Languish.org

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324?ocid=socialflow_facebook

QuoteWorld War One: 10 interpretations of who started WW1

As nations gear up to mark 100 years since the start of World War One, academic argument still rages over which country was to blame for the conflict.

Education Secretary for England Michael Gove's recent criticism of how the causes and consequences of the war are taught in schools has only stoked the debate further.

Here 10 leading historians give their opinion.

Sir Max Hastings - military historian

Germany

No one nation deserves all responsibility for the outbreak of war, but Germany seems to me to deserve most.

It alone had power to halt the descent to disaster at any time in July 1914 by withdrawing its "blank cheque" which offered support to Austria for its invasion of Serbia.

I'm afraid I am unconvinced by the argument that Serbia was a rogue state which deserved its nemesis at Austria's hands. And I do not believe Russia wanted a European war in 1914 - its leaders knew that it would have been in a far stronger position to fight two years later, having completed its rearmament programme.

The question of whether Britain was obliged to join the European conflict which became inevitable by 1 August is almost a separate issue. In my own view neutrality was not a credible option because a Germany victorious on the continent would never afterwards have accommodated a Britain which still dominated the oceans and global financial system.

Sir Richard J Evans - Regius professor of history, University of Cambridge

Serbia

Serbia bore the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of WW1. Serbian nationalism and expansionism were profoundly disruptive forces and Serbian backing for the Black Hand terrorists was extraordinarily irresponsible. Austria-Hungary bore only slightly less responsibility for its panic over-reaction to the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne.

France encouraged Russia's aggressiveness towards Austria-Hungary and Germany encouraged Austrian intransigence. Britain failed to mediate as it had done in the previous Balkan crisis out of fear of Germany's European and global ambitions - a fear that was not entirely rational since Britain had clearly won the naval arms race by 1910.

The generally positive attitude of European statesmen towards war, based on notions of honour, expectations of a swift victory, and ideas of social Darwinism, was perhaps the most important conditioning factor. It is very important to look at the outbreak of the war in the round and to avoid reading back later developments - the German September Programme for example (an early statement of their war aims) - into the events of July-August 1914.

Dr Heather Jones - associate professor in international history, LSE

Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia

A handful of bellicose political and military decision-makers in Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia caused WW1.

Relatively common before 1914, assassinations of royal figures did not normally result in war. But Austria-Hungary's military hawks - principal culprits for the conflict - saw the Sarajevo assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Bosnian Serb as an excuse to conquer and destroy Serbia, an unstable neighbour which sought to expand beyond its borders into Austro-Hungarian territories. Serbia, exhausted by the two Balkan wars of 1912-13 in which it had played a major role, did not want war in 1914.

Broader European war ensued because German political and military figures egged on Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, to attack Serbia. This alarmed Russia, Serbia's supporter, which put its armies on a war footing before all options for peace had been fully exhausted.

This frightened Germany into pre-emptively declaring war on Russia and on Russia's ally France and launching a brutal invasion, partly via Belgium, thereby bringing in Britain, a defender of Belgian neutrality and supporter of France.

John Rohl - emeritus professor of history, University of Sussex

Austria-Hungary and Germany

WW1 did not break out by accident or because diplomacy failed. It broke out as the result of a conspiracy between the governments of imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary to bring about war, albeit in the hope that Britain would stay out.

After 25 years of domination by Kaiser Wilhelm II with his angry, autocratic and militaristic personality, his belief in the clairvoyance of all crowned heads, his disdain for diplomats and his conviction that his Germanic God had predestined him to lead his country to greatness, the 20 or so men he had appointed to decide the policy of the Reich opted for war in 1914 in what they deemed to be favourable circumstances.

Germany's military and naval leaders, the predominant influence at court, shared a devil-may-care militarism that held war to be inevitable, time to be running out, and - like their Austrian counterparts - believed it would be better to go down fighting than to go on tolerating what they regarded as the humiliating status quo. In the spring of 1914, this small group of men in Berlin decided to make "the leap into the dark" which they knew their support for an Austrian attack on Serbia would almost certainly entail.

The fine-tuning of the crisis was left to the civilian chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, whose primary aim was to subvert diplomatic intervention in order to begin the war under the most favourable conditions possible. In particular, he wanted to convince his own people that Germany was under attack and to keep Britain out of the conflict.

Gerhard Hirschfeld - professor of modern and contemporary history, University of Stuttgart

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

Long before the outbreak of hostilities Prussian-German conservative elites were convinced that a European war would help to fulfil Germany's ambitions for colonies and for military as well as political prestige in the world.

The actual decision to go to war over a relatively minor international crisis like the Sarajevo murder, however, resulted from a fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states.

In contrast to the historian Fritz Fischer who saw German war aims - in particular the infamous September Programme of 1914 with its far-reaching economic and territorial demands - at the core of the German government's decision to go to war, most historians nowadays dismiss this interpretation as being far too narrow. They tend to place German war aims, or incidentally all other belligerent nations' war aims, in the context of military events and political developments during the war.

Dr Annika Mombauer - The Open University

Austria-Hungary and Germany

Whole libraries have been filled with the riddle of 1914. Was the war an accident or design, inevitable or planned, caused by sleepwalkers or arsonists? To my mind the war was no accident and it could have been avoided in July 1914. In Vienna the government and military leaders wanted a war against Serbia. The immediate reaction to the murder of Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 was to seek redress from Serbia, which was thought to have been behind the assassination plot and which had been threatening Austria-Hungary's standing in the Balkans for some time. Crucially, a diplomatic victory was considered worthless and "odious". At the beginning of July, Austria's decision-makers chose war.

But in order to implement their war against Serbia they needed support from their main ally Germany. Without Germany, their decision to fight against Serbia could not have been implemented. The Berlin government issued a "blank cheque" to its ally, promising unconditional support and putting pressure on Vienna to seize this golden opportunity. Both governments knew it was almost certain that Russia would come to Serbia's aid and this would turn a local war into a European one, but they were willing to take this risk.

Germany's guarantee made it possible for Vienna to proceed with its plans - a "no" from Berlin would have stopped the crisis in its tracks. With some delay Vienna presented an ultimatum to Serbia on 23 July which was deliberately unacceptable. This was because Austria-Hungary was bent on a war and Germany encouraged it because the opportunity seemed perfect. Victory still seemed possible whereas in a few years' time Russia and France would have become invincible. Out of a mixture of desperation and over-confidence the decision-makers of Austria-Hungary and Germany unleashed a war to preserve and expand their empires. The war that ensued would be their downfall.

Sean McMeekin - assistant professor of history at Koc University, Istanbul

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

It is human nature to seek simple, satisfying answers, which is why the German war guilt thesis endures today.

Without Berlin's encouragement of a strong Austro-Hungarian line against Serbia after Sarajevo - the "blank cheque" - WW1 would clearly not have broken out. So Germany does bear responsibility.

But it is equally true that absent a terrorist plot launched in Belgrade the Germans and Austrians would not have faced this terrible choice. Civilian leaders in both Berlin and Vienna tried to "localise" conflict in the Balkans. It was Russia's decision - after Petersburg received its own "blank cheque" from Paris - to Europeanise the Austro-Serbian showdown which produced first a European and then - following Britain's entry - world conflagration. Russia, not Germany, mobilised first.

The resulting war, with France and Britain backing Serbia and Russia against two Central Powers, was Russia's desired outcome, not Germany's. Still, none of the powers can escape blame. All five Great Power belligerents, along with Serbia, unleashed Armageddon.

Prof Gary Sheffield - professor of war studies, University of Wolverhampton

Austria-Hungary and Germany

The war was started by the leaders of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Vienna seized the opportunity presented by the assassination of the archduke to attempt to destroy its Balkan rival Serbia. This was done in the full knowledge that Serbia's protector Russia was unlikely to stand by and this might lead to a general European war.

Germany gave Austria unconditional support in its actions, again fully aware of the likely consequences. Germany sought to break up the French-Russian alliance and was fully prepared to take the risk that this would bring about a major war. Some in the German elite welcomed the prospect of beginning an expansionist war of conquest. The response of Russia, France and later Britain were reactive and defensive.

The best that can be said of German and Austrian leaders in the July crisis is that they took criminal risks with world peace.

Dr Catriona Pennell - senior lecturer in history, University of Exeter

Austria-Hungary and Germany

In my opinion, it is the political and diplomatic decision-makers in Germany and Austria-Hungary who must carry the burden of responsibility for expanding a localised Balkan conflict into a European and, eventually, global war. Germany, suffering from something of a "younger child" complex in the family of European empires, saw an opportunity to reconfigure the balance of power in their favour via an aggressive war of conquest.

On 5 July 1914 it issued the "blank cheque" of unconditional support to the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire (trying to reassert its dominance over the rebellious Serbia), despite the likelihood of this sparking war with Russia, an ally of France and Great Britain. However, Austria-Hungary's actions should not be ignored.

The ultimatum it issued to Serbia on 23 July was composed in such a way that its possibility of being accepted was near impossible. Serbia's rejection paved the way for Austria-Hungary to declare war on 28 July, thus beginning WW1.

David Stevenson - professor of international history, LSE

Germany

The largest share of responsibility lies with the German government. Germany's rulers made possible a Balkan war by urging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia, well understanding that such a conflict might escalate. Without German backing it is unlikely that Austria-Hungary would have acted so drastically.

They also started wider European hostilities by sending ultimata to Russia and France, and by declaring war when those ultimata were rejected - indeed fabricating a pretext that French aircraft had bombed Nuremberg.

Finally, they violated international treaties by invading Luxemburg and Belgium knowing that the latter violation was virtually certain to bring in Britain. This is neither to deny that there were mitigating circumstances nor to contend that German responsibility was sole.

Serbia subjected Austria-Hungary to extraordinary provocation and two sides were needed for armed conflict. Although the Central Powers took the initiative, the Russian government, with French encouragement, was willing to respond.

In contrast, while Britain might have helped avert hostilities by clarifying its position earlier, this responsibility - even disregarding the domestic political obstacles to an alternative course - was passive rather than active.

Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2014, 09:47:40 AM
Prof Gary Sheffield - professor of war studies, University of Wolverhampton

Austria-Hungary and Germany

The war was started by the leaders of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Vienna seized the opportunity presented by the assassination of the archduke to attempt to destroy its Balkan rival Serbia. This was done in the full knowledge that Serbia's protector Russia was unlikely to stand by and this might lead to a general European war.

Germany gave Austria unconditional support in its actions, again fully aware of the likely consequences. Germany sought to break up the French-Russian alliance and was fully prepared to take the risk that this would bring about a major war. Some in the German elite welcomed the prospect of beginning an expansionist war of conquest. The response of Russia, France and later Britain were reactive and defensive.

The best that can be said of German and Austrian leaders in the July crisis is that they took criminal risks with world peace.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmlblogszozone.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fgary20sheffield-thumb-400x400-996392.jpg%3Fw%3D400%26amp%3Bh%3D400&hash=65fbeafa3bde7d0206462f1b50cf16665ab1e4a8)

Good to see Sheff keeping busy in retirement.

Surprised nobody blamed the U.S.  ;)

QuoteGerhard Hirschfeld - professor of modern and contemporary history, University of Stuttgart

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

Long before the outbreak of hostilities Prussian-German conservative elites were convinced that a European war would help to fulfil Germany's ambitions for colonies and for military as well as political prestige in the world.

The actual decision to go to war over a relatively minor international crisis like the Sarajevo murder, however, resulted from a fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states.

In contrast to the historian Fritz Fischer who saw German war aims - in particular the infamous September Programme of 1914 with its far-reaching economic and territorial demands - at the core of the German government's decision to go to war, most historians nowadays dismiss this interpretation as being far too narrow. They tend to place German war aims, or incidentally all other belligerent nations' war aims, in the context of military events and political developments during the war.

So...mostly Germany but everybody bears a bit of the blame?  I mean sure you could say that France created the atmosphere by opposing Germany after 1871 and it just should have gotten over it.  Outside of the Balkans the primary destabilizing force in Europe was the Franco-German enmity.  But loss of prestige or commitments?  Huh? Germany was going to crush them anyway because they were just too dangerous to be left alone.  The price France had to pay to stay neutral was something absurd like basically German occupation of all of its frontier forts.  So while France's opposition to Germany and the very existence of its alliance with Russia was a problem, in the actual event of the war it had zero choice at all.  Germany was going to attack it unless it basically pre-emptively surrendered.

Likewise it is also a bit absurd to say Britain is to blame for its 'stubborn commitment' to Belgium.  A stronger argument might be its role in the naval arms race or understandings with France and Russia but even here it was pretty aggressively provoked. 

I guess you could say Russia would have backed down without the understanding it had British and French support?  That would be stronger and is mentioned by this dude:

QuoteSean McMeekin - assistant professor of history at Koc University, Istanbul

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

It is human nature to seek simple, satisfying answers, which is why the German war guilt thesis endures today.

Without Berlin's encouragement of a strong Austro-Hungarian line against Serbia after Sarajevo - the "blank cheque" - WW1 would clearly not have broken out. So Germany does bear responsibility.

But it is equally true that absent a terrorist plot launched in Belgrade the Germans and Austrians would not have faced this terrible choice. Civilian leaders in both Berlin and Vienna tried to "localise" conflict in the Balkans. It was Russia's decision - after Petersburg received its own "blank cheque" from Paris - to Europeanise the Austro-Serbian showdown which produced first a European and then - following Britain's entry - world conflagration. Russia, not Germany, mobilised first.

The resulting war, with France and Britain backing Serbia and Russia against two Central Powers, was Russia's desired outcome, not Germany's. Still, none of the powers can escape blame. All five Great Power belligerents, along with Serbia, unleashed Armageddon.

But even if you go with this you have to recognize that Austria-Hungary could have accepted Serbia's response to its ultimatum, then there would have been no war.  The version where you blame everybody relies on the idea that Austria-Hungary was compelled to start the war and everybody else needed to just accept that and be cool.  I don't think that is true and why I put the blame on Austria-Hungary, and even more specifically on a few individuals in the Austro-Hungarian government who convinced themselves it was in Austria-Hungary's best interests to do this thing which was about as divorced from reality as Austria-Hungary's war plans.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 10:21:58 AM
But even if you go with this you have to recognize that Austria-Hungary could have accepted Serbia's response to its ultimatum, then there would have been no war.  The version where you blame everybody relies on the idea that Austria-Hungary was compelled to start the war and everybody else needed to just accept that and be cool.  I don't think that is true and why I put the blame on Austria-Hungary, and even more specifically on a few individuals in the Austro-Hungarian government who convinced themselves it was in Austria-Hungary's best interests to do this thing which was about as divorced from reality as Austria-Hungary's war plans.

This is basically my understanding.

Certainly, Serbian support for the terrorist Black Hand was irresponsible. But it was the Austro-Hungarian decision to use the assassination as a pretext to destroy Serbia once and for all that unleashed the war. They knew Russia would not stand by, and that it would draw in France and Germany. The Germans in their turn knew that invading Belgum in pursuit of their outflanking strategy would draw in the UK - and thought the risk worth it, because the UK's army was tiny.

Essentially, Austria chose a pretext to destroy Serbia, and Germany saw the crisis as a pretext to humble France and Russia in a bid for European pre-eminence. Drawing in the UK was a risk they were willing to take, because they thought they would win before the UK's participation mattered much. 

Much has been made about the unfairness of imputing "war guilt" to Austro-Hungary/Germany. But while each country made mistakes, it is hard to see how the others could have stopped the war. Russia could have, if it was willing to see Serbia crushed I suppose, but France certainly could not, nor could the UK, without conceding German military dominance of the continent.

Honest question: What should A-H have done as a reasonable reaction?

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
Honest question: What should A-H have done as a reasonable reaction?

Bully Serbia into humiliating itself.  Which they basically did anyway.  The assassination had also unleashed tons of anti-Serb feeling in the Empire, that could be taken advantage of as well.  The war was the unreasonable reaction.  Even if it had just been a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia alone it would have been a disaster for Austria-Hungary. 

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
Honest question: What should A-H have done as a reasonable reaction?

Made reasonable demands on Serbia. A-H made a list of demands to Serbia which were designed to be impossible to meet, on a very short timetable. Serbia nonetheless accepted almost all of them, save for actually allowing A-H to garrison their country (essentially, that would mean total surrender).

If Serbia had been presented with a list of reasonable demands, they would certainly have accepted them, leading to no war (at least, not then). For example, 'hand over that "Apis" dude and anyone else in your government who supported the terrorists who conducted the assassination'. 

I like Margaret MacMillan's take on it - the interesting question is not who started it but why the great powers were not able to contain the conflict as they had been able to do successfully for a long period of time.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 10:49:26 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
Honest question: What should A-H have done as a reasonable reaction?

Made reasonable demands on Serbia. A-H made a list of demands to Serbia which were designed to be impossible to meet, on a very short timetable. Serbia nonetheless accepted almost all of them, save for actually allowing A-H to garrison their country (essentially, that would mean total surrender).

If Serbia had been presented with a list of reasonable demands, they would certainly have accepted them, leading to no war (at least, not then). For example, 'hand over that "Apis" dude and anyone else in your government who supported the terrorists who conducted the assassination'. 

Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 10:51:39 AM
I like Margaret MacMillan's take on it - the interesting question is not who started it but why the great powers were not able to contain the conflict as they had been able to do successfully for a long period of time.

My impression is that they were not able to contain the conflict because Germany in particular did not wish the conflict to be contained, but - contrary to its expectations - lacked the military power to reach the sort of swift decision in its favour that it obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German war aim appeared to be to crush France, swiftly turn around and crush Russia, while Austria gobbled up Serbia. All this to take place while the UK hemmed and hawed - leaving Germany undisputed master in Europe, with the UK having (basically) to like it or lump it. The problem was that this plan did not work.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 10:51:39 AM
I like Margaret MacMillan's take on it - the interesting question is not who started it but why the great powers were not able to contain the conflict as they had been able to do successfully for a long period of time.

Well none of the Great Powers had fought a war in Europe for a long time.  The Alliance system combined with the way armies had to be mobilized at the time made it unlikely that could happen without it spreading.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:01:16 AM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 10:49:26 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
Honest question: What should A-H have done as a reasonable reaction?

Made reasonable demands on Serbia. A-H made a list of demands to Serbia which were designed to be impossible to meet, on a very short timetable. Serbia nonetheless accepted almost all of them, save for actually allowing A-H to garrison their country (essentially, that would mean total surrender).

If Serbia had been presented with a list of reasonable demands, they would certainly have accepted them, leading to no war (at least, not then). For example, 'hand over that "Apis" dude and anyone else in your government who supported the terrorists who conducted the assassination'. 

Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

What was forcing the pace in German thinking was that Russia was re-arming with modern weapons (after its military humiliations, particularly by Japan). Germany allegedly estimated that by 1916 Russia would be too strong for its plan of crushing both France and Russia to work. Thus, if it was to make its bid for supremacy, it was basically now or never.

Assuming this perception remained true, if the instant crisis had passed, it is unlikely a future one would have ignited a general war - with Russia stronger (at least in the short term - who knows what revolutions may have happened without the war), Germany would not have backed Austria with the "blank cheque", and Austria would have dealt more warily with Serbia. Serbian-Austrian relations would have remained a purely local affair.

This isn't to say there would be no conflict. Austria was tottering for a fall from internal problems. The break-up of that empire would have caused huge issues no matter what. But it need not have taken the form of a universal European war.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:09:57 AM
This isn't to say there would be no conflict. Austria was tottering for a fall from internal problems. The break-up of that empire would have caused huge issues no matter what. But it need not have taken the form of a universal European war.

I think the war shows that for all its faults Austria-Hungary was remarkably durable.  I have my doubts that Empire would have broken up on its own.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:09:57 AM
Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

I guess the reason I ask if if had proceeded apace with just Serbia accepting Austrian conditions, seems like Serbian government would have taken a lot of heat and potentially ended up with even more radical movements.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:27:54 AM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:09:57 AM
Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

I guess the reason I ask if if had proceeded apace with just Serbia accepting Austrian conditions, seems like Serbian government would have taken a lot of heat and potentially ended up with even more radical movements.

Yes it would have been humiliating and destabilizing.  Intervention by the Great Powers may have been necessary.  But I do not think any of that would have led to a general European War barring a full fledged Austro-Hungarian invasion.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:02:01 AM

My impression is that they were not able to contain the conflict because Germany in particular did not wish the conflict to be contained, but - contrary to its expectations - lacked the military power to reach the sort of swift decision in its favour that it obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German war aim appeared to be to crush France, swiftly turn around and crush Russia, while Austria gobbled up Serbia. All this to take place while the UK hemmed and hawed - leaving Germany undisputed master in Europe, with the UK having (basically) to like it or lump it. The problem was that this plan did not work.

I think many in leadership in Germany knew that they were playing with a poor hand. They didn't expect to be able to survive in a two front war. Their hope was to swiftly crush France while Russia mobilized (which was expected to take a long time), and then move their armies east to fight the Russians. The UK would not be a factor with the French out of the war quickly.

Once the Russians began to mobilize to defend Serbia, the Germans had no chance but to attack. If Russia had a chance to mobilize before any war started, then based on pre war thinking the plan leaving a skeleton force in the east while marching on Paris would not work.

The point being that once the Germans gave Austro-Hungary the go ahead with the ultimatum to Serbia, they really were committed (excluding the chance of Russia completely folding on Serbia). I'm not sure everyone in German leadership (such as the Kaiser) understood that at the time, though some did.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:01:16 AM
Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

That's sort of something Christopher Clark mentions in the Sleepwalkers (which I've not started so can't back up).

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 11:33:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:01:16 AM
Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

That's sort of something Christopher Clark mentions in the Sleepwalkers (which I've not started so can't back up).

I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind. :D

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:09:57 AM
What was forcing the pace in German thinking was that Russia was re-arming with modern weapons (after its military humiliations, particularly by Japan). Germany allegedly estimated that by 1916 Russia would be too strong for its plan of crushing both France and Russia to work. Thus, if it was to make its bid for supremacy, it was basically now or never.

Assuming this perception remained true, if the instant crisis had passed, it is unlikely a future one would have ignited a general war - with Russia stronger (at least in the short term - who knows what revolutions may have happened without the war), Germany would not have backed Austria with the "blank cheque", and Austria would have dealt more warily with Serbia. Serbian-Austrian relations would have remained a purely local affair.

This isn't to say there would be no conflict. Austria was tottering for a fall from internal problems. The break-up of that empire would have caused huge issues no matter what. But it need not have taken the form of a universal European war.

That would be an awesome alt-hist wargame.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:34:54 AM
I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind. :D

Take it it's good then? :P

It reminds me of my friend in Bosnia who was saying how genuinely clueless the Bosnian government are about how to commemorate 1914. They have to because it's probably the most famous thing that happened in Sarajevo (maybe the siege) and certainly the most globally important. But the war actually had barely any impact in Bosnia so it didn't really matter to them and, of course, the Black Hand were Serb nationalists who basically saw Bosnia as part of Serbia. So it's really difficult to work out quite what to do.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 11:31:28 AM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:02:01 AM

My impression is that they were not able to contain the conflict because Germany in particular did not wish the conflict to be contained, but - contrary to its expectations - lacked the military power to reach the sort of swift decision in its favour that it obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German war aim appeared to be to crush France, swiftly turn around and crush Russia, while Austria gobbled up Serbia. All this to take place while the UK hemmed and hawed - leaving Germany undisputed master in Europe, with the UK having (basically) to like it or lump it. The problem was that this plan did not work.

I think many in leadership in Germany knew that they were playing with a poor hand. They didn't expect to be able to survive in a two front war. Their hope was to swiftly crush France while Russia mobilized (which was expected to take a long time), and then move their armies east to fight the Russians. The UK would not be a factor with the French out of the war quickly.

Once the Russians began to mobilize to defend Serbia, the Germans had no chance but to attack. If Russia had a chance to mobilize before any war started, then based on pre war thinking the plan leaving a skeleton force in the east while marching on Paris would not work.

The point being that once the Germans gave Austro-Hungary the go ahead with the ultimatum to Serbia, they really were committed (excluding the chance of Russia completely folding on Serbia). I'm not sure everyone in German leadership (such as the Kaiser) understood that at the time, though some did.

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. 

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 11:30:01 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:27:54 AM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:09:57 AM
Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

I guess the reason I ask if if had proceeded apace with just Serbia accepting Austrian conditions, seems like Serbian government would have taken a lot of heat and potentially ended up with even more radical movements.

Yes it would have been humiliating and destabilizing.  Intervention by the Great Powers may have been necessary.  But I do not think any of that would have led to a general European War barring a full fledged Austro-Hungarian invasion.

What do you think would have changed in the interim? I can really only think of a few things if A-H was still around and eventually had to intervene in Serbia.

*Germany no longer wanted a war to establish primacy in Europe (I guess because window had closed and they now were notably weaker and accepted that?)
*Russia either cared not for Balkans and/or fell into revolution and was unable to heighten an A-H/Serb conflict.

WW1 is a toughie. Is the fault with the terrorist state or with the major power that backs up the terrorist state? But does it really matter?

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 11:41:42 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 11:34:54 AM
I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind. :D

Take it it's good then? :P

Yeah I'd recommend. Definitely an interesting look - though I'd say nearly everyone comes off looking scummy. :D

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 11:48:47 AM
WW1 is a toughie. Is the fault with the terrorist state or with the major power that backs up the terrorist state? But does it really matter?

indeed we can blame both Austria and Germany.

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.

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

Quote from: Drakken on February 12, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
And I'm still laughing from when Sheilbh told me that no one took the "German guilt" myth seriously anymore.  :nelson:

:blush: Refresh my memory.

I mean I think Germany's most responsible :P

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:44:57 AM

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.

I agree with the second sentence, but to quibble with the first, I don't know if malice/greed are the right adjectives. Germany may have launched massive attacks on other powers and small neutral countries, but I think it did so for primarily defensive reasons. It had little to gain and much to lose. My impression of the more hawkish decision makers was an attitude of "war is going to come eventually, and this is our best chance of prevailing." I don't know what adjectives to replace malice/greed with though.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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. 

Quote from: Drakken on February 12, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
And I'm still laughing from when Sheilbh told me that no one took the "German guilt" myth seriously anymore.  :nelson:

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2014, 12:23:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 12:30:51 PM

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.

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 12:36:31 PM
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.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:44:57 AM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2014, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2014, 01:02:09 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 01:15:01 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2014, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 11:44:57 AMThe 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.

Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2014, 01:13:12 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2014, 01:33:15 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 01:21:01 PM

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.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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. 

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 01:47:59 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 01:21:01 PM

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 01:15:01 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2014, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
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

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:20:39 PM

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)

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

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:20:39 PM
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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 02:30:24 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:20:39 PM

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.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
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?

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 02:30:24 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:20:39 PM

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.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM

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).

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 02:53:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM

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.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:10 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 02:49:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
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.

Serbia was unlikely to find time on their side. If more and more info came out about their involvement, and Serbian foot-dragging became obvious, it likely that Russian support would be less forthcomming.

Note that many of the demands had nothing to do with the assassination, and everything to do with Sebian 'dissing' of A-H to fellow-Serbs inside A-H - notably 1, 3 and 9.

Do you really think that Russian support of Serbia was in any way based on the righteousness of Serbia's case?

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 02:57:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:10 PM
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?

Because there are some things that you likely never sell to anyone? Having AH essentially garrison Serbia seems like a no go.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:49 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 02:53:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM

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.

Serbia was clearly *seen* to be acting more reasonably than A-H *at the time*. Which is the significant fact, in analyzing whether Russia was wrong to defend them. It isn't necessary, for that analysis, to assume Serbia would whole-heartedly implement its agrement.

But Valmy's point is a good one - if Serbia was just agreeing only to renege later, why didn't Serbia simply accept all of the demands?

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:59:47 PM
Serbia was unlikely to find time on their side. If more and more info came out about their involvement, and Serbian foot-dragging became obvious, it likely that Russian support would be less forthcomming

Depends. Not clear that the connections (which you note are still somewhat murky) would have been unearthed. Besdies, Pasic had to recognize that actually moving forwards with agreement to those demands would likely be a major political gamble. I seem to recall that he had even stated some of those things weren't legal per the Serbian constitution.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 02:59:47 PM
Note that many of the demands had nothing to do with the assassination, and everything to do with Sebian 'dissing' of A-H to fellow-Serbs inside A-H - notably 1, 3 and 9.

Sure. The sort of stoking that helped have people in Serbia so inflamed against Austria.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:49 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 02:53:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:39:11 PM

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.

Serbia was clearly *seen* to be acting more reasonably than A-H *at the time*. Which is the significant fact, in analyzing whether Russia was wrong to defend them. It isn't necessary, for that analysis, to assume Serbia would whole-heartedly implement its agrement.

By whom, the powers that had already lined up against them - Russia and France? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 02:54:49 PM
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.

That is not my contention.  I am talking about making Serbia lose face and check their nationalism and expansion.  Instead Austria-Hungary made Serbia look courageous and put their Empire's entire existence on the line.  As I said even if Russia had not aided Serbia this would have cost Austria-Hungary tens of thousands of lives and led to an incredibly dangerous and expensive indefinite occupation. 

Thanks to the assassination and ultimatum Serbia was about to look weak in the face of Austro-Hungarian pressure, and anti-Serb feeling in the Empire was rising.  You say what is to stop Serbia from dragging its heels?  Well what is to stop Austria-Hungary from turning up the heat once Russia stepped down?

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
Do you really think that Russian support of Serbia was in any way based on the righteousness of Serbia's case?

If Serbia was clearly initiating hostilities, it would have been much more difficult for Russia to spring to its support. Russia was of course not a democracy of any sort, but there were key authority figures in the government most reluctant to initiate hostility over Serbia. For one, Russia was in no way ready for war (the rearmament program already mentioned would not have been completed until 1916-17). Russia put pressure on Serbia to accept the ultimatum.

As it was, the issue was not tested, because A-H made no attempt to "sell" its version of events to the Russians with any plausability, denying several reasonable Russian requests (extebd deadline, show them the evidence, etc.)

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 03:06:51 PM
By whom, the powers that had already lined up against them - Russia and France? :unsure:

The important actor was Russia.

An unreasonable Serbia may well have tipped the actually fairly delicate balance inside Russia itself against supporting the Serbs. No Russian support = no Great War.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
Do you really think that Russian support of Serbia was in any way based on the righteousness of Serbia's case?

It was based on the prestige of the Russian monarchy.  The Austrio-Hungarians had already humiliated them by annexing Bosnia.  To fail to stand up to Austria-Hungary twice was a little too much to ask.  However if Austria-Hungary had provided Russia some cover to back down with honor they would have taken it...probably...but we will never know.  Austria-Hungary did not give Russia any cover at all, it was either stand by and look pathetic and weak or mobilize.

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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...

Do you blame monkeys at the zoo for throwing poo at the visitors?

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 03:17:19 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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...

Do you blame monkeys at the zoo for throwing poo at the visitors?

That just makes him amorous.  :D

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 03:17:19 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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...

Do you blame monkeys at the zoo for throwing poo at the visitors?

Other visitors?

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 03:11:37 PM

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
Do you really think that Russian support of Serbia was in any way based on the righteousness of Serbia's case?

If Serbia was clearly initiating hostilities, it would have been much more difficult for Russia to spring to its support. Russia was of course not a democracy of any sort, but there were key authority figures in the government most reluctant to initiate hostility over Serbia. For one, Russia was in no way ready for war (the rearmament program already mentioned would not have been completed until 1916-17). Russia put pressure on Serbia to accept the ultimatum.

As it was, the issue was not tested, because A-H made no attempt to "sell" its version of events to the Russians with any plausability, denying several reasonable Russian requests (extebd deadline, show them the evidence, etc.)

Russia was pretty upset about the influence they had lost in the Balkans.  Serbia was pretty much all they had left at that point, and they weren't going to abandon it.  The truth is that pretty much any country would have destroyed Serbia for the assassination.  Just as the US invaded Afghanistan for 9/11.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
The truth is that pretty much any country would have destroyed Serbia for the assassination.  Just as the US invaded Afghanistan for 9/11.

If invading Afghanistan would have put the US in existential danger we would have done it?  When Kennedy was assassinated our government, far wiser than Austria-Hungary, did everything they could to make sure nobody linked the assassin to the Soviet Union.  We were mad about Kennedy of course but even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:57:21 PM
even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. After all, doing nothing would then just underline that the Soviets had a pretty free hand if we were willing to let it slide when they kill our commander in chief.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 04:00:47 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:57:21 PM
even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. After all, doing nothing would then just underline that the Soviets had a pretty free hand if we were willing to let it slide when they kill our commander in chief.

I meant publicly.  Nothing that would put us in a position of having to go to war with the USSR over it.  Any response would have been covert.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 04:02:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 04:00:47 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:57:21 PM
even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. After all, doing nothing would then just underline that the Soviets had a pretty free hand if we were willing to let it slide when they kill our commander in chief.

I meant publicly.  Nothing that would put us in a position of having to go to war with the USSR over it.  Any response would have been covert.

Well I think that's also slightly different as we're also talking a scenario where we're taking on our MAD partner.

I actually from the outset was thinking perhaps what we would we do "now"* if NK assassinated our VP and some high level members of congress - with China potentially backing them.

"now" because currently it is Biden. :P

If they hurt one dubious hair allegedly on Joe Biden's you should nuke the bastards.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 04:06:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 04:02:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 04:00:47 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:57:21 PM
even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

I'm not sure I agree with that. After all, doing nothing would then just underline that the Soviets had a pretty free hand if we were willing to let it slide when they kill our commander in chief.

I meant publicly.  Nothing that would put us in a position of having to go to war with the USSR over it.  Any response would have been covert.

Well I think that's also slightly different as we're also talking a scenario where we're taking on our MAD partner.

I actually from the outset was thinking perhaps what we would we do "now"* if NK assassinated our VP and some high level members of congress - with China potentially backing them.

"now" because currently it is Biden. :P

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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 04:10:39 PM
If they hurt one dubious hair allegedly on Joe Biden's you should nuke the bastards.

Biden >> Franz Ferdinand

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 04:18:07 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 04:10:39 PM
If they hurt one dubious hair allegedly on Joe Biden's you should nuke the bastards.

Biden >> Franz Ferdinand

He might be a national treasure, but in terms of utility?

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:26:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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.

What about death of Obama + Biden? We'd then have someone on the opposite side of political spectrum.

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:26:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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.

What about death of Obama + Biden? We'd then have someone on the opposite side of political spectrum.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:20:10 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:26:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:57:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
The truth is that pretty much any country would have destroyed Serbia for the assassination.  Just as the US invaded Afghanistan for 9/11.

If invading Afghanistan would have put the US in existential danger we would have done it?  When Kennedy was assassinated our government, far wiser than Austria-Hungary, did everything they could to make sure nobody linked the assassin to the Soviet Union.  We were mad about Kennedy of course but even if we discovered the KGB were behind it we were not going to do anything because our government is not suicidal.

Slightly different dynamic, as the Soviet Union was a superpower and Serbia was not.  As it stood, the US went to war with Afghanistan despite the fact that it's client had a nuclear arsenal.  For the Kennedy analogy, if it was found that Kennedy was assassinated by Cubans working under the high ranking Cuban officials the US probably would have invaded Cuba and the Soviets would have backed down.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:26:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:49:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 04:55:41 PM
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. 

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 04:50:45 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 03:20:10 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2014, 02:58:43 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 04:55:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:26:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:17:33 PM

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).

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:00:08 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:04:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:58:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:49:53 PM

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)?

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 05:09:31 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:04:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
-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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 05:09:31 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:04:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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] :mad: [/Ide]

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:12:33 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 05:07:37 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:00:08 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 05:22:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:12:33 PM
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?

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:14:18 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 05:09:31 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2014, 05:04:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
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?

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 05:30:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
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. ;)

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 05:22:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:12:33 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:01:38 PM
-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.   

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:16:10 PM
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.

QuoteYour 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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 04:59:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 04:55:41 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:34:05 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:33:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 05:45:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 05:33:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 05:37:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:12:33 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:58:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:49:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2014, 05:53:19 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:12:33 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 04:58:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 04:49:53 PM

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.

Great, so some terrorist cell manages to kill the President, blames China and the US blows up the world.  Just great.

It needs blowing up.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
It needs blowing up.

That is a separate issue that deserves its own thread

The United States, in its final death rattle, should empty its nuclear aresnal in a final fuck you gesture.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 05:52:15 PM
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.

I think the outcome would need to be something that resembled regime change. If that could be achieved through a computer virus or other technique, then I agree. Since we are presupposing the support of China, I'm not sure it can be done.

CC--the hypothetical assumes that North Korea had the president killed and China backed them up.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
CC--the hypothetical assumes that North Korea had the president killed and China backed them up.

Ah, I see.  That changes my view.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
CC--the hypothetical assumes that North Korea had the president killed and China backed them up.

Ah, I see.  That changes my view.

Does it?

The hypothetical is that North Korean agents assassinate Obama (and Biden too,apparently).  China gives some level of support to North Korean, or at least warns the US it does not have carte blanche in responding to the situation.

So what does newly sworn President Boehner do?

Cries.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
Does it?

The hypothetical is that North Korean agents assassinate Obama (and Biden too,apparently).  China gives some level of support to North Korean, or at least warns the US it does not have carte blanche in responding to the situation.

So what does newly sworn President Boehner do?

I don't know if this breaks the hypothetical or not, but I get the sense that China recognizes the North Koreans are crazy. In the actual event, I think China and the US would agree to some sort of regime change with a Chinese backed government in North Korea.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 06:12:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
Does it?

The hypothetical is that North Korean agents assassinate Obama (and Biden too,apparently).  China gives some level of support to North Korean, or at least warns the US it does not have carte blanche in responding to the situation.

So what does newly sworn President Boehner do?

I don't know if this breaks the hypothetical or not, but I get the sense that China recognizes the North Koreans are crazy. In the actual event, I think China and the US would agree to some sort of regime change with a Chinese backed government in North Korea.

I think it does break the hypothetical because we're trying to make an analogy to AH's actions in the summer of 1914.  It would not have been a valid option in 1914 for Russia to say "tell you what - we'll just invade Serbia for you instead".

Besides, China has a very odd relationship with NK.  It's a "we know they're crazy, but they're our crazy friend and we don't want them hurt too badly".  They've been quite clear they want to preserve their relationship with NK.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 06:08:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
CC--the hypothetical assumes that North Korea had the president killed and China backed them up.

Ah, I see.  That changes my view.

Does it?

The hypothetical is that North Korean agents assassinate Obama (and Biden too,apparently).  China gives some level of support to North Korean, or at least warns the US it does not have carte blanche in responding to the situation.

So what does newly sworn President Boehner do?

He should go ahead and beat the shit out of North Korea.  You have to drawn the line somewhere, if you don't set it at assassinating the President, where do you set it?  Like I said, same thing with West Berlin.

Remember, that Pakistan had strong relations with Afghanistan before 9/11, they cut those relations because they knew the US was going to fight.  The certainty of how a state will react decreases the chances of wide spread wars.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
Cries.

:lol:

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 06:18:37 PMBesides, China has a very odd relationship with NK.  It's a "we know they're crazy, but they're our crazy friend and we don't want them hurt too badly".  They've been quite clear they want to preserve their relationship with NK.

I don't think it's so much "they're our crazy friend and we don't want them hurt too badly" but rather "they're our crazy friend, and if we stop being his friend the craziness will cause way more trouble than maintaining the friendship does" is more likely. China won't stand by North Korea if the calculus suggests it's not worth it.

Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2014, 06:08:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2014, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
CC--the hypothetical assumes that North Korea had the president killed and China backed them up.

Ah, I see.  That changes my view.

Does it?

The hypothetical is that North Korean agents assassinate Obama (and Biden too,apparently).  China gives some level of support to North Korean, or at least warns the US it does not have carte blanche in responding to the situation.

So what does newly sworn President Boehner do?

It would change my view if China had something to do with killing the President - that is what I thought AF meant by "backed them up".  That to me would be beyond the pale and essentially an act of war.

But if the hypothetical is N. Korea does something incredibly stupid like killing the President then the US would likely not go to war if it meant war with China - I think it much more likely that something else would be worked out short of war with China.

None of the historians who said Britain or Russia actually built a case for that.

The case against Russia is that they were the first to start the mobilization juggernaut rolling.

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 05:37:45 PM
The belief by von Hötzendorf that a war would re-energize Austria-Hungary and that is what it needed was pretty insane,

Freud did. -_-

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2014, 07:08:51 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
Cries.

:lol:

It does fit his mythos. :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2014, 09:03:38 PM
The case against Russia is that they were the first to start the mobilization juggernaut rolling.

And if Germany had forced A-H to back down rather than be forced into a fight with the Russians the Russian mobilization would have been remembered as the act which prevented a war.

Russia had backed down once already when A-H annexed Bosnia.  Germany and A-H believed Russia would do so again.  Russia ordered a limited mobilization as soon as Serbia appealed for help as much as a signal to Germany that it would not back down this time as anything else.

Germany and A-H could still have backed down and averted war.  Even after the Russian began to mobilize it was still not inevitable that the regional conflict would bring all the major powers into the fight.

I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2014, 01:07:57 PM
I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

After the ultimatum was delivered Serbia requested the aid of Russia and Russia immediately ordered the moblization of 4 military districts iirc.  Serbia then moblized the next day and then the day after that gave their formal response to A-H.  Serbia wisely began moblization before giving the response because they fully understood that A-H was using their unreasonable demands as a pretext for war.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2014, 01:07:57 PM
I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

France could not afford to let Russia be defeated, no matter why Russia got into the fight. It would leave France alone to face Germany and A-H, which France could not do.

Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 01:16:23 PM
Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

The French sure didn't.  Their big goal in both World Wars was to make sure they had the UK on their side.  I like to think they had finally learned their lesson from history that the side with Britain on it always wins (eventually) in European Wars.

I believe during the pre-war meetings the British asked the French how many British Soldiers they needed and I think the reply was something like 'just one'.  They just wanted the British on their team.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 01:16:23 PM
Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

The French sure didn't.  Their big goal in both World Wars was to make sure they had the UK on their side.  I like to think they had finally learned their lesson from history that the side with Britain on it always wins (eventually) in European Wars.

I believe during the pre-war meetings the British asked the French how many British Soldiers they needed and I think the reply was something like 'just one'.  They just wanted the British on their team.

True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 02:24:51 PM
True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

Well yeah.  You do not have this awesome amount of ink being spilt over the origins of the Second World War or debating who was responsible for the War of Austrian Succession or whatever.  Though virtually everybody blames Austria-Hungary, Germany, Serbia, and Russia to some extent.  It is just a matter of details.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 04:35:36 PM
I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Well impossible to beat them fast enough to avoid the Russian Steamroller.  Little did they know how impotent that steamroller was.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 04:38:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 04:35:36 PM
I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Well impossible to beat them fast enough to avoid the Russian Steamroller.  Little did they know how impotent that steamroller was.

Say Germany had a reverse Schieffelin plan--defense against France, and concentration against Russia to knock them out first. Presumably that means no invasion of Belgium, and possibly no entry of the UK in the war. That also means no major submarine warfare, and probably no US in the war.

German victory?

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2014, 04:47:03 PM
Say Germany had a reverse Schieffelin plan--defense against France, and concentration against Russia to knock them out first. Presumably that means no invasion of Belgium, and possibly no entry of the UK in the war. That also means no major submarine warfare, and probably no US in the war.

German victory?

I think it would have been hard for Germany to screw up that plan and lose (well maybe...invading Russia tends to go badly).  But this is Wilhelm II's Germany so you never know.  Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory was sort of their specialty.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

I dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2014, 04:47:03 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 04:38:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 04:35:36 PM
I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Well impossible to beat them fast enough to avoid the Russian Steamroller.  Little did they know how impotent that steamroller was.

Say Germany had a reverse Schieffelin plan--defense against France, and concentration against Russia to knock them out first. Presumably that means no invasion of Belgium, and possibly no entry of the UK in the war. That also means no major submarine warfare, and probably no US in the war.

German victory?

The standard answer to this of course is that Germany believed it could knock France out quickly enough that it could turn its resources to the East before Russia fully mobilized.

In her most recent book MacMillan has an interesting counter theory.   Germany considered a defensive posture in the West while attacking Russia but stayed with the Schleiffen Plan because:

1) administrative inertia - it would have taken a great deal of time and energy to revamp the war plan.  It was much easier to stay with the status quo of a plan that had been refined over many years; and

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:08:00 PM
Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

That is a good point. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 04:35:36 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 02:24:51 PM
True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

They needed to crush France fast, or thought they did. I don't think they thought it was impossible to beat France without going through Belgium, but rather that it was impossible to do it quickly enough to deal with Russia in turn (not anticipating how worthless the Russian generals would turn out to be).

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2014, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

I dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

What BB said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:08:00 PM
Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

My view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 05:14:01 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 04:35:36 PM

Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2014, 02:24:51 PM
True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

They needed to crush France fast, or thought they did. I don't think they thought it was impossible to beat France without going through Belgium, but rather that it was impossible to do it quickly enough to deal with Russia in turn (not anticipating how worthless the Russian generals would turn out to be).

Macmillan would say they didnt really consider another option again for the reasons of administrative inertia.  It would have taken a lot of time and effort to redo the plan so that it didnt include going through Belguim.  She also points out it was a lot of the right hand not knowing, or more properly caring, what the left hand was doing.  The military made its war plans without any consideration of what the dipomatic consequences might be.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 05:18:05 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:08:00 PM
Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

My view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:23:17 PM
If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:03:13 PM

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

That doesn't make sense. You have a 2 front war. In the event they planned to play defense on east and offense on the west. An alternative plan to be on offense in the east and defense in the west isn't less manly.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 05:25:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:23:17 PM
If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

Why do you always assume I am disagreeing with you

Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2014, 05:27:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:03:13 PM

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

That doesn't make sense. You have a 2 front war. In the event they planned to play defense on east and offense on the west. An alternative plan to be on offense in the east and defense in the west isn't less manly.

I suppose it doesnt make sense it one doesnt take into consideration that for Germany its main rivals were France and England.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:27:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2014, 05:25:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 05:23:17 PM
If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

Why do you always assume I am disagreeing with you

I don't.  I was not clear if you were saying 'I agree and for example look how they blew the Battle of the Marne' or 'Nah their strategy worked but at the end of the day it was their inability to win on the battle field that did it'.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2014, 04:57:01 PMI dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

Yeah. I think there's an extent where these arguments conflate long-term causes of the war and the immediate causes. The long-term cause seems to be the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic system and blame can be apportioned to all states for that. The immediate cause at the July crisis I think blame can be more directly placed with Germany and Austria.

But that doesn't mean they're at fault for the conditions in Europe being so good for a war, and it also doesn't mean that war was inevitable and just waiting for the right crisis (which is why I think Serbia deserves some blame).

QuoteMy view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

How much does having the best army in the world matter when the entire way of fighting war is different? Or when faced with a crippling naval blockade?

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 05:40:54 PM
How much does having the best army in the world matter when the entire way of fighting war is different? Or when faced with a crippling naval blockade?

It mattered quite a bit in 1914 and 1915.  Granted by 1916 most of their advantages were gone.

They were better man for man throughout the war.  They were only inferior at inventing, desigining, and building tanks.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
They were better man for man throughout the war.  They were only inferior at inventing, desigining, and building tanks.

How can you define that?

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 05:40:54 PM
Yeah. I think there's an extent where these arguments conflate long-term causes of the war and the immediate causes. The long-term cause seems to be the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic system and blame can be apportioned to all states for that. The immediate cause at the July crisis I think blame can be more directly placed with Germany and Austria.

But that doesn't mean they're at fault for the conditions in Europe being so good for a war, and it also doesn't mean that war was inevitable and just waiting for the right crisis (which is why I think Serbia deserves some blame).

So do you believe that WWI could have been averted completely? I get that Germany was pushing for it given its fear from Russia's rearmament plans, but even if the occasion passed and Russia became "undefeatable" in German eyes; wouldn't then Russia have tried to regain its lost influence in the Balkans against a crumbling A-H Empire? What would have happened with French irredentism regarding Alsace and Lorraine? I think there were too many scores to settle and powers willing to act on them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
They were better man for man throughout the war.

I think it was less dramatic than it had been earlier on.  In 1916 the French artillery was on par with them, one of the reasons their assumptions about how the battle of Verdun would go were so wrong.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 05:52:31 PM
How can you define that?

Econometrics!

I think I read it in Strategy and Tactics, taken from some US War College study or somesuch.

But you certainly have to concede the 1918 offensives were much more succesful than anything attempted previously by the Allies.  And unless I'm mistaken they were conducted without any kind of manpower advantage.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 05:56:38 PM
But you certainly have to concede the 1918 offensives were much more succesful than anything attempted previously by the Allies.  And unless I'm mistaken they were conducted without any kind of manpower advantage.

The 1918 offensive was poorly planned.  It was basically mass a bunch of men where the Allies are weak, breakthrough, advance and see what happens.

Which is exactly why it failed.  I am not sure how that result has any relevance to measuring the German soldier man for man.

Quote from: celedhring on February 13, 2014, 05:53:14 PM
So do you believe that WWI could have been averted completely?

I think so. 

Quotewouldn't then Russia have tried to regain its lost influence in the Balkans against a crumbling A-H Empire? What would have happened with French irredentism regarding Alsace and Lorraine? I think there were too many scores to settle and powers willing to act on them.

France was not going to do anything without Russia and Britain on her side.  Period.  France (well the nationalists anyway) wanted a war to take back A-L but it could only really get it the way things went: it had to appear to be the defender and Germany to be in the wrong so Britain would support her.  France's plans required a British Army to cover its flank, The British Fleet to cover its Atlantic Coasts, and the Russian Army in the East.  So while their rivalry with Germany was destabilizing, France was pretty harmless so long as Germany made no serious mistakes. 

I think Bismarck was right and it required a Balkan crisis to trigger it.  However several Balkan crises had been weathered before without a war.  It really required something extreme involving either Austria-Hungary or Russia.  Just another series of Balkan Wars was not going to do it.

Quote from: celedhring on February 13, 2014, 05:53:14 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 05:40:54 PM
Yeah. I think there's an extent where these arguments conflate long-term causes of the war and the immediate causes. The long-term cause seems to be the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic system and blame can be apportioned to all states for that. The immediate cause at the July crisis I think blame can be more directly placed with Germany and Austria.

But that doesn't mean they're at fault for the conditions in Europe being so good for a war, and it also doesn't mean that war was inevitable and just waiting for the right crisis (which is why I think Serbia deserves some blame).

So do you believe that WWI could have been averted completely? I get that Germany was pushing for it given its fear from Russia's rearmament plans, but even if the occasion passed and Russia became "undefeatable" in German eyes; wouldn't then Russia have tried to regain its lost influence in the Balkans against a crumbling A-H Empire? What would have happened with French irredentism regarding Alsace and Lorraine? I think there were too many scores to settle and powers willing to act on them.

You should pick up MacMillans new book.  Her main thesis is that it is rather more surprising that the war occurred given the success the diplomatic structures had with containing regional disputes over a considerable period of time.

I might do that, the commemorations have whetted my appetite somewhat for the conflict.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 06:00:54 PM
The 1918 offensive was poorly planned.  It was basically mass a bunch of men where the Allies are weak, breakthrough, advance and see what happens.

Which is exactly why it failed.  I am not sure how that result has any relevance to measuring the German soldier man for man.

Indeed. My understanding is that Germany adapted tactically (as did France and Britain) but were really still pursuing the same sort of strategy in 1918 that they were in 1914 and weren't clear about the objectives beyond 'breakthrough'. Also I don't think the German military had really solved their logistical problems (which cursed them throughout the war) to quite the same extent that the allies had.

By contrast, again from my limited understanding, Foch's grand offensive in 1918 worked in part because it wasn't just a repeat of the first Somme battle.

Man for man I think all the Western Front combatants adapted successfully and sort of equally, general for general I think the Western allies adapted far more successfully.

QuoteSo do you believe that WWI could have been averted completely?

That's difficult, I mean it's unknowable. But I suppose I don't think it was sort of structurally inevitable, I think the total collapse of the 19th century diplomatic system made it progressively more likely. But that collapse was man-made by the decisions made by political leaders in those countries. I think it could have been reversed by other political decisions.

Yeah the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the collapse of the Balkans were difficult situations that changed the calculations of the great powers. But the 19th century system had managed the unification of Italy (with an Austrian war) and similar Balkan and colonial crises before. I don't necessarily think that the situation in the Edwardian era was necessarily more difficult than at points in the previous century. I think the way of dealing with it had broken down and, perhaps, there just weren't sufficiently able and visionary statesman to try and fix it.

Quote from: celedhring on February 13, 2014, 06:13:35 PM
I might do that, the commemorations have whetted my appetite somewhat for the conflict.

Same. I've got a few books lined up. I imagine when we have another thread like this at the end of the year we'll all be far better informed :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2014, 06:00:54 PM
The 1918 offensive was poorly planned.  It was basically mass a bunch of men where the Allies are weak, breakthrough, advance and see what happens.

Which is exactly why it failed.  I am not sure how that result has any relevance to measuring the German soldier man for man.

The one in the north was intended to separate the British from the French and drive them back on their lines of communication to the channel.  That's what everyone does with the British.  The one in the south was intended to capture Paris.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 06:24:03 PMThe one in the north was intended to separate the British from the French and drive them back on their lines of communication to the channel.  That's what everyone does with the British.  The one in the south was intended to capture Paris.

Okay, to focus on the British bit. The allies concentrated their forces in Amiens (the railway centre) and the channel ports, leaving lots of other, relatively useless, lines less well defended. The Germans successfully took the bits that the Allies didn't mind them taking and weren't willing to defend. It could be taken but surely it would have been better to concentrate on the strategically important bit. Ludendorff refused to use the word 'strategy' and described his plan as 'we chop the hole. The rest follows.'

In comparison precisely in response to this attack and logistical problems in the defence the Allies innovated. They started to create a more unified command with Foch in charge of all forces in France.

You can compare that with an allied failure like the Battle of Cambrai but which shows innovation by the British general staff - especially in the use of artillery and, to a lesser extent, tanks - and the clear strategy in Foch's grand offensive and the second battle of the Somme (which again shows even more successful uses of tanks, artillery and now aircraft to support the infantry).

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 06:33:45 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2014, 06:24:03 PMThe one in the north was intended to separate the British from the French and drive them back on their lines of communication to the channel.  That's what everyone does with the British.  The one in the south was intended to capture Paris.

Okay, to focus on the British bit. The allies concentrated their forces in Amiens (the railway centre) and the channel ports, leaving lots of other, relatively useless, lines less well defended. The Germans successfully took the bits that the Allies didn't mind them taking and weren't willing to defend. It could be taken but surely it would have been better to concentrate on the strategically important bit. Ludendorff refused to use the word 'strategy' and described his plan as 'we chop the hole. The rest follows.'

In comparison precisely in response to this attack and logistical problems in the defence the Allies innovated. They started to create a more unified command with Foch in charge of all forces in France.

You can compare that with an allied failure like the Battle of Cambrai but which shows innovation by the British general staff - especially in the use of artillery and, to a lesser extent, tanks - and the clear strategy in Foch's grand offensive and the second battle of the Somme (which again shows even more successful uses of tanks, artillery and now aircraft to support the infantry).

Yeah, I was trying to remember Ludendorf's quote to respond to Yi.  You set out all out rather nicely.

Strosstruppen gives me a boner

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2014, 06:21:08 PM
Indeed. My understanding is that Germany adapted tactically (as did France and Britain) but were really still pursuing the same sort of strategy in 1918 that they were in 1914 and weren't clear about the objectives beyond 'breakthrough'. Also I don't think the German military had really solved their logistical problems (which cursed them throughout the war) to quite the same extent that the allies had.

Indeed, this is a key element that people tend to forget about; German logistics started to fail them in the first two weeks of the war, and they never really recovered.  The Germans consistently underestimated the resources required by their plans, and consistently over-estimated their ability to move materiel.  And this wasn't just on the battlefield; their economic plans for the home front showed the same weaknesses.

Allied generals learned to estimate maximum requirements, and then double them.

I don't think the Schliefen Plan had a hope of succeeding by 1914, but the German generals just changed their assumptions time and again to make it sound plausible.  the disconnect between political/military realities and military assumptions doomed Germany from the start.  then, again, I don't know of a plan that could have worked.  Certainly the reverse-Schliefen plan to try to defeat Russia with only half the German Army doesn't sound very plausible based on what the Germans knew at the time.  The Russians wouldn't have had to rush their First and Second Armies forward to destruction if France isn't in extremis, and that changes the East Front calculus quite a bit.

The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

All this talk makes me want to play Victoria 2. :unsure:

Quote from: Warspite on February 15, 2014, 05:15:33 AM
The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it.  The problem is that they keep trying to do it in every direction at once.  What Germany is bad at is diplomacy, even to this day.

At any rate, there's lots of blame to be shared.  Germany for bungling their diplomacy at every turn, Austria for being indecisive with Serbia, Russia for realizing that they needed to go all in, but choosing the most evil cause possible to go all in for, France for maintaining the war climate in Europe.  Of course Serbia for being a bunch of villains.  Britain was good though.

Quote from: Warspite on February 15, 2014, 05:15:33 AM
The Germans were really very bad at total war, and yet interestingly they didn't get much better at it the second go.

Third time lucky?

Well, they did crush France quickly the second time around. The problem was that this time the Russians were as strong as they had feared the first time around.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:20:23 AM
I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

Quote from: Warspite on February 15, 2014, 10:39:38 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:20:23 AM
I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM

Quote from: Warspite on February 15, 2014, 10:39:38 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:20:23 AM
I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved. 

I wouldn't call it an impossible position. The first war was a toss up they could have won if different decisions had been made.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2014, 10:54:23 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM

Quote from: Warspite on February 15, 2014, 10:39:38 AM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:20:23 AM
I'm not sure that they're all that bad at the practice of it. 

Operationally they were very good but at the grand strategic level, which is where total war is won, they failed to build winning coalitions, out-produce the opposition, or coherently use all assets of national power.

The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved.

I don't think that it would have been possible to maintain that alliance in the long term.  Russia was interested in maintaining her relative power and position, whereas Germany has been interested in dominating Eastern Europe.  It would certainly make for a tense relationship, with the two countries competing economically for the same area.  Now, it might have been a wise move to trade economic influence for security, but that wasn't going to happen in climate of the recently-unified German Empire.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
I wouldn't call it an impossible position. The first war was a toss up they could have won if different decisions had been made.

What sort of decisions?

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
Meh, if they had not let their alliance with Russia lapse, allowing the French to create stronger ties with Russia, their geographical problem would have been solved. 

Agree.  Germany and Russia had no fundamental conflicts of interest, and, in fact, Germany had more to gain by allying with Russia against Austria than vice-versa.  Throughout the Nineteenth Century, Germany had understood this, and the usual diplomatic alliances were Prussia and Russia against France and Austria.  Wilhelm II was a moron for buying off on that romantic nonsense about the Slavs and Germans being traditional and eternal enemies.  His country's self-interest clearly lay with a Russian alliance.  A Russo-German alliance in 1914 would be unbeatable, no matter what the British did.

I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

The blockade would mean a lot less with access to Russia's resources.  Italy would be a non-factor, or possibly a German ally (they went to war against Austria in 1915).  They would probably stay out of this war, though.  Austria would be crushed by the Russians, and Germany would arguably be a lot stronger in the west with only some mountain passes to hold for most of their border with Austria-Hungary.  They'd need to defend Bavaria for the time it took Austria-Hungary to crumble, but the Austrians would probably be on the defensive on that front, too.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

I am not sure why Italy would fight on the same side as A-H in any circumstances.  That being said I am reasonably sure it wouldnt matter.  Also there was no obvious reason for Germany and Britain to be enemies.  They were natural allies since they didnt have any interest in the others sphere of influence.  It was only after the Kaiser got rid of Hindenburg, started having dreams of an overseas empire and began building a navy to compete with Britain that things went wrong in the relationship.

If Germany had not blundered it could have continued to have a free hand in any future conflict with France and that fact would likely have guarranteed peace amongst the major powers for some time to come.  The Balkan conflicts would have been isolated to regional conflicts that the major powers could had ignored.  The only potential spark that might have brought in the great powers is if the Balkan conflict somehow interfered with British interests and that somehow brought them into conflict with Russia.  But in those circumstances its hard to imagine that conflict involving France and Germany.

Executive summary - the biggest mistake was kicking Hindenburg out of government leaving the Kaiser and his merry band of amateurs free to pursue their suicidal foreign policy.

Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2014, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

The blockade would mean a lot less with access to Russia's resources.  Italy would be a non-factor, or possibly a German ally (they went to war against Austria in 1915).  They would probably stay out of this war, though.  Austria would be crushed by the Russians, and Germany would arguably be a lot stronger in the west with only some mountain passes to hold for most of their border with Austria-Hungary.  They'd need to defend Bavaria for the time it took Austria-Hungary to crumble, but the Austrians would probably be on the defensive on that front, too.

Agreed.  The Russians had success against A-H in the War.  It was only when German divisions were sent to aid the Austrians that the Russians were pushed back. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2014, 03:05:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

I am not sure why Italy would fight on the same side as A-H in any circumstances.  That being said I am reasonably sure it wouldnt matter.  Also there was no obvious reason for Germany and Britain to be enemies.  They were natural allies since they didnt have any interest in the others sphere of influence.  It was only after the Kaiser got rid of Hindenburg, started having dreams of an overseas empire and began building a navy to compete with Britain that things went wrong in the relationship.

If Germany had not blundered it could have continued to have a free hand in any future conflict with France and that fact would likely have guarranteed peace amongst the major powers for some time to come.  The Balkan conflicts would have been isolated to regional conflicts that the major powers could had ignored.  The only potential spark that might have brought in the great powers is if the Balkan conflict somehow interfered with British interests and that somehow brought them into conflict with Russia.  But in those circumstances its hard to imagine that conflict involving France and Germany.

Executive summary - the biggest mistake was kicking Hindenburg out of government leaving the Kaiser and his merry band of amateurs free to pursue their suicidal foreign policy.

I assume you mean Bismarck, not Hindenburg.  Bismarck was 75 years old when he was retired. he wouldn't live that long after that anyway, so the issue wasn't his retirement, but his replacement with yes-men.  had that happened with his death 7 years later, it wouldn't have made much difference, I don't think.  Maybe he could have educated the kaiser in that time, though.  that may have made a difference.

Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2014, 03:12:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2014, 03:05:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

I am not sure why Italy would fight on the same side as A-H in any circumstances.  That being said I am reasonably sure it wouldnt matter.  Also there was no obvious reason for Germany and Britain to be enemies.  They were natural allies since they didnt have any interest in the others sphere of influence.  It was only after the Kaiser got rid of Hindenburg, started having dreams of an overseas empire and began building a navy to compete with Britain that things went wrong in the relationship.

If Germany had not blundered it could have continued to have a free hand in any future conflict with France and that fact would likely have guarranteed peace amongst the major powers for some time to come.  The Balkan conflicts would have been isolated to regional conflicts that the major powers could had ignored.  The only potential spark that might have brought in the great powers is if the Balkan conflict somehow interfered with British interests and that somehow brought them into conflict with Russia.  But in those circumstances its hard to imagine that conflict involving France and Germany.

Executive summary - the biggest mistake was kicking Hindenburg out of government leaving the Kaiser and his merry band of amateurs free to pursue their suicidal foreign policy.

I assume you mean Bismarck, not Hindenburg. 

Yep, I had a brain cramp

Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2014, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 02:22:47 PM
I don't know.  Russia and Germany versus France, Britain, Italy and Austria would still have a rough time of it.  They still end up blockaded.

The blockade would mean a lot less with access to Russia's resources.  Italy would be a non-factor, or possibly a German ally (they went to war against Austria in 1915).  They would probably stay out of this war, though.  Austria would be crushed by the Russians, and Germany would arguably be a lot stronger in the west with only some mountain passes to hold for most of their border with Austria-Hungary.  They'd need to defend Bavaria for the time it took Austria-Hungary to crumble, but the Austrians would probably be on the defensive on that front, too.

Why would Italy stay out of the war? She has irredentist claims against Austria and France.

Japan would probably enter the war on the side of the Entente though, so that's a factor that shouldn't be overlooked.

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM
The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Which is why I thought it was in their best interests to have a friendly France.  If they had been a bit more gentlemanly in 1871 things would have gone much better for them. France also did not need continental rivalries while they pursued a world empire.  The France-German rivalry was one destructive to both country's interests and ultimately fatal to them.  France had a long history of having German allies so it was not something that was inevitable or something.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:13:22 PM
Why would Italy stay out of the war? She has irredentist claims against Austria and France.

She also had a long coastline and was hyper-vulnerable to British blockade of her coastal trade.  If she thought the war might be short, she might risk fighting against a coalition that included Britain, but not otherwise.

QuoteJapan would probably enter the war on the side of the Entente though, so that's a factor that shouldn't be overlooked.

I think that's a factor that can be safely overlooked!  :lol:

Japan's entry, as historically, would be virtually meaningless.

Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2014, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:13:22 PM
Why would Italy stay out of the war? She has irredentist claims against Austria and France.

She also had a long coastline and was hyper-vulnerable to British blockade of her coastal trade.  If she thought the war might be short, she might risk fighting against a coalition that included Britain, but not otherwise.

QuoteJapan would probably enter the war on the side of the Entente though, so that's a factor that shouldn't be overlooked.

I think that's a factor that can be safely overlooked!  :lol:

Japan's entry, as historically, would be virtually meaningless.

Everybody thought the war would be short though.

Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 04:16:29 PM
Which is why I thought it was in their best interests to have a friendly France.  If they had been a bit more gentlemanly in 1871 things would have gone much better for them. France also did not need continental rivalries while they pursued a world empire.  The France-German rivalry was one destructive to both country's interests and ultimately fatal to them.  France had a long history of having German allies so it was not something that was inevitable or something.

Bismarck saw a humbling of France as an essential element of his pan-German political strategy.  That isn't to say that a later deal couldn't have been struck to, say, return French-speaking Lorraine to France whilst keeping German-speaking Alsace.

Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2014, 04:37:49 PM
Bismarck saw a humbling of France as an essential element of his pan-German political strategy. 

The way the Prussians and their allies defeated them was humbling enough.  Totally humiliating them, doing things like having a victory parade in Paris and so forth, just made his new Reich an implacable enemy which turned out to be a poison pill.  Now I do think France should have found some way to get past it, but Bismark sure did not make it politically easy for them to do so even if they had wanted to.

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 04:16:29 PM

Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2014, 10:51:37 AM
The Germans were put in an impossible position by their geography.  Obviously, a winning coalition wasn't available to them, since the English-speaking nations were committed to preventing one country from dominating Europe, and their position in Central Europe allowed them to be easily cut off from the world market by Britain.

Which is why I thought it was in their best interests to have a friendly France.  If they had been a bit more gentlemanly in 1871 things would have gone much better for them. France also did not need continental rivalries while they pursued a world empire.  The France-German rivalry was one destructive to both country's interests and ultimately fatal to them.  France had a long history of having German allies so it was not something that was inevitable or something.

I wonder if it would have been possible to create a demilitarized zone in the Alsace-Lorraine, make it an autonomous self governing part of the German empire and get a bunch of the great powers to sign a treaty that claims if someone invades the area with an army, that all the signatories would declare war on the aggressor power.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
I wonder if it would have been possible to create a demilitarized zone in the Alsace-Lorraine, make it an autonomous self governing part of the German empire and get a bunch of the great powers to sign a treaty that claims if someone invades the area with an army, that all the signatories would declare war on the aggressor power.

Remember when they did that with Belgium?  Worked great.  But yeah Germany screwed up again here but not making Alsace-Lorraine an equal member of the German Empire.  Instead it was...some bizarre category 'Reichsland'.  They would have been better served playing up a separate Alsace-Lorraine identity.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
I wouldn't call it an impossible position. The first war was a toss up they could have won if different decisions had been made.

Surely it was a toss up or Germany made a series of wrong choices?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

you forget that in Tim's scenario japan has steam powered mechas.

Quote from: HVC on February 15, 2014, 05:32:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

you forget that in Tim's scenario japan has steam powered mechas.

Schoolgirl steam powered mechas

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2014, 04:48:33 PM
I wonder if it would have been possible to create a demilitarized zone in the Alsace-Lorraine, make it an autonomous self governing part of the German empire and get a bunch of the great powers to sign a treaty that claims if someone invades the area with an army, that all the signatories would declare war on the aggressor power.

Remember when they did that with Belgium?  Worked great.  But yeah Germany screwed up again here but not making Alsace-Lorraine an equal member of the German Empire.  Instead it was...some bizarre category 'Reichsland'.  They would have been better served playing up a separate Alsace-Lorraine identity.

It worked quite well with Belgium.  When Belgium was invaded Brittan came to her aid.  The German military could not get it through their thick skulls that people would in fact honor treaties.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Everybody thought the war would be short though.

Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Say Japan conquers Manchuria, or even Vladivostok. How does that affect Russia's ability to wage war in the west?

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

They did okay just ten years ago, and this time Russia would be fighting the Austrians and probably the Ottomans as well.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 08:24:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

They did okay just ten years ago, and this time Russia would be fighting the Austrians and probably the Ottomans as well.

They were getting horribly overextended in Manchuria, and Russia still had lots of reserves to bring to the war. The only reason Japan won was the 1905 revolution.

Quote from: Solmyr on February 16, 2014, 06:15:17 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 08:24:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2014, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
Japan had no one to attack historically. In this situation she has the Russian Far East and their Manchurian sphere of influence in her sights.

Wow that would have been a disaster for Japan.  Attacking across hundreds of miles in desolate conditions with a tenuous supply line?  I think the Russians know to handle that one.

They did okay just ten years ago, and this time Russia would be fighting the Austrians and probably the Ottomans as well.

They were getting horribly overextended in Manchuria, and Russia still had lots of reserves to bring to the war. The only reason Japan won was the 1905 revolution.

Well, Russia had suffered a series of huge defeats, and they were being encouraged to seek terms.  This wasn't a total war, after all, and Tsushima really ended the Russian ability to put pressure on Japan.  But Japan would have been bankrupt had the war continued, and it doesn't seem likely that they could contribute meaningfully other than annihilating the Russian Pacific Squadron and seizing Vladivostok and environs.  And even that wouldn't be a big deal, since while Vladivostok would be the Russian port that would be most difficult for the Allies (sans Japan) to blockade, it is also the port that would be the least useful in supplying Russia's needs.