Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[United Muscovite Nations]

The war?

But they didn't know it was going to reach them.

Hold up fam, your entire argument depends on the idea that Britain was itching for a war and so orchestrated the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand knowing that it would lead to Austria-Hungary giving Serbia an ultimatum, which would lead to Russia mobilizing, which would lead to Germany invading neutral Belgium, thereby giving Britain a valid reason to declare war on Germany.

And now you're saying that Britain didn't know it was going to reach them?

[Novus America]

Except that Black Hand was filled with Bosnian Serbs and acted as a proxy for Pan-Slavic nationalists within the Serbian military.

Bosnian Serbs in the Austrian Empire; not the Serbian Government.

The Black Hand was led by active duty Serbian military officers, who had taken control of Serbia via coup.
It was extremely connected to the Serbian government.

[Neanderthaland]

"I can't prove Britain murdered a foreign leader, but I'm going to use it as the lynch-pin of my argument."

Well there's no evidence the Serbs did it.

That's some tortured logic right there. Even if the group responsible wasn't affiliated with the Serbian government or military, that doesn't make British intervention more likely.

[Old Tyrannia]

While I am something of an Austria-boo I believe the demand entailed something of a military occupation, or some kind of stationing of Imperial troops in Serbia itself. Which of course would be unacceptable to Serbia or any sovereign country.

I'd have to reread the document. I do believe it was worded in such a way that it would undermine Serbian sovereignty, but I think the demand was also one that made sense in the context of it potentially preventing a cover-up to protect Serbian military officers who might have been dragged into the investigation. Wasn't Europe somewhat pro-Austrian initially due to the assassination, even supporting the ultimatum?

There was certainly significant sympathy towards Austria following the assassination, but I'm not sure that there was widespread support across Europe for the ultimatum.

It's worth noting that even the Kaiser believed, following Serbia's agreement to the majority of the ultimatum's terms, that there was no need for conflict and that Austria had received more than they could have reasonably expected. If I recall correctly, his opinion on the matter, expressed in a telegram, was deliberately kept from reaching Vienna in time by elements in the German military who favoured going to war.

[North German Realm]

Well, given Fahran's information I now think it's quite likely that Serbia was behind it. Even if no connection turned up for A-H investigators at the time.

I do want to point out that there are no direct links to the King Peter I of Serbia or to many of his ministers. My suspicion is that a cabal of important military officers cloaked by some sympathetic ministers and maybe even a sympathetic member of the royal family might have been involved. That said, the evidence ends pretty abruptly with the military officers, though we can say that they interacted, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, with the Serbian government. And it would have caused a major scandal.

I don't think there's much of a doubt that the Black Hand and the Serbian military had ties. The actual question is whether Serbia as a state had anything to do with the assassination or whether the military personnel in question were acting without agency. That Serbia flat out refused Austrians to investigate sets a bad precedent, but it's no evidence for proof.

[Novus America]

Well, given Fahran's information I now think it's quite likely that Serbia was behind it. Even if no connection turned up for A-H investigators at the time.

I do want to point out that there are no direct links to the King Peter I of Serbia or to many of his ministers. My suspicion is that a cabal of important military officers cloaked by some sympathetic ministers and maybe even a sympathetic member of the royal family might have been involved. That said, the evidence ends pretty abruptly with the military officers, though we can say that they interacted, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, with the Serbian government. And it would have caused a major scandal.

I doubt King Peter knew, but he was largely a Black Hand puppet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Serbia)

[Fahran]

I do want to point out that there are no direct links to the King Peter I of Serbia or to many of his ministers. My suspicion is that a cabal of important military officers cloaked by some sympathetic ministers and maybe even a sympathetic member of the royal family might have been involved. That said, the evidence ends pretty abruptly with the military officers, though we can say that they interacted, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, with the Serbian government. And it would have caused a major scandal.

I don't think there's much of a doubt that the Black Hand and the Serbian military had ties. The actual question is whether Serbia as a state had anything to do with the assassination or whether the military personnel in question were acting without agency. That Serbia flat out refused Austrians to investigate sets a bad precedent, but it's no evidence for proof.

I agree with that unequivocally.

I doubt King Peter knew, but he was largely a Black Hand puppet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Serbia)

Yep. I mentioned the officer behind the Black Hand putting him in power a bit earlier. That said, there was some opposition to the radical nationalists within his cabinet and not all of his ministers seem to have been on good terms with the Pan-Slavic nationalists.

[Nea Byzantia]

But they didn't know it was going to reach them.

Hold up fam, your entire argument depends on the idea that Britain was itching for a war and so orchestrated the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand knowing that it would lead to Austria-Hungary giving Serbia an ultimatum, which would lead to Russia mobilizing, which would lead to Germany invading neutral Belgium, thereby giving Britain a valid reason to declare war on Germany.

And now you're saying that Britain didn't know it was going to reach them?

No. I'm saying they orchestrated Franz's assassination to stoke tensions between Austria and Serbia, to rope in Germany and Russia. Past that point, the Plan went as the British say "tits up". Things don't always go quite the way you plan; especially in international politics. The opponent gets a move too.

[Kowani]

I do want to point out that there are no direct links to the King Peter I of Serbia or to many of his ministers. My suspicion is that a cabal of important military officers cloaked by some sympathetic ministers and maybe even a sympathetic member of the royal family might have been involved. That said, the evidence ends pretty abruptly with the military officers, though we can say that they interacted, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, with the Serbian government. And it would have caused a major scandal.

I don't think there's much of a doubt that the Black Hand and the Serbian military had ties. The actual question is whether Serbia as a state had anything to do with the assassination or whether the military personnel in question were acting without agency. That Serbia flat out refused Austrians to investigate sets a bad precedent, but it's no evidence for proof.

To be fair to the Serbians, the Austrians wanted independent investigative powers and (I believe) troops in Belgrade.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hold up fam, your entire argument depends on the idea that Britain was itching for a war and so orchestrated the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand knowing that it would lead to Austria-Hungary giving Serbia an ultimatum, which would lead to Russia mobilizing, which would lead to Germany invading neutral Belgium, thereby giving Britain a valid reason to declare war on Germany.

And now you're saying that Britain didn't know it was going to reach them?

No. I'm saying they orchestrated Franz's assassination to stoke tensions between Austria and Serbia, to rope in Germany and Russia. Past that point, the Plan went as the British say "tits up". Things don't always go quite the way you plan; especially in international politics. The opponent gets a move too.

You still have zero evidence of that. Britain doesn't even have the motive to do that because Germany would have probably won such a war pretty easily.

[Fahran]

I don't think there's much of a doubt that the Black Hand and the Serbian military had ties. The actual question is whether Serbia as a state had anything to do with the assassination or whether the military personnel in question were acting without agency. That Serbia flat out refused Austrians to investigate sets a bad precedent, but it's no evidence for proof.

To be fair to the Serbians, the Austrians wanted independent investigative powers and (I believe) troops in Belgrade.

^ This.

[Nea Byzantia]

No. I'm saying they orchestrated Franz's assassination to stoke tensions between Austria and Serbia, to rope in Germany and Russia. Past that point, the Plan went as the British say "tits up". Things don't always go quite the way you plan; especially in international politics. The opponent gets a move too.

You still have zero evidence of that. Britain doesn't even have the motive to do that because Germany would have probably won such a war pretty easily.

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

I'll admit its an off-the-wall theory; and I can't prove it. I just don't believe everything in History is unfortunate coincidence.

[Novus America]

Germany: Declares war on Belgium, Luxembourg, and France, all neutral countries
Britain: Defends the neutral countries from German aggression
You: This is Britain's fault

Tbf attacking France early was just good strategy at that point, it was only a matter of time until Russia dragged them in. Better to try and knock them out early than wait.

Actually it was not, because of the political situation in France. France has a dysfunctional anti war government at the time, even if it went to war, it would have only launched limited attacks which could not break the German fortifications.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You still have zero evidence of that. Britain doesn't even have the motive to do that because Germany would have probably won such a war pretty easily.

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

How does eliminating one of its two possible allies on the continent in the event of war with Germany benefit Britain?

[North German Realm]

I don't think there's much of a doubt that the Black Hand and the Serbian military had ties. The actual question is whether Serbia as a state had anything to do with the assassination or whether the military personnel in question were acting without agency. That Serbia flat out refused Austrians to investigate sets a bad precedent, but it's no evidence for proof.

To be fair to the Serbians, the Austrians wanted independent investigative powers and (I believe) troops in Belgrade.

Well yeah. To be quite honest, the only way this wouldn't trigger a conflict is if they had agreed on an independent investigation from a neutral third-party. By the time anyone had started thinking about that, Russia and Germany had involved their individual alliances.

[Fahran]

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

How does eliminating one of its two possible allies on the continent in the event of war with Germany benefit Britain?

The Eternal Anglo works in mysterious ways, UMN. :^)

[United Muscovite Nations]

You still have zero evidence of that. Britain doesn't even have the motive to do that because Germany would have probably won such a war pretty easily.

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

I'll admit its an off-the-wall theory; and I can't prove it. I just don't believe everything in History is unfortunate coincidence.

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

How does eliminating one of its two possible allies on the continent in the event of war with Germany benefit Britain?

Germany was the primary target; but Russia was as much a rival and a hindrance to British interests as it was an ally.

[North German Realm]

Tbf attacking France early was just good strategy at that point, it was only a matter of time until Russia dragged them in. Better to try and knock them out early than wait.

Actually it was not, because of the political situation in France. France has a dysfunctional anti war government at the time, even if it went to war, it would have only launched limited attacks which could not break the German fortifications.

No matter how optimistic the German Brass was, they had to know that war with Russia would take a while. They couldn't risk France just turrning pro-war in the middle of the war when they had no military presence in the Rhineland and Alsace. Given the larger population and area of Russia, they'd need to involve most if not all of their men, which meant they had to ensure France would be permanently incapacitated first.

[Kowani]

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

How does eliminating one of its two possible allies on the continent in the event of war with Germany benefit Britain?

It doesn’t.

To be fair to the Serbians, the Austrians wanted independent investigative powers and (I believe) troops in Belgrade.

Well yeah. To be quite honest, the only way this wouldn't trigger a conflict is if they had agreed on an independent investigation from a neutral third-party. By the time anyone had started thinking about that, Russia and Germany had involved their individual alliances.

What Neutral third party had the inclination and resources for that?

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

I'll admit its an off-the-wall theory; and I can't prove it. I just don't believe everything in History is unfortunate coincidence.

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

It didn't benefit in a "roundabout way"; it benefited by getting its two main rivals to weaken and attack each other. One of the oldest tricks in the book.

[North German Realm]

How does eliminating one of its two possible allies on the continent in the event of war with Germany benefit Britain?

The Eternal Anglo works in mysterious ways, UMN. :^)

I love blaming the Perfidious Albion for anything and everything as much as the next guy, but Nea Byzantia's conspiracy is too "crackpot tinfoil" and not enough "theory".

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes, but would've weakened themselves and the Russians pretty quickly. That was always the goal. In that sense, World War I was a success.

I'll admit its an off-the-wall theory; and I can't prove it. I just don't believe everything in History is unfortunate coincidence.

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

[North German Realm]

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

The Serbians got supremacy in their home-region despite being primarily responsible for starting the shit that eventually became the Great War. I'd say they were beneficiaries too.

[Nea Byzantia]

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

What did Italy gain from World War I, other than mountains of dead corpses?