have been much better off and Russia would likely have collapsed a good six months earlier.

[Valmy]

To say that A-H was having serious problems with its ethnic minorities would be an understatement. Assuming A-H had succeeded in absorbing Serbia, it would not take a genius to see that those problems would increase substantially. A-H had convinced itself that eliminating Serbia would ameliorate its internal problems with its ethnic minorities - but there was no reason to believe that this was in fact true.

All of this was known at the time, and said, by some observers.

In fact Hungary demanded Austria promise they would not annex any more Slav territories as a requirement for them to support the war.

[alfred russel]

I think a more analogous comparison would be if Pakistan had backed the Afghan government after 9/11 (assume the ISI took Musharraf sometime before).

I have no doubt that nuclear power or not, there would have been war.

Tim, Pakistan is not a world power. We bomb stuff in their country with some regularity and they don't do crap about it.

They also have some geopolitical problems that would seriously challenge them if they ever engaged the US.

[Valmy]

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

If they had actually positioned the majority of forces against Russia, while leaving just enough on the Serbian border to hold them in place so they could be dealt with later, instead of dividing the nation's forces and invading Serbia in force they would have been much better off and Russia would likely have collapsed a good six months earlier.

Austria-Hungary's warplanes were completely insane and horrified the Germans.  Attacking both Russia and Serbia at once?  And of course the almost criminal mismanagement of the Second Army.

[Barrister]

My answer is unchanged.  I think President Boehner feels he has to respond but is unwilling to go too far or else risk all out war with China.  I think a major bombing raid over various DPRK cites linked to the Kim family and the military will be hit, and then matters are over.  I also think China and ROK are given a quiet heads up to limit the risks of escalation, and to allow ROK to prepare for potential counter-attack.

There are some factors that are unknown here. If no allies will support us (South Korea, Japan), there is only so far we can go. But I think you are wrong--we wouldn't back off short of something that could pass for regime change.

Really?  You're going to risk WWIII with China over an Obama being assassinated (and remember this is President Boehner we're talking about)?

[Malthus]

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

If they had actually positioned the majority of forces against Russia, while leaving just enough on the Serbian border to hold them in place so they could be dealt with later, instead of dividing the nation's forces and invading Serbia in force they would have been much better off and Russia would likely have collapsed a good six months earlier.

Austria-Hungary's warplanes were completely insane and horrified the Germans.  Attacking both Russia and Serbia at once?  And of course the almost criminal mismanagement of the Second Army.

This is true, but even assuming its plans were sensible and its generals competent, the material they had to work with was none the best - it is tough for a multi-ethnic empire dominated by Germans to inspire its part-Slav army with great ethusiasm for crushing the Slav menace. Plus ill-trained, ill-equipped, etc.

[crazy canuck]

-H persisted in its course even when it was clear Russia wasn't backing down.

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

To say that A-H was having serious problems with its ethnic minorities would be an understatement. Assuming A-H had succeeded in absorbing Serbia, it would not take a genius to see that those problems would increase substantially. A-H had convinced itself that eliminating Serbia would ameliorate its internal problems with its ethnic minorities - but there was no reason to believe that this was in fact true.

All of this was known at the time, and said, by some observers.

Some hindsight at work here as well.  Your theory that it was "known" that absorbing ethic minorities would increase their problems substantially is not consistent with the most recent experience of absorbing Bosnia.  That was considered to be a positive thing by A-H at the time.  The Arch Duke was definitely in the minority in his views, as you have already pointed out.

Your view that A-H was in no position to fight Serbia is also hindsight.  At the outbreak of the war A-H was better armed and Serbia had just fought two bloody wars.  At the time A-H thought it would win a quick victory.  If "it was known" that A-H stood no chance against Serbia A-H would hardly have been spoiling for a fight.

[The Brain]

The army of A-H was in no condition to fight a major war, even against Serbia, let alone as part of a great power coallition against Russia.

If they had actually positioned the majority of forces against Russia, while leaving just enough on the Serbian border to hold them in place so they could be dealt with later, instead of dividing the nation's forces and invading Serbia in force they would have been much better off and Russia would likely have collapsed a good six months earlier.

Austria-Hungary's warplanes were completely insane and horrified the Germans. 

[Ide] [/Ide]

[alfred russel]

Really?  You're going to risk WWIII with China over an Obama being assassinated (and remember this is President Boehner we're talking about)?

We fought China in Korea before without nuclear exchanges.

You are asking my opinion on what would happen. I brought up China backing Afghanistan after 9/11 just because we all probably remember the atmosphere at the time. I realize China had no reason to do it, but if China has said, "We aren't going to let you invade a neighboring country because of what happened" I think we still go.

[jimmy olsen]

I think a more analogous comparison would be if Pakistan had backed the Afghan government after 9/11 (assume the ISI took Musharraf sometime before).

I have no doubt that nuclear power or not, there would have been war.

Tim, Pakistan is not a world power. We bomb stuff in their country with some regularity and they don't do crap about it.

They also have some geopolitical problems that would seriously challenge them if they ever engaged the US.

We bomb tribal settlements on the Afghan border. That's a completely  different thing than bombing Pakistani army, air and naval bases.