4 ms·

Bosnia Herzegovina wasn't "occupied" in any way and it belonging to Austria-Hungary was recognized by all European powers, including Serbia, and thus legal unde

by _ak 13y ago

Bosnia Herzegovina wasn't "occupied" in any way and it belonging to Austria-Hungary was recognized by all European powers, including Serbia, and thus legal under then international law. A limited war against Serbia following the assassination was thus justified, but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other extending the conflict to basically all of Europe, plus the Germans used it as justification to finally implement 30, 40 year old plans to wage war on basically everyone else around them. tl;dr it's complicated.

vasac 13y ago
Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied (no need for quotation marks). It doesn't matter who recognized occupation - it was still an occupation. It wasn't welcomed by Serbs in Bosnia (they didn't start rebelion just to replace one occupying force with another one), it wasn't welcomed by Bosnian Muslims. There were no Austrians or Hungarians in Bosnia and there were no reasons why Bosnia should become part of AH Empire.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  I agree with all but the last sentence. The ethnicity may be considered as constituency warrant for a national state, not for an empire. Usually empires don't have any warrant for their existence but the power through which are maintained.
nzp 13y ago
> but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other How could it not consider such a, ahem, small detail?
levosmetalo 13y ago
So, if an emperor has a right to take country by force, why not grant the same right to inhabitants of that same country to free themselves by force? Besides, how any sane person can find justifying attacking one small neighboring country and killing one third of its male population and committing such atrocities against humanity just to "revenge" the death of one person, for which Serbia wasn't even responsible. After all, if Bosnia was really legitimate part of AH empire, as opposed to occupied country, then why attack Serbia because one AH citizen killed another one. Seems like blaming the victim, since Serbia was clearly the biggest victim of WW1. As you already said, one Bosnian Serb (which btw declared himself as Yugoslavian, like many members of his Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organization) kills one tyrant, then AH and Germany attack half of the Europe, and Serbia and Gavrilo Princip are guilt of WW1? Makes no sense to me.

by _ak 13y ago

vasac 13y ago

Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied (no need for quotation marks). It doesn't matter who recognized occupation - it was still an occupation. It wasn't welcomed by Serbs in Bosnia (they didn't start rebelion just to replace one occupying force with another one), it wasn't welcomed by Bosnian Muslims. There were no Austrians or Hungarians in Bosnia and there were no reasons why Bosnia should become part of AH Empire.

userulluipeste 13y ago
I agree with all but the last sentence. The ethnicity may be considered as constituency warrant for a national state, not for an empire. Usually empires don't have any warrant for their existence but the power through which are maintained.

nzp 13y ago

> but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other How could it not consider such a, ahem, small detail?

levosmetalo 13y ago

So, if an emperor has a right to take country by force, why not grant the same right to inhabitants of that same country to free themselves by force? Besides, how any sane person can find justifying attacking one small neighboring country and killing one third of its male population and committing such atrocities against humanity just to "revenge" the death of one person, for which Serbia wasn't even responsible. After all, if Bosnia was really legitimate part of AH empire, as opposed to occupied country, then why attack Serbia because one AH citizen killed another one. Seems like blaming the victim, since Serbia was clearly the biggest victim of WW1. As you already said, one Bosnian Serb (which btw declared himself as Yugoslavian, like many members of his Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organization) kills one tyrant, then AH and Germany attack half of the Europe, and Serbia and Gavrilo Princip are guilt of WW1? Makes no sense to me.