10 interpretations of who started WW1

[crazy canuck]

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.

Did China have the ability to hit the US mainland with Nukes 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.

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.

They fought well enough. If the plans had been sensible the chance of a Central Power victory goes up substantially.

[alfred russel]

Did China have the ability to hit the US mainland with Nukes at the time?

Why do we keep all these fancy jet fighters, tanks, and stealth bombers if we aren't willing to contemplate a war against a major power?

[crazy canuck]

Did China have the ability to hit the US mainland with Nukes at the time?

Why do we keep all these fancy jet fighters, tanks, and stealth bombers if we aren't willing to contemplate a war against a major power?

I think you missed the point.  The reason the US was able to fight a war with China in Korea without a nuclear exchange is because one side lacked the technical ability to engage in such an exchange and the other side lacked the political will (correctly in my view) to carry out nuclear strikes.

To the point you raised, the stated reason you say you have all those fancy weapons systems is to preserve peace.  i'd like to think that is true.  Your critics say otherwise - best not to arm them with evidence to support their views.

[Barrister]

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.

BECAUSE CHINA HAD NO NUKES AT THE TIME!

I mean - sheesh.  Besides, in 1950 we didn't think the Chinese would intervene at all - they were still recovering from the Chinese Civil War and WWII after all.

Even if China said "do not interfere in Afghanistan", it's hard to see what they'd do.  They had no ties to the Taliban.  Indeed they have their own problems with Muslim separatist movements.

[Malthus]

-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.

Some circular reasoning here - your evidence that A-H wasn't committing folly (except from the unfair point of view of hindsight) is that they were spoiling to commit the folly. By that standard, no-one ever commits folly.

The issue is not that A-H had "no chance" against Serbia, but that their army was in no shape to fight without risking disasterous losses, and that even if they won the war they would still have ongoing serious problems.

The A-H monarchy applauded the absorbtion of Bosnia because it boosted their status as a great power, not because it was good for the stability of the empire. The assassination of Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the capital of the A-H province of Bosnia, was perhaps a clue that it wasn't.   

[Valmy]

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.

No it wasn't.  As I said the Hungarians were adamant: no more Slavs.

Your view that A-H was in no position to fight Serbia is also hindsight.

That is true but what was known was that Austria-Hungary in general had serious problems.  The belief by von Hötzendorf that a war would re-energize Austria-Hungary and that is what it needed was pretty insane, I don't think many people in Austria-Hungary shared that belief.  Unfortunately he was one of the people deciding its fate.

[Razgovory]

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.

As I understand it his opinions were well know, particularly about giving minorities more autonomy to minorities.  That would be a serious threat to the birth of a South Slav Kingdom as advocated by the Serbs.

[alfred russel]

BECAUSE CHINA HAD NO NUKES AT THE TIME!

I have to think that one side having nukes makes nuke use more likely than two sides having nukes.

The same factors that kept the US from using nukes in the first Korean War would be there in a second, plus deterrance from Chinese nukes.

The same goes for China today, plus the fact they would be insane to fire nukes first, considering the US has far more nuclear capability than they do.

[The Minsky Moment]

Austria-Hungary's warplans were brilliant.  Had they been carried out as designed, the entire Russian army would have collapsed into a haze of epistemological confusion.  Unfortunately, some mid-level bureaucrat in personnel screwed up and assigned Wittgenstein to rear area duties instead up the front as planned.  With only a few second rate logicians in place, Austria-Hungary lacked the philosophical fire-power to stop the Russians, armed to the teeth with staggering literary pretensions.  Luckily, in 1916, Wittgenstein was assigned to the front just to time to stop the Brusilov offensive in its tracks with a well-timed salvo of crushing sub-propositions.  Within months, the Russian army began to dissolve as existential doubt and dread spread throughout the ranks, eventually infecting the home front and paving the way for the Bolshevik takeover.

[alfred russel]

To the point you raised, the stated reason you say you have all those fancy weapons systems is to preserve peace.  i'd like to think that is true.  Your critics say otherwise - best not to arm them with evidence to support their views.

Right, but the situation raised (by BB) presupposes that the peace has been broken. Those fancy systems only preserve the peace if there is an actual will to use them in such events. Otherwise, we could save money by tricking people into thinking paper mache copies were the real thing.

[crazy canuck]

Some circular reasoning here - your evidence that A-H wasn't committing folly

Now you are changing the goal posts.  I am not arguing that objectively what the A-H did was wise.  We now know what they did was folly.  I am arguing that at the time A-H beleived that they could win a war against Serbia (and quickly) based on a number of factors I have already identified.

Its easy to say that if you have been there at that time and place you could easily have told them that what they were about to do was folly.  But that is all hinsight.  If any of us were place in any of the capitals (with the exceptions of France and Britain who did really have any choice in the matter) we could think of all kinds of alt history ways to avoid the war.  Talking A-H out of playing hardball with Serbia is the easiest most direct route.  But that, again, is hindsight.

[Barrister]

To the point you raised, the stated reason you say you have all those fancy weapons systems is to preserve peace.  i'd like to think that is true.  Your critics say otherwise - best not to arm them with evidence to support their views.

Right, but the situation raised (by BB) presupposes that the peace has been broken. Those fancy systems only preserve the peace if there is an actual will to use them in such events. Otherwise, we could save money by tricking people into thinking paper mache copies were the real thing.

Since 1945 the US has become a master at using it's military might in only limited means.  From sending STUXNET to Iran, to bombing Libya in the 1980s, bombing Serbia in the 90s, supporting various coups or opposition groups... The US has multiple means of responding, and even using its "fancy weapons systems", without resorting to full scale "boots on the ground" war.

[crazy canuck]

That is true but what was known was that Austria-Hungary in general had serious problems.  The belief by von Hötzendorf that a war would re-energize Austria-Hungary and that is what it needed was pretty insane, I don't think many people in Austria-Hungary shared that belief.  Unfortunately he was one of the people deciding its fate.

Unfortunately not only was that kind of view wide spread but it was also shared by leaders in all the major powers in relation to their own populace with the possible exclusion of Britan.  Your view that it is insane silliness is, with hindsight, completely correct.  But again it is with hindsight.  at the time people believed that what a country really needed was a good war - they did not understand the destructive power of the new weapons of the age.

[Razgovory]

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)?

Yes.  It's a serious attack not just some slight.  The US should go to war over something like that.  One of things that keeps the peace is the knowledge that states will fight if sufficiently provoked.  There should be no ambiguity on whether the US would respond, if there is it only invites further and worse attacks.  It's similar to the principle that the US would kill millions of people if the Soviet army founded itself in the wrong neighborhood of Berlin.