-Under what circumstances could the Austro-Hungarian Empire continue to exist after the war's end? -If Russia did not help Serbia, is the only war that occurs a local "annexation war" and the remaining world powers just show indifference? If so, do you think this war would've happened in another form later anyway? -Why did Italy think they would be rewarded post-war from Allied involvement? -What were the Ottomans promised to get them to fight with the Germans? Surely they had to realize they were a faltering power in a protracted fight. Although I suppose greed for land and power blinds all. -Were all these deals that we know of now, such as "Russia would help Serbia", and "France had a deal with Russia to send two divisions against Germany to open an Eastern Front" widely known at the time or well-kept secrets?
If the Central Powers had won. There was absolutely no other way. This is moot. The moment Austria-Hungary began mobilization war was assured. Because they suspected the Allies would win. They were offered territorial integrity. By 1916 Russia had struck an agreement with England and France that were they to stay in the war they would receive Istanbul, radically redrawing the map of eastern Europe (Russia had in the late 19th century approached Istanbul several times but England and France were virulently opposed to Russian control of the Bosporus). Brest-Litovsk was an absolute disaster for Russia territorially in multiple respects. The general notion of a two front war against Germany was obviously a main focus of French diplomacy since the awesome failure of Sedan. Russia's general patronage of the Slavs was also fairly well known, but realistically Serbia was a pawn in the Balkan game between Russia and Austro-Hungary. Now, what class is this for?
They were probably doomed when Ferdinand was killed, not matter what happened in the war. The empire was crumbling, and its only hope (not that it was a good hope) was the reform-minded Archduke. They might have been brought in anyway. Serbia could be militarily beaten by the Austro-Hungarian empire, but the losses in the invasion and the resulting occupation would have weakened their hold on the rest of the lands. In the decade before WWI, there were lots of ethnic riots in all parts of the empire. These would have gotten worse, and when the empire split there would have been a grab for land by neighboring powers.
I'm not sure I agree. Austria-Hungary might well have survived - the Hungarians had secured a very large share of power by 1910 anyway. And had a nation of "Hungary" been created in 1910 it would be at least twice as large as it is today; after the Versailles treaty every country bordering Hungary had a very substantial Hungarian minority. Some parts of the Empire might have left - like Serbia. But other parts, like the Czechs, actually fought for Austro-Hungarian forces with a bit of spirit in the war. The Moravians might not have wanted to leave.
Other than the Vojvodina, what part of Serbia was still part of the empire by 1910? EDIT: I just realized that I misread your post; you meant other parts would leave as Serbia had. But didn't Serbia break away from Ottomans? The core of the kingdom, at any rate--there were areas in both empires with sizeable Serb populations. And of course, Bosnia changed hands during the 19th Century.
None. We have a bunch of threads about World War II but none for World War I, and I was curious on some things.
Sorry, that's my sloppy writing, not much misreading. I was generally referring to the Balkan Slaves who were under Austro-Hungary's rule at the time, which I agree was not an especially large group.
I've read Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan which offered up analysis of the Versailles peace treaty in context of the immediate post war period and I'm interested to know what your thoughts are on the following: - How German reparations and 'War Guilt Clause' impacted on the German economy and psyche and how this fostered the Nazis rise to power and started the tremors that ultimately erupted into WWII. - Collapse of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires leading to British and French control of the middle east via parceled mandates and ultimately shaped the political boundaries we see to day and how these artificial divisions ultimately led us to the situation we see today. - Italian hegemony in Asia minor and how this fostered the fascist rise in Italy and across Europe. - Lack of Russian influence during the peace process especially in eastern Europe and central asia due to their focus on the revolution and subsequent internal struggles. How this power vacuum enabled the other world powers to influence areas traditionally in the Russian sphere of influence and how this shaped the communist agenda toward foreign policy in the inter war years. - American turns from 'kingmaker' for the allies in WWI, to Wilson playing power broker slash world government creator at the talks, and the subsequent turn to isolationism in the inter war years and how these positions laid the groundwork ultimately for Ike's military industrial complex being borne out of WWII. - Japanese walking away from the conference and how, if passed, clauses on racial equality and concessions of German territory in Asia could have muted Japanese aggression in the post war years. As well as how these impacted other European colonial areas like the French in Vietnam and the colonial partitioning of China, and how these decisions forged the Communist Chinese hegemony in Asia post WWII. I'm of the mind that WWI and WWII are two massive campaigns of essentially the same war that dragged Europe (and the world by proxy) from the last of the feudal (monarchist) era into the modern world we see today, and that the Versailles treaty was the exact wrong way to forge a lasting peace. I'm curious what your thoughts are as well.
Once the central powers mobilised - Russia was compelled to mobilise as its mobilisation time was at least twice that of Germany. Thus war by clockwork. In the modern day where war appears to happen as if by magic, its easy to forget the incredible logisitics involved in mobilising these enormous forces which were rail and road bound. Waiting around a few weeks to see if a war might remain localised would invite complete disaster.
While its fair to say WWII had it origins in WWI in all other respects they are completely different. WWI was a war of imperialism not a war of liberation
I agree with that in the sense that the liberating effort for WWII (especially in the North American countries) was a dominant theme, but I'd also say the Axis powers were very imperialistic in their actions leading up to and during the war. My major differentiation is the scale of the war (WWII having more and bigger theatres) due to the increases in mechanization and technology, but essentially WWII doesn't happen without WWI because of the imbalanced peace and diplomatic mistakes.
heard/read (whatever) somewhere recently that there's considered to be only two living veterans of US involvement in WWI left still alive, both well over 100 years old. thus that war seems its an apt subject to discuss, and by extension, help not to forget, as the primary sources soon won't exist anymore.
Has anyone read John Keegans excellent book? http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/0375400524
The Empire was collapsing in the last weeks of the war before November 11 1918. The Czechoslovaks already declared independence, I believe. As for Serbia, by the time the war ended, all of Serbia (the 1914 version) had been liberated by a combined French-Serbian army.
I think we have two Canadians left - and there is talk of a State funeral as well. Interestingly enough one of them has lived in the US for upwards of 50 years and was in the army but never saw action. He and his family have gone on the record as saying they would rather not have a state funeral. I'll dig up a link if I can later.
Even in the relatively modern age mobilization is still a problem. The 6 Day War was partially a product of mobilization and the unwillingness to wait for the other side to mobilize fully.
I never read Keegan's book, but I enjoyed "Dreadnought" by Robert K. Massie. However, the critics did not like it.
Are you sure about this? AFAIK, Egypt mobilized several divisions into the Sinai in mid May 1967 and by late May were about to launch an attack (operation Dawn?) which was called back only hours before it was to start (supposedly Nasser suspected that Israel found out about the plan so he ordered the cancellation). I might be wrong, but I think that by late May most Egyptian army divisions were in the Sinai. Syrian claims, in mid May, were that they are ready to not only stop any Israeli attack, but ready to start an attack themselves. While this might be just idle boasting, the facts that: this crisis started because both the Syrian and the USSR believe that Israel was mobilized to Attack Syria by mid May that this was Syrian only "front" The Golan heights area was heavily fortified to start with and used for regular shelling of Israel the short distances from many Army basis to the Golan heights and Syrian reliance on a standing Army give these Syrian claims some validity. Jordan might very well have not been fully mobilized. IIRC, they put an Egyptian general in charge just days before the war and he had a different plan from the original Jordanian plan. However, it was Jordon which started attacking along this front and Israel had to re-mobilized forces from both its southern and northern fronts to deal with Jordon. It likely that Arab armies were not effectively deployed; had bad Strategies, Tactics, Leaders, Commanders; suffered from poor supplies, logistic planning; etc. But is seems to me that they had more than enough time to mobilize and have done so according to their plans and for the most part archived their goals during the 3+ weeks before June 5th.
I was talking about Israel. Once Israel made the decision to mobilize it was a matter of time until the war began.