3 ms·

While Bosnia was definitely occupied by Austria, it should be noted that the assassins were Serbian nationalists. This makes sense, though, because Serbia was

by Svip 11y ago

While Bosnia was definitely occupied by Austria, it should be noted that the assassins were Serbian nationalists. This makes sense, though, because Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia (Austrian held or not). As the Second Balkans War proved, the Balkan states and peoples weren't exactly the best of friends. The assassination was not purely against Austrian oppression. Ending Austrian occupation was basically a means to an end; if Serbia were to control Bosnia, Bosnia could not be part of Austria. You are not wrong, there would be no need to assassinate Ferdinand had Bosnia not been Austrian held. But had Bosnia not been under Austrian control, it would just have given Serbia a larger opening for an occupation of Bosnia and possibly a third Balkans War.

acqq 11y ago
> Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant. And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-Hungarian_rule_.281878.E2.80.931918.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-... Even that presence since 1878 was the result of Empire's goals to keep the Slavic people separated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 "For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]" Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war. Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."
- Svip 11y ago
  Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary. I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal. But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29
  - acqq 11y ago
    The Balkan wars you mention are exactly the reason why Austria prepared and wanted the war against Serbia: they estimated it would be a fast win, as Serbia's resources must have been drained in these wars. They somewhat miscalculated how the other countries would react and the World War ensued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I "July 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia. Russia mobilizes.[4] August 1: Germany declares war on Russia.[5] August 2: Germany invades Luxembourg. August 3: Germany declares war on France. August 4: Britain declares war on Germany." That will teach these Luxembourgians(?) And the French(?) too.
    - Svip 11y ago
      No, Germany's actions actually make pretty good sense. Remember that the Archduke was shot in June. A month before Austria-Hungary declared war. In this hesitation, France tried to heavily influence the United Kingdom to participate. The Entente alliance between France and Russia was what the Germans had feared in a war with either power. That if they attacked Russia, France would join, and vice versa. This led to the creation of the Schlieffen Plan. The idea was simple: First subdue France by a huge force and then take Russia. The thinking was that Russia would take too long to mobilise its troops to be ready, and in the meantime, the Germans could (in 4 weeks according to the plans) force France to surrender. Then the armies could be moved across the continent and be ready for Russia. Beyond the fact that generals have made changed to the plans since its initial creation in 1905 (such as lessening the imbalance in troop deployment between East and West), the plan also made certain inaccurate implication; particularly regarding Russian mobilisation. Or rather, they did not anticipate the success of the French ambassador to Moscow in convincing the Russians to attack before they were ready (which cost them an entire army), but still forced the Germans to redraw two entire corps from the Western front to the Eastern front. Germany tried to telegram France and Russia whether they would participate. Russia's mobilisation was a confirmation of the fact, while France simply replied 'France will do what is in her best interests'. Germany took that as France will come to Russia's aid. Which also makes sense, because France was really hoping to undo the damage of 1870 and win back Alsace-Lorraine. The United Kingdom was at first incredibly reluctant to get involved in a war on the continent. But France insisted that if Germany violates Belgian neutrality (which they did on 3 August), it would be a direct violation of the 1830 London Conference regarding Belgian neutrality. Germany thought the British would not be foolish enough to go to war over 'a piece of paper' as the German Foreign Minister told the British ambassador when he delivered the declaration of war. And all because Germany had promised Austria-Hungary they would come to their aid in the event of war. It is not without reasoning that Otto von Bismarck himself was opposed to the annexation of Elsaß-Lothringen, because it would create an unneeded rivalry between Germany and France. Had France not had that interest, France would probably have been far less inclined to participate.

by Svip 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

> Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant. And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-Hungarian_rule_.281878.E2.80.931918.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-... Even that presence since 1878 was the result of Empire's goals to keep the Slavic people separated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 "For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]" Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war. Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."

Svip 11y ago
Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary. I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal. But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29
- acqq 11y ago
  The Balkan wars you mention are exactly the reason why Austria prepared and wanted the war against Serbia: they estimated it would be a fast win, as Serbia's resources must have been drained in these wars. They somewhat miscalculated how the other countries would react and the World War ensued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I "July 28: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia. Russia mobilizes.[4] August 1: Germany declares war on Russia.[5] August 2: Germany invades Luxembourg. August 3: Germany declares war on France. August 4: Britain declares war on Germany." That will teach these Luxembourgians(?) And the French(?) too.
  - Svip 11y ago
    No, Germany's actions actually make pretty good sense. Remember that the Archduke was shot in June. A month before Austria-Hungary declared war. In this hesitation, France tried to heavily influence the United Kingdom to participate. The Entente alliance between France and Russia was what the Germans had feared in a war with either power. That if they attacked Russia, France would join, and vice versa. This led to the creation of the Schlieffen Plan. The idea was simple: First subdue France by a huge force and then take Russia. The thinking was that Russia would take too long to mobilise its troops to be ready, and in the meantime, the Germans could (in 4 weeks according to the plans) force France to surrender. Then the armies could be moved across the continent and be ready for Russia. Beyond the fact that generals have made changed to the plans since its initial creation in 1905 (such as lessening the imbalance in troop deployment between East and West), the plan also made certain inaccurate implication; particularly regarding Russian mobilisation. Or rather, they did not anticipate the success of the French ambassador to Moscow in convincing the Russians to attack before they were ready (which cost them an entire army), but still forced the Germans to redraw two entire corps from the Western front to the Eastern front. Germany tried to telegram France and Russia whether they would participate. Russia's mobilisation was a confirmation of the fact, while France simply replied 'France will do what is in her best interests'. Germany took that as France will come to Russia's aid. Which also makes sense, because France was really hoping to undo the damage of 1870 and win back Alsace-Lorraine. The United Kingdom was at first incredibly reluctant to get involved in a war on the continent. But France insisted that if Germany violates Belgian neutrality (which they did on 3 August), it would be a direct violation of the 1830 London Conference regarding Belgian neutrality. Germany thought the British would not be foolish enough to go to war over 'a piece of paper' as the German Foreign Minister told the British ambassador when he delivered the declaration of war. And all because Germany had promised Austria-Hungary they would come to their aid in the event of war. It is not without reasoning that Otto von Bismarck himself was opposed to the annexation of Elsaß-Lothringen, because it would create an unneeded rivalry between Germany and France. Had France not had that interest, France would probably have been far less inclined to participate.