Btw, I know you don’t react to Extra History within the first couple weeks of their videos airing, so I don’t know if you’ve already seen their new series, but if you haven’t, it’s pretty cool. It’s their series on N@z! Occultism, and it’s fascinating. I’d love to see your thoughts on them!
It is also worth to mention that after humiliating defeat by Japan. Russia was actively seeking conflict against "week west™" and was pushing on Serbia to act provocatively, with full intend on starting the war. Because it was actually quite obvious, Germany recognize Russia entering the war as act of aggression. Unfortunately Entente didn't know that. Later during WW2 Russia was actively working with Adolf on starting the war. And now story repeat again.
The video is a classic falsification of history...the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the darkness of nations....Italians, Czechs, Romanians, Balkan nations....WW1 would have happened even without the assassination of the heir to the throne....because the political situation between the countries in Europe was like
39:30, US wouldn't have waited for the approval of the Mexican government in this scenario. They would've sent the FBI, CIA, Seal team 6 and all kinds of covert forces that you could think of to Mexico. Remember how they launched a manhunt against a certain man who was living in Pakistan and responsible for the crashing of certain aeroplanes and demolition of some American buildings. Imagine what they would do if a VP got assassinated?
@@JustAnotherAccount8 Where do you get that idea that Bosniaks (whoever they were) hated the "Austro-Hungarians". You should not believe everything Serb ... I mean ... Yugoslav propaganda tells you.
@@JustAnotherAccount8 The Bosnians were generally known as loyal at the Isonzo Front and probably got more military awards than other A-H soldiers. If this was really true, why didn't they immediately rebel after the annexation? Stop reading Serbian propaganda.
His view is very biased; he is focusing completely on the AH side of the story while completely ignoring the Serbian perspective. There is no mention of Serbian support for the Austrian cause in the revolution of 1848 in their fight against Hungary, and the subsequent mockery of Serbian autonomy in southern Hungary by Austria (see the formation and quick dissolution of the Voivodship of Serbia and Timiș Banat), political machinations with the Obrenović dynasty (he only briefly mentions a convention signed in 1881 but omits how humiliating it was for Serbia), and the occupation of Bosnia after Serbia supported an uprising of the Bosnian Serbs against the Ottomans. He does make some good points, but in his view, AH is a benevolent empire that just wants to peacefully coexist with its neighbors, which is completely bonkers. It is, however, a good overview of the AH position, but you should probably research what made Serbia go from an Austrian ally since the 15th century to the early 19th century to an enemy in the late 19th century. Hint: Austria wanted to treat Serbia as a colony or a vassal after the Turks were gone.
I would not agree with you (completely). There are a lot of details, for example, Serbia was an ally of Austria under the Obrenović dynasty. The secret officer organization Black Hand under the leadership of Apis (the same who organized the Sarajevo assassination) killed the last Obrenovics and brought in the Karađorđević dynasty, which switched sides and became a Russian ally. Through the Balkan wars, Serbia expanded and set its sights on Bosnia, which I AH annexed. Serbs were a minority in Bosnia (somewhere around a quarter of the population), and Muslims and Croats were in favor of unification with AH South Slavic countries. FF promised to create a South Slavic part of the empire equal to Austria and Hungary. The FF bothered both the Austrian and Hungarian ruling circles, the Serbs and their patrons the Russians, who wanted revenge on the AH for what they perceived as betrayal in the Crimean War. After the defeat in the Far East and in the Crimean War, the Russians needed an easy target to raise their heads again.
Do you have a source for a claim that Serbs were a 1/4 of the population? They are at 30% today, after a genocide in ww2, colonization of Vojvodina right after ww2, and a lot of them moved out during the last war. And Serbs had a consistently lower birth rate than Muslims/Bosniaks for last 50 years at least. Serb nationalist sources claim 60% of Serbs in Bosnia in early 20th century, more realistic ones state there were slightly less then 40%. But a 1/4 just doesn't add up. You also ignore the fact that political climate was different than today. Not small number of Bosniaks were in favor of south slavic state. Heck, one of the co-conspiritors was a Muslim, Muhamed Mehmedbašić. Either way, that was just one of the points I made. I also mentioned Austrian machinations regarding Serbs in modern day Vojvodina, meddling in Serbia affairs during Obrenović dynasty. Serbs resentment toward Austria didn't come out of the blue, even if you ignore Bosnian question.
WW1 is one of the most complicated conflicts in history. It wasn't as cut and dry to who is the good guys and bad guys. While Germany wasn't innocent with everything they did, the British blockade of Germany led to mass starvation of innocent civilians.
@@frankanderson5012yes kinda. The idea is basically that germany fought not deciebingly under narratives. It was just: Ok they hate us (e.g. because our economic rise) but not to free the people.
You should do more reactions to Lavader. He made a video to show how Wilhelm 2 actually did not want WW1, and worked hard diplomatically to avoid it. He showed how he was treated unfairly by the allies. I was quite surprised by the evidence he brought forward for this. He is kind of a myth-buster in terms of history narratives created by the allies.
I haven't seen the video yet, but I plan on watching. I think I'm in a similar position to Chris in that I really enjoy lavaders videos and he certainly has interesting opinions and I like his thoughts process. However I disagree with him a fair bit and with what I know of WW1, i think it's a far, far stretch to paint the kaiser as a victim. I mean there were certain things he did do to stop or slow the war, but in my opinion, those were only some to facilitate the German mobilization and early offensive actions. I'm willing to say that it wasn't all the kaisers fault, but he does own a massive share of the main cause of the war.
The Kaiser may have wanted peace but not necessarily the war hawks in his government. In the same vein that Britain and France were concerned about a rising Germany. Germany was concerned about a rising Russia.
And even if he wanted peace internally, his actions throughout the July crisis absolutely ensured that war would happen, just not necessarily to the scale it ended up being
I think one mistake/tragedy people make is associating the central powers to the mustache man and shutting down any idea of a grey area regarding WW1. I’m only a few minutes into the video but I felt like I should mention it and I’m sure it’s probably wrong too.
I think you are 100% - The start of the war is like a bar fight where no one wants to throw the first punch, but then every one throws the first punch at the same time
@@nickjojo4623 No. This is entirely incorrect. History is written by the victor. That's the only reason people think that. Germany was a rising empire that almost everyone else was trying for decades to harm economically. Austria-Hungary had their heir to the throne murdered. The Black Hand, was a Serbian secret military group. It included a bunch of government officials in Serbia, army members and so on, SPECIFICALLY WITH GOALS such as assassinations. While Princip may not have been a member, he was affiliated with them. Russia then got involved backing Serbia. So Germany, the rising power looking to establish themselves as a regional power, threw their support behind their ally. The Serbian government was pretty much involved via the Black Hand group to assassinating Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary had every right tor retaliate. Russia had no eggs in the basket and got involved, so Germany got involved. And because Russia got involved, France got involved. Even though Germany made it clear they were only going to get involved if Russia militarily got involved against Austria-Hungary. France had even less reason to. Nothing Germany did necessarily made them the bad guy besides invading Belgium which was their military strategy against France. Kaiser Wilhelm was even the one person in the whole war TRYING to stop it because it had gone too far. But the civilian government and the military was fully behind it. But they were by no means the bad guy
but Serbia didnt train Gavrilo, nor was teh Black Hand associated with the government in Serbia in any way. The black hand had strained relations with the Serbian crown
Black hand was illegal in Serbia. So no relations with the crown even though, being secret organization, some people from the government may have been members. At that time, secret organizations were all the rage in the whole world.
No - it was small fraction of zealot young officers . Maybe 100 .people who leads Apis . They didnt like Serbian crown prince Alexander also . Threaten ,blackmailed gov. officials . Bullies .
The leader of the Black Hand Dragutin Dimitrijević Apis was simultaniously the chief of Serbian intelligence service. The link is obvious, Serbs tried to play the "plausable deniability" card but failed. Also, Franz Ferdinand was not just a target of opportunity. As an heir to the throne (Franz Joseph was old and sick) Ferdinand was promising federalisation of the Austro - Hungarian empire which would satisfy Slavic nations within the empire (Croats, Poles, Czech, Slovaks etc) and would at the same time make the project of Greater Serbia if not impossible, then very improbable. Simply put, for Serbia to expand Franz Ferdinand had to die. That being said, Austrians weren't exactly reluctant to declare war, a lot of generals and ministers privately rejoiced when they heard about Sarajevo assasination because it gave them the opportunity to go to war.
@@FidelisRaven this is why ruling is hard. Everyone does whatever they want and throw clips into the wheels. Anakin had a solution, what if someone wise was at the top and everyone just did whatever the wise person said? Amirite?
THe author of the video being watched conveniently leaves out the history proceding the assasination. Austria was an invader of Bosnia and in 1909 annexed it, after control but not ownership excluding anything muslim or or Serbian. Although a large part of its empire was Slavic it was controlled by Austrians and Hungarians despite being half the existing population. in fact corresponence in the years prior to the war refered to them as an under class. While the annexation was acceptedby buying off the Turks and a German ultimation it was strongly opposed by the population. So in no way was Austria a poor victim of Serbian aggression, it was an active expansionist and Serbia while not blameless was to be added to the empire with the excuse of the assasination. After annexation the Austrians wrote its constitution with no reference to its inhabitants. Any attempt at independence from yhr Empire was put down by the Streifkorps, who were hated and had a very bad reputation among the population. Their only support was among the minority cathoics which is not surprising of the catholic Austrian empirore.
Before I start, a quick note, this will be a long comment (it's a long video, a lot of things were said without context and I hope most of the viewers here, including VLogging are not part of the TikTok generation with an attention span of a gnat) This is in no way attack on the quality of the video nor the original creator. There are multiple very serious revisionist remarks that are occurring in this video (either from bias or from lack of understanding of the general climate of pre WW1 international politics) I will not be pointing fingers at nationality of the creator, but I do wonder whether he intentionally omitted crucial information or he just has a lack of knowledge. If it's the latter, I hope he will learn some things one day. First and foremost, regarding the ultimatum. Every single point was discussed with Russia France and UK and they acknowledged the severity of it. Churchill even remarked: "Europe is trembling on the verge of a general war. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia being the most insolent document of its kind ever devised" This whole video is put in a way to consider Serbia as a peer competitor and not a second grade country in international politics as if Serbia can change international diplomacy which is funny to say the least. Whole of Europe wanted the war, everyone was convinced that their own military was so much more advanced than the opposing side but they based their knowledge on the previous wars and completely lost track of technology. An incredible book "Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman perfectly explains it. Germany itself believed would knockout France in only a couple of months due to their previous victory in the Franco-Prussian war (we all know how that turned out). Regarding the May coup in Serbia. Honestly, what was said in the video is a blatant lie. They were not killed because the conspiracists wanted less Austrian influence and more French and Russian, that was the consequence of it. He was killed because he was deeply unpopular for a multiple of reasons. I will try to explain some of those, but it’s a huge subject and obviously some things will be run over. There were 2 dynasties, the Karadjordjevici and Obrenovici. Karadjordjevici came first (the first Serbian Uprising ), Obrenovici came later and they were basically taking turns. The Obrenovići 1817-1842 and 1858-1903, the Karađorđevići in 1842-1858 and after 1903 (a note: not all of them were kings, Milan Obrenovic was the first (father of Alexander Obrenovic, the one who was assassinated in May 1903)) Milan tried to acquire absolute power but failed doing so. He was deeply unpopular so he abdicated the throne. The problem occurred when it was found out that Milan still had influence over Alexander and advised him on how to lead the country and how to play politics (letters in French were found out in 2020 from Milan to Alexander) (they still had a very complicated relationship, especially because of the next point). One of the problems was Alexander’s marriage to Draga Masin who was 9 years older, not of noble birth and a widower. As a consequence of the marriage, King Alexander Obrenovic himself started aligning more to Russia due to his strained relations with the rest of Europe. He was more worried about his marriage than his country, which of course increased unrest and lack of loyalty. Milan himself was exiled (due to the marriage disagreement) and wouldn’t return to Serbia, he died in 1901. The Austrian influence argument is a lie, these are undisputed facts… There were multiple crisis prior to WW1. First Moroccan Crisis 1905-1906, Pig War (also known as Customs War) 1906-1908, Bosnian Crisis 1908-1909, Second Moroccan Crisis 1911 which could have sparked war but didn't due to pure dumb luck. I will be focusing on 2 of these because they were completely ignored as if never had existed, the Bosnian Crisis and the Pig War and because they are directly related to the events in the video. Serbia was economically dependent on Austria-Hungary so naturally Serbia tried to become less dependent by opening trade with other big countries. In 1904 Serbia wanted to improve it’s military by acquiring artillery and munitions from the German Krupp as well as French Schneider and from Skoda in AH (which was also owned by some members of the Vienna court), AH due to their tendencies in the Balkans didn’t like it so they imposed big customs on pork (which was a substantial revenue in agricultural Serbia in the early 20th century). By 1908 due to pressure from Germany, the Customs war ended when AH relieved the pressure realizing it's not going anywhere The second, more important crisis was the Annexation (Bosnian) Crisis, which occurred in 1908 due to the unilateral Annexation of Bosnia. A little of history before delving deeper. Region of Bosnia was a part of the Ottoman Empire until 1878 when the Congress of Berlin approved occupation of Bosnia for a period of 30 years (There was an uprising in 1882 which I won’t be delving in deeper, basically, local Serbs and Muslims joined forces against AH due to unresolved issues regarding taxes, military obligation as well as agrarian ones). Needless to say, a lot of south Slavs lived there so it was generally viewed as a temporary solution for the newly renewed south Slavic nationalism. When AH annexed, it sparked a big problem. Mostly because south Slavs inside Austria-Hungary were getting treated worse and worse and started asking questions like autonomy the same way Hungary fought it’s way. These 2 points are extremely important for understanding the nationalism part which was used in a video as a way to demonize the perpetrators. Gavrilo Princip himself testified that he deeply regretted killing Sophie especially since she was pregnant (disputed, but a popular theory) (I am not sure whether he hit her intentionally or accidentally) On the note of good guys vs bad guys. While WW1 is more of a grey area in compare to WW2, that doesn’t mean there weren’t “bad” guys. Austria-Hungary committed atrocities across Serbia. After Battle of Cer where they suffered the first defeat, as a punitive action they leveled the town of Sabac (Used to be called Serbian Paris) as well as killing cca 120 civilians (mostly women and children as well as old people) that were previously locked in a church. That was just a start, nearly 4000 civilians were killed during that short occupation all together. It wasn’t until 1916 when the formal occupation began which lasted till Serbian army liberated it in November 1918. During that occupation, they continued their atrocities. All in all, nearly a third of Serbian population perished during the war, either from military actions, from concentration camps to disease as a result of famine. (As a point of reference, the massive 27 million casualties USSR sustained were cca 14-15% of total population and Nazi Germany a generous 7.5%). I Personally don’t have ill feelings towards AH the same way people have towards Nazi Germany (the scale of their atrocities was on another level) but I will always fight revisionist history with facts. I believe this is more than enough for now, I can continue in the comments later! :)
As Historian: 1. Gavrilo Princip was not part of Black hand. He was a part of Young Bosnia movement that was Yugoslav movement , not Serbian, and was created by Serbians and Croats but also Bosniaks. All of them were not citizens of Serbia, but Austro-Hungarian citizens. None of them was trained in Serbia, nor there is any evidence that they had any training prior to assassination. Princip, Grabez and Cabranovic went to Serbia month earlier, and it was speculated that they had contact with Black hand, but there is no evidence of that. 2. There were 2 issues that created tension and they are not mentioned here. First was unlawful annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1908. That Directly confront talk with Serbia by breaking Berlin congress conference 1878 and stating that Bosnia is not part of Austro-Hungary but under it protectorate, and they will help with administration. Corruption was insane in that period, lot of laws were created that benefit only empire citizens. At that moment about 70% Bosnia were Serbs. Second is "Carinska kriza" also known as "Pig war" 1906 -1911 that actually almost destroyed Serbia's possibility to trade with anyone else except Austria. Blockade that Austria did were drastic, and Serbian people in Austrian lands were forced to stop buying Serbian goods. 3. Balkan Wars , both of them, were also an issue since Austrians directly argued that Bulgarians need to get part of nowadays northern Macedonia. Serbia lost almost 10% of fighting men, 4. And most important. 28th June is great Serbian holiday, called Vidovdan, and arrival of Archduke was nothing else but provocation to have excuse for war. To confirm that, there was a first try of assassination, by bomb and wounding about 20 people from crowd and in the next car. And they continue journey by plan. Then driver of archduke's made wrong turn, and then assassination happened out of route which is very uncommon for assassinations. But I'll leave that to conspiracy theorists
Bosniaks didn't exist backthen, they all declared as Muslim and Catholic Serbs, but you have a point, war would start anyway, Austria haf imperial goals in the Balkans.
5:15 The tragic thing is that the guy who was mostly against any kind of war on the governmental side in Austria-Hungary got murdered in Sarajevo. Franz-Ferdinand also planned to have Hötzedorf sacked after his return from Sarajevo. They had been political allies once, but Conrad's desire for a pre-emptive war against Serbia and his poor handling of the Redl affair had led to a falling out between the Crown Prince and the Chief of the General staff. For anyone who doesn't know what the Redl affair was: Colonel Alfred Redl had been the deputy head of the Evidenzbüro, the military intelligence agency of the k.u.k Monarchy, who got turned by the Russians and sold out all the Austrian agents in the Russian Empire and all Austrian war plans against Russia. He got found out and was forced to commit suicide in May 1913. Because of him, A-H was fighting Russia basically blind, which is a major reason for the poor performance of the A-H army against Russia in the beginning of WW1, just for a bit of context A-H suffered nearly quarter of its losses in 1914 in the first 5 months of WW1 a war that went on for another 47 afterwards (also Potiorek's piss poor handling of the Serbian Campaign added a lot to these losses). Contrast this to Italy's entry into the war in 1915, where A-H still had a functioning intelligence network, on the day of Italy's declaration of war the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine attacked the Italian Naval Command in Ancona and took out basically the entire train network on the eastern coast of Italy, derailing, quite literally, the Italian mobilisation for weeks.
I would say that is the whole reason the black hand targeted F-F in the first place. This way a war between A-H and Serbia was most likely and as long as Austria-Hungary started an official war, they could play the victim card and count on getting russian support. It's like making a bait move in chess. (i hope that's the correct way of wording it)
Franz Ferdinands position meant sweet fuck all. Only Hungary was more or less onboard with having no war. Austrian nobles were salivating. Say he does become a ruler, how is he gonna accomplish any of the reforms Karl was trying in the final years? For an Illyrian crown Hungary would have to agree since Croatia was theirs. What of the Slovenes then? Do they get representation? Autonomy? Or become a part of that crown? What of Istria? What will the others think? Czechs were going to Russia just to not be ruled by Austria any longer. They would 100% demand more power. Slovaks werent gonna sit by and let Hungary repress them either. Nor would the Romanians, Poles and Ukrainians. Fact is under their model, adding a crown meant making them their own country with its own passport, army and everything. There is simply no way devolution wasnt going to result in independence eventually. A united states of austria is a pipedream about as realistic as the british imperial federation, aka CANZUK on crack
As an Austrian, I’d like to add a different perspective to the question. Discussions around who’s to blame-Serbia or Austria-Hungary-and the power politics involved often miss a crucial point: the responsibility of the Austro-Hungarian ruling class toward their own people. Some argue Austria-Hungary didn’t anticipate the full scale of the conflict, but as VTH highlighted, they very likely expected a bloodbath. Strong warning voices in Austria and Russia foresaw the potential for massive escalation, yet their concerns were ignored. Given this, the decision by Austria-Hungary’s leaders was irresponsible. This doesn’t mean Serbia played no role-there were certainly crucial actions on their part. But from a moral standpoint, knowing that their choices would lead to the deaths of 1.5 million Austro-Hungarians (not to mention the catastrophic losses in other nations), it’s clear the decision was reckless. Additionally, the war ultimately brought about the fall of the empire itself, a tragic end that reshaped Europe. While I don’t believe WWI could have been entirely avoided-since larger issues were at play beyond just Austria-Hungary and Serbia-the actions of Austria-Hungary’s leadership did pave the way for a tragic outcome.
I was thinking something quite similar while watching the video: even if the decision was justifiable, it still doesn't mean it was the right decision to go to war with Serbia, because they knew Russia would intervene and that the consequences of such a decision would therefore be much bigger than the initial cause.
"Strong warning voices in Austria and Russia foresaw the potential for massive escalation, yet their concerns were ignored." That is literally happening right now and nobody sees it. History is systematically pushed away from school in order to be able to repeat the warmongering rhetorik. When you keep the sheeps in check they will be glad to give up their life for the higher-ups. P.S.: Oberst Reisner as historian and officer understands that perfectly.
As a Serb who loves history and enjoys different views, I agree with what you said. I must add that Serbia was in very bad shape before WW1 after all the casualties in the Balkan Wars and another major war was not what the Serbian government wanted at all.
@@ivicatasik7923 No one else gave it to them. They were tasked with the administration of the region after the Russo-Turkish war, but it remained officially part of the Ottoman Empire. Then the Austro-Hungarians themselves decided to annex it in 1908.
From the video it seems like Lavader made the case that Serbia was untrustworthy but doesn't make the case that "Austria-Hungary was RIGHT to Invade Serbia" which was the video title. It was, however, an interesting take on the traditional narative of the Central Powers being the enemy.
The grandson of the man who SINGED Austrian demands said that EVERY SINGLE DOT was accepted, even the one that is to this day stated as ''non-singed'', every single one, and they still invaded.
What you fail to understand in general is that all this was part of German and Austrian plan to occupy Balkans, as there was literary no single inhabitant of their nationality there. In the same time they also held occupied many other Slavic lands, including Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, even parts of Poland and Ukraine. Claiming that they were somehow RIGHT to do so is plain stupid. 1. The assassination happened in Bosnia, a Serbian land, occupied by Austria 1908. - so only 6 years prior to the event. What Gavrilo Princip did was a pure retaliation against the oppressors - heroic act. 2. 1906. Austria imposed sanctions on Serbia trying to weaken it's economy, because they were already planning to invade Serbia. However the sanctions failed, as they only made Serbia ties with Russia and France stronger. 3. Balkan wars (1912-1913): Serbia emerged from these conflicts with significant territorial gains, further challenging Austria-Hungary's influence in the region. It fueled up Austrian war plans.
@@Rugess-Nome Every medieval Bosnian king had Serbian name and Serbian last name, was baptized in Serbian orthodox church, including the 1st king of Bosnia and the most important one Tvrtko I Kotromanic, he was baptized in the Serbian Orthodox Church of Saint Nicholas in Mileseva Monastery, located near Prijepolje in Serbia. He called himself King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Coast, and the Western Lands. By far majority of population was Serbian, mostly orthodox, some catholic and later in 15th century some bogomils as well. Further your claims that Serbs committed some crimes in Balkan wars or World wars where they fought against German, Austrian, and Turk occupation, and were massacred in millions is beyond disgusting.
Austrians only needed excuse to attack Serbia. Main goal of Austria and Germany was to go on shores of warm seas and on Mediterranean . So, Austria can use excuses to justify start of great war, but behind everything were their old plans to go on Mediterranean an Bosphorus
The whole video is nonsense, without any knowledge of how law works. We won't even talk about the fact that Gavrilo Princip was born in Austro-Hungarian empire, while Bosnia was a legal colony of Austria. He had their personal ID card. He was not a citizen of Serbia. Let's just look at the "terrorist assassination" false premise: In 1878, at Congress of Berlin, the world was divided between big powers. Autro-Hungarian empire got Bosna and Herzegovina as its colony, for 25 years concession. The concession expired in 1903. If Austria wanted to keep its Bosnian colony, a new treaty had to be made with the big powers. Instead, Austro-Hungarian empire just unilaterally extended its concession on Bosnian colony indefinitely. And then annexed it into its empire. "Unilaterally" means: without the agreement of other parties (big powers). That's the official term from international law. As this annexation has been done against the international law - then any act against the Austro-Hungarian forces in Bosnia - can not be considered as a terrorist act. But instead as an act of liberation. Franz Ferdinand - was not assassinated in Vienna. But in Bosnia, an area which Austro-Hungarian empire held illegally occupied after 1903. Thus Austro-Hungarian empire, under international law - had no legal right to occupy Serbia, and kill 1.2 million (official WW1 casualties data) of its citizens.
As a Serbian and someone who follows Chris's channel for years I'd like to offer my perspective and possibly a counterpoint: 1. When it comes to organization Young Bosnia which carried out assassination (Which Princip was part of) was a pro-Yugoslav anarchist organization based in Bosnia (which was part of Austria-Hungary) Princip himself declared himself as anarchist Yugoslav at his trial, also Young Bosnia had Bosnian muslims members as well as Bosnian Serbs, as for the Black Hand they were the shadow organization that controlled 1/3 of Serbian government as well as they had influence in the army, they did wanted to provoke a war and helped with planning, training and logistics, Serbian prime minister at that point Nikola Pasic as well as Serbian King Peter I and Serbian chief of staff Field Marshal Radomir Putnik were against black hand and had 0 knowledge about assassination and would be against it because Serbia already had 2 wars in 1912 and 1913 and Serbia was exhausted, so the argument that Serbian government approved the assassination was complete falsehood. 2. As said in the video Gavrilo Princip and the all accused members of Young Bosnia that carried out assassination were Austrian citizens born and raised in Austro-Hungarian empire so Archduke was killed by it's own citizens so by international law that itself removes the argument for invasion, at his trial Princip said his only goal was to kill Archduke and that his was Yugoslav revolutionary and he had no intention to kill Archduke wife. 3. Several German and Austrian historians provided theories that Austrian government knew about assassination plans and let them carry on with it because they wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Serbia, evidence to it is the day that Archduke visited Sarajevo 28 June which was seen as provocation by Serbian population because 28 June is most important day in Serbian history it is the day of Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and marks the beginning of the end of Serbian medieval kingdom but it is consider as symbol of resistance in Serbian history, secondly security for his visit was very light and thirdly he went again to the streets after a failed bombing attack earlier in the day. 4. When it comes to ultimatum Austria sent to Serbia, Serbian government did everything to avoid war (if Serbia wanted war it would reject ultimatum outright) Serbia accepted 9 out of 10 points of very harsh ultimatum and British politicians said that ultimatum was made in such a way that no country that consider itself independent would accept such a thing, point in ultimatum that was in dispute was Austrian police and court officials be allowed to go around and arrest people in Serbia, Serbian government DIDN'T REJECT THIS POINT but offered that point in question be submitted to arbitration by the great powers of Europe and whatever they decided Serbian government would abide by it, but Austria rejected arbitration offer and declared war, not to mention that German government itself said there was no cause for war after they saw Serbian response to ultimatum. ps: I do believe Lavader being Bosnian muslim comes with certain bias and prejudice against Serbians and it's hard for me to take his video srsly and objective, cause he forgot to mention a lot of stuff, also let's not forget Austrian soldiers committed many war crimes when they invaded Serbia killing lot of civilians which was well documented by Red Cross so there is no doubt in my mind that they were the bad guys to us in Serbia.
@@palmanbracht9125 I would recommend watching Austrian movie called "Sarajevo 1914" also called "Das Attentat" in German, it explains a lot and confirms conspiracy in upper levels of austrian government and military about them wanting to get rid of archduke and to invade Serbia they were just looking for a reason.
Thank you! The point about the ultimatum almost never gets mentioned in the discussions about WW I and Austria’s agenda, and in this video particularly, it just shows the clear bias and at the very least, complete lack of desire to research in detail.. the fact that the ultimatum was so obviously set in a way in which it would almost guarantee any sovereign country rejecting it and despite Serbia actually agreeing to all of its points and suggesting one most outrageous point be up for arbitration and Germany actually seeing Serbia’s response as very reasonable, Austria still attacked, and committed atrocities..
Lavader makes an VERY compelling case here even to Me as someone who is pro Entente, the fact how they made a statue of a guy who was a killer who killed an innocent couple just because they were royalty is disgraceful and those cheering that statue of a man who killed a woman should be ashamed of themselves and can f-off.
EDIT: I have to edit my comment here. I posted the upper paragraph of the below text on the original video, but someone pointed out that there’s no evidence that A-H supported Albanian insurgents. And I actually (and surprisingly to me) couldn’t find any neutral sources regarding this (only some Serbian articles). Someone can help me out on this? Until then I have to admit that my comment might be wrong. I apologize if I misled some 30+ people. Ouch. A lesson for me not to rush into debate in things I’m not that much familiar about. The original comment: This video initially left mixed feelings to me, but it deepens this whole debate so it’s good and interesting. I loved Lavader’s conclusion at the end. Both Austria-Hungary and Serbia had conflicting interests. That’s simply it. I’ll add a few points from Serbian perspective, that he didn’t mention, without going into justification or reasoning. Watching this video people might get impression that the super patient Austria-Hungary was giving Serbia chance after chance to correct herself, but Vienna was a lot more proactive. For example, just like Austria-Hungary was accusing Serbia of causing unrest within Bosnia, they themselves were arming, financing and guiding Albanian groups to wage insurrection within Serbia in 1913 and later. The question of why they did that makes for a good debate. Expansionism? Or just keeping Serbia in check so they don’t grow too dangerous? In any case there are two sides to this. The other topic from this period that he didn’t mention was The Pig War of 1906-1908. Also, I have to say this about Gavrilo Princip. I’m a patriot, but I feel disgusted by this chest-beating kind of nationalism that’s promoted for masses in Serbia. I can’t hate Gavrilo though. Growing in his shoes surrounded by ardent student nationalists and anarchists, I would have most likely done the same thing on that June 28. But, my fellow Serbs… what did we gain? What was the interest? Gavrilo fired a bullet that sent around 1.2 million Serbs to their graves, eliminated their greatest foreign protector, the Tsarist Russia, and cleared the path for communism under which the Serbs suffered too after 1944. Not to mention around 17 million other deaths in WW1. And the failed project of Yugoslavia. Gavrilo definitely should NOT have gotten the monument erected by Serbia… 100%!
It is insane how Serbia erected a statue for a terrorist. Guess their backwater mindset is the reason why they plunge the world into war, because of some stupid agenda like "make Yugoslavia great again".
I've always thought the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a tragic event all on it's own. Franz was a genuinely good person, and would have been a far better king than his father, and him dying but telling his wife that she had to live was so beautiful but deeply sad.
@Mihajlo1469 Yeah, a guy who wanted to reform the Empire so as to give Slavs greater autonomy, is a good one. Your comparison to to a failed painter who fled his home country is quite uncalled for. Also, telling everybody you are Serbian without saying so.
@@Mihajlo1469 Franz Ferdinand didn't plan to invade other countries and exterminate all non-German people here, he wanted reforms and peace. Your comparison is also disrespectful to all the Habsburg family members who were either arrested in concentration camps or fought against Nazism.
@@str.77 In addition, Hitler was technically a traitor to his own homeland, since he utterly hated Austria-Hungary and wanted it dead, which is why he fought for Germany in WW1 instead. The fact that Archduke Joseph Ferdinand of Austria was arrested in Dachau concentration camp and Otto von Habsburg was forced to flee Austria further showed Hitler hatred for the Habsburgs.
You should react to this video called "Why Spanish America Didn't Unite Like Brazil" by Icebulb. It's like Polandballs and Oversimplified and just as informative
100% my same feeling, I saw that video by chance and I absolutely loved that mix of vibes. Polandball/countryball + Oversimplified is exactly what my mind immediately thought of and it was a super interesting watch, it fueled so much curiosity in me for the latin/southern american history. Would love to see what Chris think of it!
The only thing that is certain is that Bosnia is not the country of the Austro-Hungarians, but of the people who live there. Bosnia is a country in particular that belongs to those who defend it from foreign invaders. The Serbs expelled the Turks and the Austro-Hungarians from the Balkans, while the Muslims and Croats welcomed the occupier with flowers. And now they say it is their country, not Serbian.
Greetings. As a Serb and a historian, I have to react to a few things here. The first thing concerns incorrect statements, and the second is the pass over of an important piece of information. The first thing is about King Aleksandar Obrenović. During his reign, the separation from the AU and the turning towards Russia began. His best man at the wedding was Tsar Nicholas II (I think the Russian ambassador was on behalf of the Tsar at the wedding), after the wedding he announced that ties with Austria-Hungary were to be severed. The reasons for his murder are long. He often caused political instability, he often changed and replaced the constitutions, the queen's fake pregnancy, the question of the heir and neglecting the military is a topic for another video. The second thing is one piece of information that has not been said, and it is very important. And that is that during 1912 and 1913 Conrad von Hötzendorf (Chief of the General Staff of the AU) demanded war with Serbia more than 30 times! That's a fact. This tells us that AU really WANTED a war with Serbia. The only man who prevented the war with Serbia was Franz Ferdinand. What irony. There's a lot more nonsense said in the original video, and misinterpretations, but I'm really not in the mood to comment on them all. Especially with the subway, because I'm not sure what the author is referring to: a physical railroad (which didn't exist), or is it just a figurative term for a network of smugglers. So much from me. Cheers and Good luck. P.S. I will not respond to comments, except for comments and questions from the channel owner, because I really don't have time to fight with every keyboard warrior who wants to feel important.
famous Conrad von Hötzendorf, dictator of A-H. If that's what it takes to place the entire blame for a war on a nation, try some French, German, Russian, English and US politicians before the war, especially France and the Boer war cabinet in UK, ca 1899-1910
WWI did not break out because of the Sarajevo assassination, it broke out because everyone in Europe wanted it: -The Russian emperor wanted to take revenge on the AH emperor for his betrayal during the Crimean War - The Serbs wanted to continue expanding with the help of the Russians -AH wanted to prove that it is still a world power - The German emperor wanted to prove that he was more successful than his father - The French wanted to take revenge on the Germans for the disaster at Sedan - As usual, the English incited the European powers against each other in order to maintain world hegemony If the assassination had not succeeded, they would have found a reason to settle old scores.
Serbs could not expand to Bosnia because they already lived there. For more than a thousand years. Serbia could expand to include that territory as well, and did want that. Eventually, not in 1914. But that’s called liberation.
@@dzeremy13 Serbs did not even make up 30% of the population at that time. Croats wanted to be with Croatia, as part of AH, and Muslims especially did not want to experience the fate of Muslims from Serbia, who were ethnically/religiously cleansed in the 19th century. The only pure Serbian part was Eastern Herzegovina. So here we are still talking about expansion into the territory, where at least 70% of the population did NOT want them. Another thing is that they reported on propaganda lies, myths and legends, which they themselves believe. Part of the population was Serbs, but here by "Serbs" I mean the expansion of the kingdom of Serbia into the territories of other countries.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but couldn't the Austro-Hungarian monarchy have tried to speak to Russia before giving the ultimatum to Serbia? I'm sure the tsar would be sympathetic to the cause of not wanting one's royals to be assassinated. Not because of hindsight, but because Tsar Alexander II was also assassinated.
The Tsar might have been, but he didn't make the policies. It was the minister of foregin affairs Sergey Sazonov who was a mad ''pan-slavist'' who also wen't behind the Tsars back.
Oooh, I made a similar statement about bringing in Russia, but I hadn't considered the assassination of Alexander II, that seems like it would make it more likely the Russians would have at least some sympathy for the Austro-Hungarians. Good point!
They did communicate with Russia through diplomats, and the majority of European monarchs, including the Tsar, was sympathetic to the Austrian royal family. The problem was that nations are dictated by INTERESTS, not by SYMPATHY. Austria wanted justice, but Russia also wants to keep/protect their Serbian ally (cultural and strategic ties). The tragic part is even before the creation of the ultimatu. The Austrian and Russian ambassadors were close to figuring out a deal, but the Russian ambassador died before it was finalized. This along with miscommunication and military mobilization, also delayed/prolonged the issue which subsequently led to a much bigger war than intended. Ironically, both the Tsar and Kaiser personally did not want a war but eventually were convinced by both their own military and politicians to war. If you think about it if Germany and Russia were really absolute monarchs, then the war would not have escalated into into a world war since both monarchs did not want to fight each other. If you want a little more detail, I recommend watching extra history's Seminal Tragedy series on RUclips.
@@rmk4452 Thank you so much for the enlightening comment and recommendation. I'll definitely have to watch that series again. I remember it as excellent but didn't think much about the details (just the main takeaway), which I have now an angle for. Thanks again!
Why cant yall get what bosniak means,it's not a nationality,they're called that because of the name of the state Bosnia.But all and i mean all of them are descendent from serbs and croats ,orthodox or catholic.Today's bosniaks are muslim because they were the families that gave in to the turks under Ottoman invasion they became muslim and were left alone by Ottomans,while serbs who did not change their belief were treated like dogshit and their children were getting taken away.If you look at their names of their ancestors throughout history it's like this Alija,Mehmed,... all muslim names till you get a little deeper and find a christian name is their great great ancestor Ilija,Marko,Nikola....
Just from watching the video. I think its too complicated to say if Austria-Hungary was right to invade. On the other hand, why didn't Serbia crack down on the Black Hand in the first place.
Bro,all members of Black Hand were executed during the war. The trail was planned for in 1914....but its kinda hard to conduct a trail when some asshole is lobbing artillery at the courthouse
"black hand" did not exist, you are talking about "unity or death". Yes, Serbia did crack on them, but beacuse they were up to speed on what the traitorus regent and his prime minister were doing, unfortunately didn't get to dispose of them and save many people.
A few things I need to point out: 1) Serbia offered to have the July Crisis mediated by the Great Powers in order to avoid war, this was suggested in the rejection of the 1 point in the ultimatum 2) Austria didn't care about the potential of Russian involvement due to their own hubris and seeing Russia as a glass elephant due to their defeat in the Russo-Japanese war 3) Lavader is extended biased against Serbia in his other videos, basically blaming Serbia and Serbs for the collapse of Yugoslavia, something very prevelant in Bosnian and Croatian nationalist circles 4) Serbia lost a quarter of its pre war population between 1914 and 1919 with Austria destroying cultural and religious monuments (such as the Njegoš chapel on Lovćen) & brutally murdering Serb civilians during the occupation 5) There were evil actors during the Great War, such as the Young Turks and the Bolsheviks
It is a shame to ask such a question. Serbia lost 25% of its population in the aggression of Austria, with the intention of occupying and controlling the Balkan countries. which is the only cause of war. Ferdinand was killed as the occupier of Bosnia as a Serbian country. No Serb went to occupy and rule over any country inhabited by Austrians or Hungarians.
My grandfather was austrian, i have no idea what he and his family thought of the war, but i do know it was a great country for them HOWEVER Austria Hungary should have peacefully let go whichever country did not want to be part of that entity (which maybe was most of them) No one has the the right to occupy another country Wish Serbia the best of luck
"No Serb went to occupy and rule over any country inhabited by Austrians or Hungarians." Does this mean that you are giving up the province of Vojvodina because you took that territory from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and have never ruled there in history? Don't fool yourself, you are neither better nor worse than other states from that time, you could hardly wait after WW1 to move the borders west all the way to the Alps.
50:34 They could’ve have gotten a neutral third party involved. A country that did not have affiliation with either country and could have heard both sides of the argument and made a decision based on evidence alone
As a non-american, I think the best comparision an american can make between the Austria-Hungary attack on Serbia and 'something' that happened in USA recently would be 09/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack that lead to USA invading Afghanistan. The Afghan government and the taliban were not "involved directly" at that attack, yet they covered and protected Al-Qaeda from USA, wich is the same thing that the serbian government did back at 1914.
@@razuer2920 True, but let's create a scenario that would be a bit closer to the US. Lets' say that there were a pro-Chinese and pro-Russian coup in Mexico and the Mexican president and his wife had been murdered, butchered really, by the terrorist group staging the coup. This group wants for Mexico to get everything that used to be part of the Spanish Empire in North America, from California to Venezuela, including Florida and the Caribbean islands. Fast-forward a few years, and the President-elect of the US and his wife get assassinated while visiting troops stationed in Puerto Rico by this terrorist group. I'd say there is just a "tiny" chance for the US to go to war over that. Even if the Mexican government, put in place by said terrorist group, had nothing to do with the assassination. This scenario is basically the situation between Serbia and Austria-Hungary prior to WW1.
To answer your question, the way I see it the only possible way to avoid war and get out of the situation, but also get the necessary investigation into the crimes and a suppression of the terrorist activities, would have been for Austria-Hungary and Serbia (and all the other European powers) to jointly agree to an international team to investigate the matter within Serbia, preferably with both Central Powers and Entente participation, but with the exclusion of Russia and AH. So probably a German/French, or better yet a German/British team to act as neutrally as possible. Oh, and Russia would have to actually call off mobilisation.
To get to the point would have been tricky, though, and I'm actually afraid that a genuine war scare would have had to first sweep across the continent for that to be agreed to, why else would the UK take an interest in the matter otherwise? (Which means that the crisis had to escalate, as dangerous as it of course was.) And it probably would have had to be the UK for the Entente side, as France and especially Russia would have been seen as too Serbia-friendly by AH. It could have satisfied Vienna in that it would have been able to force a breach of Serbian sovereignty, even if AH hadn't been the country to carry the investigation out, while Serbia could have at least sleep somewhat well at night with knowing that it weren't officials from just across the border being at work in the kingdom. They would still have had to swallow a breach of their sovereignty, though.
@@Dragonite43 Good point on adding a wholly neutral country to the mix, even if the entire team can't consist of them (I don't see a scenario in which AH does not insist on Germany being part of the investigation if it itself can't be). That said, I think the USA wouldn't fly simply because of how uninvolved it had been in Europe and Spain was a bit of a mess during the time. Maybe a nordic country like Sweden then or go to the OGs, the Swiss.
50:37. I think the only way Austria could’ve taken a different path is if they attempted to get another great power like the United Kingdom or Russia to side with Austria on the investigation portion of the demands. Because Germany wasn’t able to do that in our timeline. But Russia was allies with Serbia and had a weak government image and the UK was too far to care. Another thing I could think of for a peaceful solution would be Serbia or Austria back down, or they somehow create a pre League of Nations system to settle the issue internationally. But that would be impossible pre World War One horrors.
There are some issues with Russia and Britain being apart of it. One was that Russia and Austria-Hungry were rivals due to the Balkens. To Russia they were the protectors of the Slavs and wanted more Slavic nations to have independence with warm water ports. Hell the falling out between Germany and Russia came due to the Balkens twice. Once due to them not agreeing to Bulgaria getting more land and having ports in the Aegean, and in 1887 when Bosnia was made a protectorate under Austria-Hungry. Britain was mainly due to the close ties with Germany, hell when Edward VII was king he had sent his foreign minister to Vienna to talke with Kaiser Franz Joseph about siding with the Britain in the Entente as a way for them to get German lands they lost to Germany. They refused and their relations soured.
39:33 another parallel to this would be Afghanistan. With them refusing to crack down on the terrorists, they were turning a clear blind eye too. Now, of course, I know the lead up to that was wildly different. But the US reacted in a very similar way Austria Hungary did.
Nobody died in Sarajevo June, 28 1914. Prince Ferdinand simply made a turn, his car went into a street with no exit, there he stepped out of the car with his wife, took a boat to the train station and went back to Austria. About 500 photos of his arrival were taken that day by many different journalists, of the Prince arriving at the train station, of him going in and out the town hall, etc but what we saw the next day in all newspapers in the world, was a drawing. How interesting... right?
The clothing he and Sophie were wearing, blood stained, is on display in the European museum in Brussels. So that is quite the conspiracy that you are arguing for. Sources?
@@AIexOut-A-Magic-x6w The clothing he and Sophie were wearing, blood stained, is on display in the European museum in Brussels. So that is quite the conspiracy that you are arguing for. Sources?
@@andrewwilson9183 You are free to believe whatever you want and make any thesis, antithesis and or conclusions that seem plausible and logical to you. This is your duty if you are a person of reason and not faith. History books were not written for you to believe everything you read or any drawing you see as you would believe in a religion. My thesis is that nobody died that day. Why do I suggest such a thing? Well, as I said before, we have no photos of the dramatic "event" itself, only drawings. But nobody told you that there were actually more than 100 journalists from many countries and each of them had a portable camera and we have many photos of almost any moment they spent in Sarajevo that day. There were journalists with cameras in every corner of the city. Specially because they exactly knew where the car was going to drive so it was not difficult to stand there and wait and take many photos which they did. So why did we get only drawings from the fatal "event" and not even a photo of the place where it happened, nothing? Just drawings. Please explain that. Thank you. Suddenly all cameras of all journalists stopped working or they were out of film? And about the clothing in Brussels: you really believe princes and princesses had only one set of a certain official clothing? Really? And if they would do a 10 days official visit somewhere in a foreign country, they would wear that exact same one which after two days in the Summer would smell like it had fallen in a cesspool because they must have been too poor to have more than one set of official clothing, right? OK, if we assume they were too poor to have more than one official suit, then I can understand that you think the one in Brussels can ONLY be the ONE and they were wearing that day. And since that suit has has blood and holes in it... yes, that´s amazing proof!! Wow... 100% proven. Fantastic research, bro. Now I must sadly retract all I said before, you are so correct and I was so wrong. Sorry, my bad. Princes were too poor in those days, no way they could have had more than one suit with the same design so they traveled wearing the one and only suit they had even if they smelled like s**t. Brilliant, bro. I must congratulate and applaud your detailed and exhaustive research which proves they were a pair of terribly smelling people not able to afford for themselves two exact same suits for official visits!! I never had thought such a thing could be true but now I am convinced, because of you. I learn new things every day.
@@andrewwilson9183 Perfect!!! You nailed it. It´s just a consensus. Napoleon Bonaparte summed it up in two famous quotes: 1. "If you want a thing done well, do it yourself". (Side note: in our case, you want to study history well? Do it yourself.) 2. "History is a set of lies agreed upon". (Side note: this second quote by Napoleon needs no side note because it is self explanatory.)
15:38 one comment I’d like to add, one thing that gets overlooked in the buildup to WW1 is that Germany was feeling very isolated and as a result more inclined towards aggression to secure themselves. The killing and usurping of the throne from an allied monarchy to a hostile monarchy understandably would’ve made Austria Hungary feel less secure and more in need of self defense
On one side, there is an AH aggression. Then there are the events that occurred prior to aggression that could justify it to an extent. What is not covered in the video is what happened after the aggression in Serbia. This is the reason for that Princip statue, not the assassination itself. He is merely a symbol. Public hangings, forceful deportation to concentration camps in Austria, summary executions, burnings of entire villages in punitive raids. What AH did in Serbia would be in rank to what Ottomans did to Armenians. Go check the percent of total population Serbia lost in WW1. What could AH have done better? Not performing an equivalent of genocide for 'not performing professional investigation'.
I think that your comparison at the begining is not very accurate... far from it. Here's the thing, Bosnia has always been the tumoluos part of the Balkan. It wasa mix of serb and croat states, that was independant at some point, then vassal to a Hungarian empire, then an Byzantine empire and Hungarian after that. Bosnian king Tvrtko even conquered a part of Serbian kingdom at some point, when serbia was invaded by the Ottoman empire and even proclaimed himself the king of bosnia nad serbia. And then everything came under the Ottoman rule, under which the third nation was formed by the muslim population (which was converted from the serb and croat christian population mostly). During the 400-500 years of Ottoman rule they formed themself as a separate nation, Bosniaks. Now, coming to 1900's... Ottoman empire was crumbling, Serbia was fighting and winnindžg the war for independance (and expansion, as that is usually the case with almost wvery country facing the falling emoire). Austrohungarian empire wasquick to annex the Bosnia under its rule once again. Amongst all of that, there was a movement to unite all of the slavic nations under one country. Serbia, being the largest, and strongest among them, of course was interested. And there comes the Young Bosnia orgnisation whose member the Gavrilo Princip was. But there were croats and bosniaks members also. And they all were bosnians. Did the Black Hand, clandestine organisation made of the serbian officers had a part in training young bosnians (out of which not all were serbs)? Probably... they had part in the assasination of the serb king in order to bring the dynasty that suited them more. But, was the country of Serbia involved? Not that much, since it was clear to the government that the assassination of the Austria-Hungarian monarch would lead to a war with, not only them but with the Germany as well. I don't know what the correct comparison would be... maybe Texas or new mexico with mexicans living in parts that were mexican once, trying to unite with all mexicans and puertoricans and cubans in a country called Latin kingdom with the Mexico as the biggest and most influential. I now that I sound silly now, but I'm not that familiar with american nations and that side of your history.
It feels not good from the start when he claims serbia is always seen as the victim with no wrong doing, so he then can make his points against it. I think this is in no way compelling at all, because the bigger picture has to be the bosnian occupation, their consequences especially in a time full of nation building. If one negate this point, of course every government can justify anything in respond to threats to their national security and sounding reasonable. On the point of "isolated war vs greater war" i dont think everyone was sure that russia gets involved. The austrians thought the russians wouldnt "protect murderers of the monarchy" and also that the german involvement would frighten the russians. And the german military played vabanque with that possibility, because they believed sooner or later war with russia would be inevitable and if they act now on behalf of serbia it would confirm their belief...and if not then it would be just this isolated war. So of course blaming is difficult in a world of cold interests from all sides, but these are main factors that lead to this escalation and i definitly think austria wanted this isolated war regardless of the consequences. Also without blaming Clark as a historian, but there are a lot of his sources and i remember 10 years ago he was very popular in germany. Why...because his work was being used by a lot of revisionists and nationalists as proof for their ideology. At this time i was glad to watch debates with historians like Gerd Krumeich, who is a leading expert on WW1 and tried to pushed against this narrative.
For the question you asked- What could Austria-hungary do differently. I really do not believe there is much of a choice. Even if (using fairy dust, duct-tape, hope and dreams) the Monarchy managed to somehow get a conclusive end to the assassination, this would probably just kick the can, or in this case the fuse, Down the road. Bismarck knew it. Europe is a powder-keg, and what'll set it off is Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans. You would need a lot of fairy dust to prove the iron chancellor wrong. In my opinion.
A few interesting points: 1. Franz Josef’s wife was assassinated by Italian anarchist (part of Italy was occupied by Austria). The war didn’t start. Another assassination (Ferdinand) was used as an excuse. 2. Princip was member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organisation that fought for liberation and union of south Slavs. Not a Serbian nationalist. 3. At the time majority of population in Bosnia were Serbs. After 500 years of occupation, constant uprising against Ottoman Empire, when they saw a possibility for freedom, Austria-Hungary empire occupied them. 4. As a result of A-H occupation thousands of Muslims left Bosnia. 5. All Serbs national rights in Bosnia were abandoned. 6. The Serbian government accepted all points of the ultimatum (read the original telegram before anyone comment on this) because Serbia was exhausted liberating south parts of Serbia from the Ottomans in 1912-1913. 7. 10 concentration camps (first ones in Europe ever) were opened in A-H monarchy mainly for Serbs (236.807) and others (63.000). Some of them are Doboj, Arad, Mauthausen (which will be used in WW2 too), Braunau (Braoumov), etc.
you forgot the last 3 commandments of the reddit historians, shame on you. 8. You shall never question what the victor says after the fact. 9. You shall only attribute motives to the other side of the conflict and last, but not least 10. you shall not wonder why there are literal tons of documents sealed away in top secret archives in the UK. source: trust me bro
He was the oldschool hard headed "show of force settles the argument" kinda guy, not necessarily the best approach in this crisis. He probably was a Roman Senator in another life.
I’ve listed to plenty of podcasts and videos on the assassination plot and July Crisis and I’ve really come around to Russia and Serbia having more blame/responsibility for the outbreak than what I was taught in school.
That is probably because Austria-Hungary and the German Empire still are the ones to initiate the war. While Russia and Serbia certainly aren't blameless, the actions Germany and Austria-Hungary took turned the July Crisis into a war, which escalated into WW1.
@Brandon210-q4n none of the governments in question were acting in good faith. They were acting in self interest, as all governments do, including the desire to avoid war within the realm of reasonability as perceived by their nation. What those conditions consisted of varied wildly between nations, and alliances were formed partially around similarities in those interests, but no one had the fervent desire to avoid war that came after the conflict was "resolved".
@@kyleheins But the provlem is that to believe that Russia and Serbia are responsible for the war as OP said requires a truly absurd amount of mental gymnastics, as does Lavader's video itself. OP and Lavader expect me to believe that Austro-Hungary was some innocent nation that did everything they could to cooperate with Serbia. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. They treated Serbia like a client state; the British government at the time said that no national government could accept the list of demands because it would be a mockery of independence. I'm sorry, but to believe that Austro-Hungary is the complete victim in this situation-as OP and Levader seemingly want me to think-requires a shocking amount of naivety and refusal to consider the Serbian point of view as well. As someone who is posting these sorts of videos, Levader has a responsibiltiy to represent things fairly, and he is not representing these fairly at all. he is directly painting Austro-Hungary as doing everything they can to cooperate, when I really don't think any sort of cooperation was what they wanted. The goalposts would've shifted even if Serbia had agreed to undermine their independence completely and allowed Austria to control the investigation. They were always going to. This video wants me to believe that Austro-Hungary was acting in good faith despite one or two token statements otherwise. I fundamentally disagree.
@@Brandon210-q4n Yes, Austria is not innocent, but what can you do when your neighbor is wrecking havoc in your territory. Austria just can't let it slide. The British government statement was after Austria gave the Ultimatum, which was Austria's last resort when the Serbian government just won't cooperate. I do agree with you that Lavader has some kind of bias, but all he did was just give the Austrian POV.
Failed to mention that the nineteenth century was a period of birth of nations. Serbs wanted to live in one country not in AustroHungary and Turkey. In 1878 AustroHungary occupied Serbian Bosnia formerly part of Imperial Turkey. Since then they started using the term "Bosnian" favoring Muslims. That was intended to create antagonism between "Bosniaks" and "Serbians" (Serbs were at the time majority in Bosnia). In 1908 AustroHungary ANNEXED Serbian Bosnia. History proved Serbs to be in the right. After WW1 EMPIRES vanished and nations were awarded the right to form nation states joined in the League of Nations. For that we are grateful to the president Woodrow Wilson. That was the last time the USA was true to the ideals of the American Revolution (anti colonial). After that the USA became an empire hijacked by the ideology of racist "exceptionalism" authored by Cecil Rhodes. Princip was not a member of Black Hand. He was a member of Juoung Bosnia in which part were taking not only the Serbs but the Muslims and the Croats. AustroHungary succeeded in intent to create antagonism between peoples of the province of Bosnia. You wanted a broader view of events leading to June 28 1914. Now you have it.
America has always viewed itself as exceptional, and our most of anti imperial policies starting with Wilson were stupid. Empire is inevitable, the world moves by it.
@andrewwilson9183 "All men are created equal" and exceptionalism can't coexist. The first idea is a product of the age of enlightenment the other one is racist. Cecil Rhodes didn't have children so, all his wealth ended up in Harward for scholarships for "world leaders" from the British Commonwealth in order to further exceptionalism of Anglo-Saxon race. The American ruling class got infected that way.
No, the 1903 assassination was done with the knowledge of all major powers. The politicians who joined the coup preparations informed Austrians at least a year beforehand. They even suggested AH or Russia send one of their own noblemen to start a new dynasty which they refused and suggested Karađođevićs. The Austrians also spurred king Milan to engage against Bulgaria and stopped him from properly invading Bulgaria after they reached the agreement with Russians. Not to mention that they forced Serbia and Montenegro to return territories he captured from Turkey, thus preventing Serbia connect with Montenegro. Also, Austria forcefully tried to create more than 10 new nationalities in Bosnia (in what they failed) and, with the help of Vatican, were trying to rebrand catholic Serbs in Dalmatia and Slavonia as Croats. As soon as Balkan people liberated themselves from the Turks, they became a target for the Germans. Other major powers didn't like it as well, particularly the British and the French, the former assassinating prince Michael Obrenovich in 1868 (who wanted to create the "Balkan Alliance") and poisoning Milovan Milovanovich "Balachko" in 1912 (who actually manged to create the "Balkan Alliance" under everyone's radar), while the latter supported Turkey military-wise. The Black Hand had its ties with the British Secret Service Bureau and the Young Bosnia was also sponsored by them (probably without the member's knowledge), the same as Young Turks and any other "Young" revolutionary organisation. Furthermore, Franz Ferdinand was one of the leading anti-war figures in the Empire. For Serbia, who was not ready and did not want the war, assassinating him would be extremely stupid as are all the claims that Serbian authorities wanted this. One really needs to question the agenda of people claiming this. P.S. F.F. was killed by an Austro-Hungarian citizen in A-H territory. But, no-no-no - they knew Serbia was responsible even though there is not a single evidence for it even after 110 years. Rubbish. Would not hold in any court. On the other hand, "Drang nach Osten" was very well documented and preparations were being made for at least 10 years. The OG dude simply hates Serbia or likes Austria/Germany too much.
who ever says that Austria-Hungary was right to invade Serbia is just an ordinary idiot. That kind of hybris has had severe consequences and the Germans and Austrians have paid dearly for that mistake. At the end of WW1 the serbian army only stopped a few dozen kilometers away from Vienna because the war had ended, and the Austrians lost their empire. It was a catastrophic defeat for those who thought they could bring Serbia to heels. What is frightening though is the level of stupidity exposed by such a statement made in the year 2024, while we can watch in real time how the reckless "Drang nach Osten" by NATO/ USA is endangering all of us as the whole humanity.
@andrewwilson9183 the US is the forced behind NATO, the others are vassals. And what the US does is killing millions and millions of innocent people in one illegal war of aggression after the other in their pathetic will to bully the whole world into submission. But attacking Russia through their Proxy lap dog Ukraine was their last mistake. NATO is being humiliated in Rest-Ukraine and the decline of the western empire has already started. What the US did wrong, you asked? I'd say everything.
Funny you say that about NATO, the Entente, which you regards as godsent liberators, did the exact same thing back in the day, just with a little more assassinating and conning along the way.
This argument that AH had a moral right to invade Serbia rests on the core unstated assumption that AH also had a right to continue to occupy its south Slavic territories and to do whatever it needed in order to continue that occupation. If you think that empires are a bad thing and nations have a right to self-determination, then AH is already in the wrong and had no right to take further action to cement its control over those territories. Beyond that, I just don’t believe that really anything could justify AH intention to invade and annex Serbia. Even before that, the ultimatum fundamentally asked for Serbia to become a de facto client state to AH, and that also cannot be justified. It was out of proportion and clearly designed not to get to the bottom of an assassination but to put Serbia under the Habsburg thumb. There’s also a much better modern parallel involving the US. A terror group based in another country that carried out an attack on American soil, leading to the US invading that other country. Imagine if Afghanistan’s government had actually had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and agreed to a host of demands, yet America still invaded with the intention to permanently occupy Afghanistan as a new American territory.
except A-H wasn't tyrannical towards Slavs, in fact, they let people from various nationalities including Poles, Bosnians, Croats etc. into the parliament
@@Partizani192 Bosnia was under military occupation with no say in even its own government, never mind the empire’s. Even looking outside of Bosnia, lots of places that had representation within a larger empire still wanted to become independent (and I personally think had the right to choose that), such as the various Russian imperial territories.
@@lt3746 at the very beginning of the war the government said it wouldn’t annex Serbia, because the Hungarian premier thought it was a bad idea. But AH was an expansionist power at this time, which hoped to capitalise on the Ottoman’s being pushed out of the Balkans. By mid war, they were openly planning to annex all or part of Serbia and similarly had plans for Montenegro and Albania. AH was not just a peaceful empire just looking to protect itself.
The Government wasn't involved. It was on the quite contrary... Serbian officals knew the plot and have warned the AustroHungarian official on multiple occasions and they've told them that to parade in that part of the land on that specific date would be VERY unwise. June 28th, the 2nd biggest HOLY day in Serbia. The date that signified the birth of Serbian identity and the struggle for it's independence. 28th June 1389 Serbia refused to submit to the Ottoman Empire and decided to meet them in the field of battle, Kosovo field thus forever branding that land and date as HOLY for the Serbian people. Kosovo & Metohija, the full name of the province, METOHIJA - literal translation = Holy land. Fun fact it was also the only time an Ottoman Sultan had been killed in battle, by Milosh Obilich. The response of the Austro-Hungarian officials would be something along the lines "Is Serbia trying to dictate how and when will his majesty act on his own land?" and it was dismissed as such. The reason why I believe this to be so is because of another great figure Vojislav Tankosić, the person who basically made Serbian "special forces". They wanted to liberate the aformentioned Holy land of Kosovo & Metohija from the Turkish grip but the Government, as always was extremely hesistant to get involved in another conflict, he was arrested a time or two as well but in the end he forced the hand of Serbian government to start liberating Kosovo & Metohija by actually training and starting conflict on his own, without approval or support from Serbia, Serbia didn't get involved for many days of the conflicts that he started on his own until it was finally forced to do so, on one hand due to massive support and sentiment to liberating the Holy land by the people(Most likely this will be one of the cases where History repeats itsself). The Gavrilo Princip is a cousin, his village was on the opposite side of the mountain from ours xD P.S. just so you know i believe the who thing to be super dumb. We went into a dumbest war we could, lost 50% male population and a MASS of good, patriotic and decent people. What followed next was the rise of the red plague, amorality and a whole mass of things afterwards that could've been prevented.
Totally disagree. How can any decision which led to the second most destructive war in terms death toll, the peace treaty of which led to the most destructive war in terms of death tolls only 25 years after the first one ended be considered remotely right. After the decision to send arguably the second most important Austro-Hungary into Serbia on their official “we love ourselves and hate the Austro-Hungarians” day, into a city filled with young people who want to kill him but then he and his wife drive around with no roof on their car nearly get killed by a grenade, and then their reaction to all this was to drive around some more until they are both shot. Then getting the almost unilateral sympathy for themselves and rage at Serbia from the rest of Europe then squandering that precious time while the world is on their side with seven months of planning and talks before finally after Europe is tired of it all do they finally issue 10 ultimatums to be met in 48 hours and Serbia agrees to nine of them coming out looking like the good guy. But in spite of this, they start a war, lose it badly, and are no longer a country.
I’ve been taking a class on modern European history this semester (I was inspired to major in history in part by this channel), and was actually having a conversation about this the other day with my professor. I’ve generally held the belief that Austria-Hungary’s demands were unreasonable and I blamed them for the war (which I still believe their government is partly responsible), but I hadn’t realize until that class how provocative the Serbian government had been towards Austria-Hungary as well in trying to stir up unrest and whatnot.
For context... Austria was not benevolent in the story. In 1908, Austria illegally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although Serbs made up almost half of the population at that time. Then, under the threat of war, Austria forced Serbia in 1909 to accept the Austrian annexation and to suppress attempts to destabilize Austrian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of that was done without any legal authority, but just with a millitary blackmail. Of corse that Serbs continued to "destabilize" Austrian occupationional authorities within Bosnia and Herzegovina...
@@simonsimonovic4478 wars are not illegal but you better be sure to have a good reason to start one or everybody else is gonna side with the other side.
There are so many holes in this theory, it might aswell be swiss cheese. Germany wanted the war due to cult of offensive and expense of mobilization, without the blank cheque and loss of russian allies, austrians would have never acted. Gavrillo princip was never proven to be member of black hand, even though black hand took credit. Serbians agreed to 9 of the 10 demands which was already unreasonable, similar situation between soviets and finns, finns only agreed to 3 and chose to go to war instead.
Well now let us look for an even bigger picture. All this is happening within the context of Austro-Hungarian illegal annexation of Bosnia in 1908 which was probably the biggest crisis that hit the balkan that didn't result in a war. Also, Princip most likely wasn't a member of the Black Hand because the organization was formed in the upper classes of Serbian Royal army by soldiers and intelligence operatives, he was for sure a member of Young Bosnia a student movement that were used, supplied and trained by the Black Hand operatives. Edit: I forgot also yes that was Alexander I the Great Unificator of Yugoslavia in the film. It is believed that his last words were "Keep my Yugoslavia safe" so much for that.
Literally how was it Illegal? The Agreement was between the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary just like in 1878, Serbia did not have its signature anywhere during that time. You can't just barge in and make it about you when you were never involved in the first place. Furthermore, the 1881 convention was still in place, even after the 1903 coup. Serbia never decried the 1881 convention or announced that it was no longer in effect. And guess what that convention stated? That Serbia was not gonna contest Austrian authority in Bosnia. There was absolutely nothing illegal about it, the Austrians were acting fully within legal territory. You of course can say that Serbia was concerned, but there was absolutely nothing "Illegal" about it.
@@nolancer5974 In Berlin in 1878 great powers agreed to let Austria occupy Bosnia until it is decided what should be done with those territories and in 1908 Austria-Hungary used the turmoil in Ottoman Empire to completely and formally annex Bosnia without consulting the other European powers and the people of Bosnia lost the ability to determine the future of their land.
@@nikolal.8053The Treaty of Berlin granted Austria-Hungary the right to “occupy and administer” Bosnia-Herzegovina, though formal sovereignty technically remained with the Ottoman Empire. This created a "dual sovereignty" situation in which Austria effectively governed Bosnia while the Ottomans retained nominal sovereignty. The Treaty of Berlin may not have explicitly granted full sovereignty to Austria-Hungary, but it created a de facto situation where Austrian control was established and accepted by European powers, creating a legal gray area. Thus, while the annexation wasn’t in strict compliance with the Treaty of Berlin, it wasn’t entirely illegal either. Instead, it fell into a legally ambiguous area where Austria’s administrative control had been recognized for thirty years, so you can't objectively call it illegal. The best you could call it is legally ambigious.
@@nolancer5974 Sure, I see and somewhat agree with your point that illegal could be a strong word but it also doesn't change the fact that Austria created tension in the region with that legally ambiguous decion which wasn't approved by European powers and people of Bosnia and was arguably also immoral (Morality of that could be a one loooooong debate maybe a great idea for a video for VTH or Lavader)
My friend Bosnia was annexed by Austria while more the 60% was Serb population and Bosnia was always a Serb land. I am Serb from Bosnia and i nor any Serb in Bosnia don't recognize Bosnia as a country but just a Serbian State.
I think he's being a bit too lenient on the Austrians to be brutally honest. Sure, it was only 5 and 6, but 5 and 6 also directly undermine Serbia's sovereignty. Serbia had not even been a kingdom for that long by this point and now Austro-Hungary was saying that they needed complete oversight of their investigation? That's how you treat a client state, not an independent nation. More to the point, I just don't trust that the Austro-Hungarians would've been completely fair in said oversight even if Serbia had accepted it. They would've been instantly suspicious of any investigators and may demand that they end up controlling the investigation. Moreover, do you really believe that they would not demand the extradition of those responsible? If they thought they could get away with it after the investigation, the goalposts would've shifted to 'extradition or war'. What this video does not mention either is that Hotzendorf had been pushing to invade Serbia since 1913 no less than 27 times, well before the assassination had taken place. So yes, there were definitely parts of the Austrian military who wanted to invade well before the assassination had occurred, which muddies the waters of this video even further. All of this requires me to believe that Austro-Hungary was acting completely in good faith, which I have a very hard time believing.
LMAO on this response. Trying to justify war crimes against Serbia by declaring that Serbia was threat to AustroHungarian empire … 1914 Serbian population was around 4 millions and AH had almost 60 millions. On the other hand when you twist things you can justify almost anything. Looking forward to see his explanation how Germany was pushed into WWII by Jews …
I do believe that in the historical view Austria-Hungary had a Causes-Bella for invasion, to anyone who says otherwise just needs to look at the prior 50 years of Empires invading smaller nations and see that your Heir being murdered is a very strong causes-bella for war compared to what many invasions where based on. I will also say that Austria-Hungary didn't need to invade and it could have handled things differently but I say this with Hindsight and the fact that Austria-Hungry did control southern slavic peoples, their treatment of individuals who were not Austrian or Hungarian (To an extent) was very poor track record so they are not clean of issues. What I have never fully agreed with is that only Germany and Austria-Hungry wanted war, that take that gets pushed around ignores the actions of France and Russia, France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and Russia wanted a distraction from its humiliating defeat at the hands of the Japanese and believe war would help stop its internal struggles. Really of all the parties involved in WW1, Belgium, United Kingdom, and US were "innocent" for the causes and outbreak of the war. Belgium was just invaded by Germany, United Kingdom joined on the side of France and Russia to protect Belgium, would the UK have joined otherwise who knows. Italy and Japan sure didn't start the war but joined on the Allies side for territorial gains in their regions they considered there sphere of influence. Looking at what Italy actually wanted would have been the same land that Serbian Nationalists had claimed to as well. A better name for this war would be the clash of Empires, no matter what it was bound to happen. Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia were looking to expand. Serbia was just the perfect excuse for everyone to go to war. Italy, Japan, Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria though not initial joined seeking territory. Belgium, United Kingdom, USA were dragged into the war based on the actions of others. (Edit) I disagree with the no Villain part, Germany had no reason to invade Belgium like they did. They already had a border with France over Land, could also reach them by sea so declaring war for military access is a line that they crossed that puts them into a Villain status. If Germany never invaded Belgium then I would agree.
Having watched the interview of Empress Zita on RUclips I know that Emperor Franz Josef did not want to go to war at all, but she said that at that moment when he declared war (she was in the room) he had no other choice left, as all of his attempts before to make it go by peacefully failed.
To answer your question: There was an alternative proposed by Serbia: instead of allowing Austria-Hungary to investigate the incident directly, Serbia suggested it be handled by a neutral third party in The Hague. This proposal was considered reasonable by every major European nation, except Austria-Hungary, which rejected it and chose to wage war instead. To say this video was biased would be an understatement.
I like the summary. "If you dont prevent it, you are not against it". Same as Bush said: "I call on all nations to do what they can, to stop this terrorist killers. Now, watch this drive". Austria Hungary = George Bush.
I must say that everything that has been said makes sense, but let's also state some facts from the other side. Before World War I, Serbia participated in two Balkan wars. After its liberation from the Ottoman Empire, Serbia was weakened by those wars and was not in any way suited to a new war, and certainly not a war against Austria-Hungary, which at that time had over 50 million inhabitants, while Serbia had barely 3.5 million. Gavrilo Princip belonged to an organization called Mlada Bosna, which had in its ranks Muslims and Croats from Bosnia in addition to Serbs, who sought the unification of the South Slavic peoples. At that time, all the great empires had their own colonies, except for Austria-Hungary, which, due to its geographical position, could only create its colonies in the Balkans. The Black Hand organization was not an organization of the Kingdom of Serbia, but it had significant influence in Serbia. I think it is true that Austria-Hungary was waiting for any kind of provocation to enter the war, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sofia was more than enough for that. After the war, it became known that long before the assassination, Austria-Hungary had military plans to attack Serbia, which is more than good proof that it was also planned in advance.
I agree that Austria was justified in declaring war, since the concept of punitive operations was, fundamentally, war. HOWEVER I believe they prosecuted the war in the worst way possible, engaging in near-genocidal acts which, even within the context of removing terrorists and a complicit government, were unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Why do you guys remove my comment that simply show you how wrong you are for agreeing with Hitler's view of Serbia, Princip and those events? It is a rather easy way to check if you/author of the video is right or wrong. You can be against Hitler and admit historical facts that it was Austria who was the agressor not just in WW1 but in all events that led up to it, or agree with Hitler and believe that Austria was right and Serbs in Bosnia who were citizens of the monarchy were terrorists etc.
Princip was young bosnia. Black hand was an org. Made up of serbian military officers. Its real namenwas unification or death, and black hand was a derogatory term by the press trying to make them sound like the black hamd mafia in america at the time. The black hand did not train princip and his friends for the assassination, althoufh its said they did give them some basic firearm training, as BH officers werre training young men to join the komite or chetniks fightimg the turks pre 1912
The storm Is that the BH officers thought princip and his friends didnt show any aptitude for the organisation or military capability so have them some Basic firearm training and sent them on their way...
And when did Austria-Hungary invade Bosnia? Hungary wanted Serbia after the defeat of the Serbs in Kosovo, but they had no chance. The Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne was sent to die, because Bosnia is not a friendly country but an occupied country, they just needed an excuse.
The smartest thing for Austria to do would of been to get other countries (Mainly Russia and France) to believe that the Serbians conducted their investigation hastily and poorly and also bring up the fact that they had failed to crack down on their own citizens that have been destabilizing Austria via assassination. This would ideally make other countries unwilling to to support Serbia in a war or maybe even put pressure on them to accept the ultimatum or conduct a more thorough investigation on what happened.
Just for your information. Serbia accepted all points of the ultimatum. They were exhausted from 1912-1913 war against Ottomans. Saying that Serbia didn’t accept the ultimatum is a pure lie. Read the original (in French) answer from the Serbian government.
What happened in 2000 when Serbia allowed the West to interfere in the war in Yugoslavia? Thousands of Serbs were convicted, but not a single Slovene who started the war in Yugoslavia, as well as no one from Croatia, who was also the first to start killing the Serb people in that area of Yugoslavia, where more than 33% of the Serbs lived, who remained alive there after WW2, when the Nazis made one of the largest camps for the Serbian people from Croatia, and that is Jasenovac, which is also known in the United Nations, where the Serbs were killed.
Videos like this are exactly why I love your Channel! There is so much here that I never knew about in regards to A-H and what led to Great War. Thank you so much for this reaction video. So much to consider and so much to think about. Great stuff Chris and thank you again for this!
I think another interesting thing to think about is Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, actually took a pretty moderate stance on ethnic issues especially with Slavs. He envisioned a “trialist” empire, where Slavs would have more autonomy and representation alongside Austria and Hungary, hoping it’d ease tensions and strengthen the empire. Ironically, Serbian nationalists saw his plans as a threat to their vision of a Greater Serbia. So, even though he wasn’t hostile to Serbs, groups like the Black Hand targeted him, which only added to the tragic chain of events leading to WWI.
"greater Serbia" is a 90s croatian propaganda myth, it did not ever exist as an idea. "black hand" likewise did not exist, organization was called "unity or death" Define Serbian nationalists, because by western standards every Serb at the time would've been a hardcore nationalist.
Have you heard yourself saying: Austro-Hungarian Slavic territories! What is this but the occupation of territories that are not yours, in this case belong to the Slavic people. Why choose to come to Sarajevo, on Slavic soil, on July 28th, one of the most important dates in Serbian history, the date which is known to be The Day when the Battle of Kosovo took place in1389 between the Serbian and Turkish armies? A deliberate provocation that ultimately led to enormous human casualties, the collapse of the dual monarchy. Serbia suffered enormous losses in military and civilian population in the Great War, but emerged proud, independent, in the company of victorious countries.
Austria-Hungary had the right to send an ultimatum, declare war and attack Serbia? Yes, yes, just as the USA had the right to attack Iraq, Russia Ukraine, Israel... everything around it... Let's think logically and rationally. Did Serbia, just emerging from two major wars (not mentioned here), with a huge number of victims, weakened materially and humanly, threaten Austria-Hungary in any way? The video is long, and maybe I missed it, but is the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia mentioned anywhere here? There is an order of things and there are interests of the countries involved, and they should definitely be taken into account. Serbia was supposed to be just a stop on the way to the further expansion of a great empire that wanted to benefit from the expulsion of another, once great, empire from the Balkan peninsula, and that's all. This is the real reason and cause of the outbreak of war. The assassination in Sarajevo was only used as a convenient occasion and excuse for it. And, at the end, when it comes to a war, there's one clear proof who was right: one who wins! If the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was right, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, France, the USA... would not have stood up against it... and on the same side with Serbia. So, everything is crystal clear here, and there's no any dilemma.
It’s funny to me watching several channels slow down considerably when approaching 500k subscribers. It’s like RUclips purposely tries to limit exposure so it doesn’t happen. Just my observation, not just on this channel, but others as well.
I know Chris is not an aggressive guy but based on his reaction every time he sees WW i imagine that it would be hands on sight if they somehow could cross paths
Gavrilo Princip killed only person in Austrian empire that was AGAINST the war. Gavrilo was Bosnian national, not Serbian. And Serbia did not help him in any way.
He isn’t wrong…. But not fully right. His way of planning it is wonderful. The Austro-Hungarian empire did have a succession crisis, before and after the events my great x whatever uncle did what he did. The issue is that many of the policies that did and would have benefited the Serbs were proposed by the exactly person assassinated. Us Balkan folk, as the original poster labeled, are not always calm and rational as a people lol
Also… was Austrian support actually helpful or legitimate? For those who don’t really know, this is a semi religious ethnic conflict. Catholic, orthodox, and Islam all fight for dominance of a crossroads. It’s Israel with more players
It would be fair to invite a historian from Serbia to say something about this!! And this is coincidentally right now, for the simple reason that similar things are happening in Bosnia today, and the Serbian people as a whole are being accused again, regardless of the fact that the Serbian people have been expelled from all parts of Yugoslavia where they lived, while all those who today have their own states besides Serbia, in which the houses of the Serbian people who have no right to use them are empty, remain in Serbia?!?!
If you have time at hand, and are really interested in the topic, the book he mentioned "Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clarke is very insightfull. It's not like most WW1 books, as it focusses on what lead to WW1 and basically ends with the start of WW1.
I watched half and can not watch more... What a stupid video on so many levels. And yes I am Serb and Gavrilo Princip was a hero. Basicly almost everything that guy is saying is false or half truth.
Subscribe to Stories of the Great War - Stories of the Great War - www.youtube.com/@StoriesoftheGreatWar
Btw, I know you don’t react to Extra History within the first couple weeks of their videos airing, so I don’t know if you’ve already seen their new series, but if you haven’t, it’s pretty cool. It’s their series on N@z! Occultism, and it’s fascinating. I’d love to see your thoughts on them!
Please also have a Look on his series on Wilhelm II. Eventho it starts rather weak.
It is also worth to mention that after humiliating defeat by Japan. Russia was actively seeking conflict against "week west™" and was pushing on Serbia to act provocatively, with full intend on starting the war. Because it was actually quite obvious, Germany recognize Russia entering the war as act of aggression. Unfortunately Entente didn't know that. Later during WW2 Russia was actively working with Adolf on starting the war. And now story repeat again.
The video is a classic falsification of history...the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the darkness of nations....Italians, Czechs, Romanians, Balkan nations....WW1 would have happened even without the assassination of the heir to the throne....because the political situation between the countries in Europe was like
39:30, US wouldn't have waited for the approval of the Mexican government in this scenario. They would've sent the FBI, CIA, Seal team 6 and all kinds of covert forces that you could think of to Mexico.
Remember how they launched a manhunt against a certain man who was living in Pakistan and responsible for the crashing of certain aeroplanes and demolition of some American buildings. Imagine what they would do if a VP got assassinated?
A Bosnian arguing that Serbia should have been invaded? I bet we are in for a very unbiased perspective.
Compared to who? You?
You forget that Bosniaks hated the Austro-hungarians aswell, after all they were annexed by them shortly before WW1.
But he is right, the Serbian Government should have submitted to the Austrians.
@@JustAnotherAccount8 Where do you get that idea that Bosniaks (whoever they were) hated the "Austro-Hungarians". You should not believe everything Serb ... I mean ... Yugoslav propaganda tells you.
@@JustAnotherAccount8 The Bosnians were generally known as loyal at the Isonzo Front and probably got more military awards than other A-H soldiers. If this was really true, why didn't they immediately rebel after the annexation? Stop reading Serbian propaganda.
I don't think Austria thought it was starting the Great War - in their minds, it was yet another of many Balkan wars.
Considering two Balkan Wars already happened in the span of 2 years, yeah.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87jesus, i Always forget what a shitshow the balkans were in the 1910s.
Christ
germany did though
@@handsomelyditto4215 And pledged to back them lmao. "A blankoscheck is a blankoscheck, deppata piefke"
@@elseggs6504there was no cartblanche. Germany invded Belgium and all the hell broke loose.
His view is very biased; he is focusing completely on the AH side of the story while completely ignoring the Serbian perspective. There is no mention of Serbian support for the Austrian cause in the revolution of 1848 in their fight against Hungary, and the subsequent mockery of Serbian autonomy in southern Hungary by Austria (see the formation and quick dissolution of the Voivodship of Serbia and Timiș Banat), political machinations with the Obrenović dynasty (he only briefly mentions a convention signed in 1881 but omits how humiliating it was for Serbia), and the occupation of Bosnia after Serbia supported an uprising of the Bosnian Serbs against the Ottomans. He does make some good points, but in his view, AH is a benevolent empire that just wants to peacefully coexist with its neighbors, which is completely bonkers. It is, however, a good overview of the AH position, but you should probably research what made Serbia go from an Austrian ally since the 15th century to the early 19th century to an enemy in the late 19th century. Hint: Austria wanted to treat Serbia as a colony or a vassal after the Turks were gone.
the problem is he frames it as "this is the truth" rather than "this is austria's perspective". honestly i can't stand this guy lol
I would not agree with you (completely). There are a lot of details, for example, Serbia was an ally of Austria under the Obrenović dynasty. The secret officer organization Black Hand under the leadership of Apis (the same who organized the Sarajevo assassination) killed the last Obrenovics and brought in the Karađorđević dynasty, which switched sides and became a Russian ally.
Through the Balkan wars, Serbia expanded and set its sights on Bosnia, which I AH annexed. Serbs were a minority in Bosnia (somewhere around a quarter of the population), and Muslims and Croats were in favor of unification with AH South Slavic countries. FF promised to create a South Slavic part of the empire equal to Austria and Hungary.
The FF bothered both the Austrian and Hungarian ruling circles, the Serbs and their patrons the Russians, who wanted revenge on the AH for what they perceived as betrayal in the Crimean War. After the defeat in the Far East and in the Crimean War, the Russians needed an easy target to raise their heads again.
Do you have a source for a claim that Serbs were a 1/4 of the population? They are at 30% today, after a genocide in ww2, colonization of Vojvodina right after ww2, and a lot of them moved out during the last war. And Serbs had a consistently lower birth rate than Muslims/Bosniaks for last 50 years at least. Serb nationalist sources claim 60% of Serbs in Bosnia in early 20th century, more realistic ones state there were slightly less then 40%. But a 1/4 just doesn't add up. You also ignore the fact that political climate was different than today. Not small number of Bosniaks were in favor of south slavic state. Heck, one of the co-conspiritors was a Muslim, Muhamed Mehmedbašić. Either way, that was just one of the points I made. I also mentioned Austrian machinations regarding Serbs in modern day Vojvodina, meddling in Serbia affairs during Obrenović dynasty. Serbs resentment toward Austria didn't come out of the blue, even if you ignore Bosnian question.
Serbia: "thanks for freeing me, austria!"
Austria: "freeing? More like under mew management..."
Lack of autonomy for the Banat Serbs was the fault of Hungary, not Austria
WW1 is one of the most complicated conflicts in history. It wasn't as cut and dry to who is the good guys and bad guys. While Germany wasn't innocent with everything they did, the British blockade of Germany led to mass starvation of innocent civilians.
So the British were the villains?
@ in war, basically everyone is the villain
@@frankanderson5012yes kinda. The idea is basically that germany fought not deciebingly under narratives. It was just: Ok they hate us (e.g. because our economic rise) but not to free the people.
So following your logic, the U.S. is the 'bad guy' by effectively blockading the Japanese home islands.
German sailors trying to save civilians by warning to leave before they bomb the ship:
The British: and we took offense to that.
You should do more reactions to Lavader. He made a video to show how Wilhelm 2 actually did not want WW1, and worked hard diplomatically to avoid it. He showed how he was treated unfairly by the allies. I was quite surprised by the evidence he brought forward for this. He is kind of a myth-buster in terms of history narratives created by the allies.
I haven't seen the video yet, but I plan on watching. I think I'm in a similar position to Chris in that I really enjoy lavaders videos and he certainly has interesting opinions and I like his thoughts process. However I disagree with him a fair bit and with what I know of WW1, i think it's a far, far stretch to paint the kaiser as a victim. I mean there were certain things he did do to stop or slow the war, but in my opinion, those were only some to facilitate the German mobilization and early offensive actions. I'm willing to say that it wasn't all the kaisers fault, but he does own a massive share of the main cause of the war.
The Kaiser may have wanted peace but not necessarily the war hawks in his government. In the same vein that Britain and France were concerned about a rising Germany. Germany was concerned about a rising Russia.
And even if he wanted peace internally, his actions throughout the July crisis absolutely ensured that war would happen, just not necessarily to the scale it ended up being
Being sympathetic to Kaiser Wilhelm II is a massive red flag. 😂
@@0816M3RC he may have been an autocrat but at least he cared about his people and country, he was just a bit insecure and incompetent
I think one mistake/tragedy people make is associating the central powers to the mustache man and shutting down any idea of a grey area regarding WW1.
I’m only a few minutes into the video but I felt like I should mention it and I’m sure it’s probably wrong too.
Yeah, people assume that since they were the bad guys in ww2, then they were also the bad guys in ww1
I think you are 100% - The start of the war is like a bar fight where no one wants to throw the first punch, but then every one throws the first punch at the same time
There is no grey area. Even in ww1, germany was the bad guy.
@@nickjojo4623 No. This is entirely incorrect. History is written by the victor. That's the only reason people think that. Germany was a rising empire that almost everyone else was trying for decades to harm economically. Austria-Hungary had their heir to the throne murdered. The Black Hand, was a Serbian secret military group. It included a bunch of government officials in Serbia, army members and so on, SPECIFICALLY WITH GOALS such as assassinations. While Princip may not have been a member, he was affiliated with them. Russia then got involved backing Serbia. So Germany, the rising power looking to establish themselves as a regional power, threw their support behind their ally. The Serbian government was pretty much involved via the Black Hand group to assassinating Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary had every right tor retaliate. Russia had no eggs in the basket and got involved, so Germany got involved. And because Russia got involved, France got involved. Even though Germany made it clear they were only going to get involved if Russia militarily got involved against Austria-Hungary. France had even less reason to.
Nothing Germany did necessarily made them the bad guy besides invading Belgium which was their military strategy against France. Kaiser Wilhelm was even the one person in the whole war TRYING to stop it because it had gone too far. But the civilian government and the military was fully behind it. But they were by no means the bad guy
@@nickjojo4623Obvious and pointless bait.
but Serbia didnt train Gavrilo, nor was teh Black Hand associated with the government in Serbia in any way. The black hand had strained relations with the Serbian crown
Black hand was illegal in Serbia. So no relations with the crown even though, being secret organization, some people from the government may have been members. At that time, secret organizations were all the rage in the whole world.
There is evidence that black hand was controlled by some people from the AH government .
No - it was small fraction of zealot young officers . Maybe 100 .people who leads Apis . They didnt like Serbian crown prince Alexander also . Threaten ,blackmailed gov. officials . Bullies .
The leader of the Black Hand Dragutin Dimitrijević Apis was simultaniously the chief of Serbian intelligence service. The link is obvious, Serbs tried to play the "plausable deniability" card but failed. Also, Franz Ferdinand was not just a target of opportunity. As an heir to the throne (Franz Joseph was old and sick) Ferdinand was promising federalisation of the Austro - Hungarian empire which would satisfy Slavic nations within the empire (Croats, Poles, Czech, Slovaks etc) and would at the same time make the project of Greater Serbia if not impossible, then very improbable. Simply put, for Serbia to expand Franz Ferdinand had to die.
That being said, Austrians weren't exactly reluctant to declare war, a lot of generals and ministers privately rejoiced when they heard about Sarajevo assasination because it gave them the opportunity to go to war.
@@FidelisRaven this is why ruling is hard. Everyone does whatever they want and throw clips into the wheels. Anakin had a solution, what if someone wise was at the top and everyone just did whatever the wise person said? Amirite?
THe author of the video being watched conveniently leaves out the history proceding the assasination. Austria was an invader of Bosnia and in 1909 annexed it, after control but not ownership excluding anything muslim or or Serbian. Although a large part of its empire was Slavic it was controlled by Austrians and Hungarians despite being half the existing population. in fact corresponence in the years prior to the war refered to them as an under class. While the annexation was acceptedby buying off the Turks and a German ultimation it was strongly opposed by the population. So in no way was Austria a poor victim of Serbian aggression, it was an active expansionist and Serbia while not blameless was to be added to the empire with the excuse of the assasination. After annexation the Austrians wrote its constitution with no reference to its inhabitants. Any attempt at independence from yhr Empire was put down by the Streifkorps, who were hated and had a very bad reputation among the population. Their only support was among the minority cathoics which is not surprising of the catholic Austrian empirore.
Bosnian explanin that Austro- Hungary was right to invade Serbia!? Are you kidding me !?!
Before I start, a quick note, this will be a long comment (it's a long video, a lot of things were said without context and I hope most of the viewers here, including VLogging are not part of the TikTok generation with an attention span of a gnat) This is in no way attack on the quality of the video nor the original creator.
There are multiple very serious revisionist remarks that are occurring in this video (either from bias or from lack of understanding of the general climate of pre WW1 international politics) I will not be pointing fingers at nationality of the creator, but I do wonder whether he intentionally omitted crucial information or he just has a lack of knowledge. If it's the latter, I hope he will learn some things one day.
First and foremost, regarding the ultimatum. Every single point was discussed with Russia France and UK and they acknowledged the severity of it.
Churchill even remarked: "Europe is trembling on the verge of a general war. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia being the most insolent document of its kind ever devised"
This whole video is put in a way to consider Serbia as a peer competitor and not a second grade country in international politics as if Serbia can change international diplomacy which is funny to say the least.
Whole of Europe wanted the war, everyone was convinced that their own military was so much more advanced than the opposing side but they based their knowledge on the previous wars and completely lost track of technology. An incredible book "Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman perfectly explains it. Germany itself believed would knockout France in only a couple of months due to their previous victory in the Franco-Prussian war (we all know how that turned out).
Regarding the May coup in Serbia. Honestly, what was said in the video is a blatant lie. They were not killed because the conspiracists wanted less Austrian influence and more French and Russian, that was the consequence of it. He was killed because he was deeply unpopular for a multiple of reasons. I will try to explain some of those, but it’s a huge subject and obviously some things will be run over. There were 2 dynasties, the Karadjordjevici and Obrenovici. Karadjordjevici came first (the first Serbian Uprising ), Obrenovici came later and they were basically taking turns. The Obrenovići 1817-1842 and 1858-1903, the Karađorđevići in 1842-1858 and after 1903 (a note: not all of them were kings, Milan Obrenovic was the first (father of Alexander Obrenovic, the one who was assassinated in May 1903)) Milan tried to acquire absolute power but failed doing so. He was deeply unpopular so he abdicated the throne. The problem occurred when it was found out that Milan still had influence over Alexander and advised him on how to lead the country and how to play politics (letters in French were found out in 2020 from Milan to Alexander) (they still had a very complicated relationship, especially because of the next point). One of the problems was Alexander’s marriage to Draga Masin who was 9 years older, not of noble birth and a widower. As a consequence of the marriage, King Alexander Obrenovic himself started aligning more to Russia due to his strained relations with the rest of Europe. He was more worried about his marriage than his country, which of course increased unrest and lack of loyalty. Milan himself was exiled (due to the marriage disagreement) and wouldn’t return to Serbia, he died in 1901. The Austrian influence argument is a lie, these are undisputed facts…
There were multiple crisis prior to WW1. First Moroccan Crisis 1905-1906, Pig War (also known as Customs War) 1906-1908, Bosnian Crisis 1908-1909, Second Moroccan Crisis 1911 which could have sparked war but didn't due to pure dumb luck. I will be focusing on 2 of these because they were completely ignored as if never had existed, the Bosnian Crisis and the Pig War and because they are directly related to the events in the video.
Serbia was economically dependent on Austria-Hungary so naturally Serbia tried to become less dependent by opening trade with other big countries. In 1904 Serbia wanted to improve it’s military by acquiring artillery and munitions from the German Krupp as well as French Schneider and from Skoda in AH (which was also owned by some members of the Vienna court), AH due to their tendencies in the Balkans didn’t like it so they imposed big customs on pork (which was a substantial revenue in agricultural Serbia in the early 20th century). By 1908 due to pressure from Germany, the Customs war ended when AH relieved the pressure realizing it's not going anywhere
The second, more important crisis was the Annexation (Bosnian) Crisis, which occurred in 1908 due to the unilateral Annexation of Bosnia. A little of history before delving deeper. Region of Bosnia was a part of the Ottoman Empire until 1878 when the Congress of Berlin approved occupation of Bosnia for a period of 30 years (There was an uprising in 1882 which I won’t be delving in deeper, basically, local Serbs and Muslims joined forces against AH due to unresolved issues regarding taxes, military obligation as well as agrarian ones). Needless to say, a lot of south Slavs lived there so it was generally viewed as a temporary solution for the newly renewed south Slavic nationalism. When AH annexed, it sparked a big problem. Mostly because south Slavs inside Austria-Hungary were getting treated worse and worse and started asking questions like autonomy the same way Hungary fought it’s way. These 2 points are extremely important for understanding the nationalism part which was used in a video as a way to demonize the perpetrators. Gavrilo Princip himself testified that he deeply regretted killing Sophie especially since she was pregnant (disputed, but a popular theory) (I am not sure whether he hit her intentionally or accidentally)
On the note of good guys vs bad guys. While WW1 is more of a grey area in compare to WW2, that doesn’t mean there weren’t “bad” guys. Austria-Hungary committed atrocities across Serbia. After Battle of Cer where they suffered the first defeat, as a punitive action they leveled the town of Sabac (Used to be called Serbian Paris) as well as killing cca 120 civilians (mostly women and children as well as old people) that were previously locked in a church. That was just a start, nearly 4000 civilians were killed during that short occupation all together. It wasn’t until 1916 when the formal occupation began which lasted till Serbian army liberated it in November 1918. During that occupation, they continued their atrocities. All in all, nearly a third of Serbian population perished during the war, either from military actions, from concentration camps to disease as a result of famine. (As a point of reference, the massive 27 million casualties USSR sustained were cca 14-15% of total population and Nazi Germany a generous 7.5%).
I Personally don’t have ill feelings towards AH the same way people have towards Nazi Germany (the scale of their atrocities was on another level) but I will always fight revisionist history with facts.
I believe this is more than enough for now, I can continue in the comments later! :)
Svaka čast na komentaru!
Well, this is a proper reply. there is no worse people then revisionists... Šljam
As Historian:
1. Gavrilo Princip was not part of Black hand. He was a part of Young Bosnia movement that was Yugoslav movement , not Serbian, and was created by Serbians and Croats but also Bosniaks. All of them were not citizens of Serbia, but Austro-Hungarian citizens. None of them was trained in Serbia, nor there is any evidence that they had any training prior to assassination. Princip, Grabez and Cabranovic went to Serbia month earlier, and it was speculated that they had contact with Black hand, but there is no evidence of that.
2. There were 2 issues that created tension and they are not mentioned here.
First was unlawful annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1908. That Directly confront talk with Serbia by breaking Berlin congress conference 1878 and stating that Bosnia is not part of Austro-Hungary but under it protectorate, and they will help with administration. Corruption was insane in that period, lot of laws were created that benefit only empire citizens. At that moment about 70% Bosnia were Serbs.
Second is "Carinska kriza" also known as "Pig war" 1906 -1911 that actually almost destroyed Serbia's possibility to trade with anyone else except Austria. Blockade that Austria did were drastic, and Serbian people in Austrian lands were forced to stop buying Serbian goods.
3. Balkan Wars , both of them, were also an issue since Austrians directly argued that Bulgarians need to get part of nowadays northern Macedonia. Serbia lost almost 10% of fighting men,
4. And most important. 28th June is great Serbian holiday, called Vidovdan, and arrival of Archduke was nothing else but provocation to have excuse for war. To confirm that, there was a first try of assassination, by bomb and wounding about 20 people from crowd and in the next car. And they continue journey by plan. Then driver of archduke's made wrong turn, and then assassination happened out of route which is very uncommon for assassinations. But I'll leave that to conspiracy theorists
Bosniaks didn't exist backthen, they all declared as Muslim and Catholic Serbs, but you have a point, war would start anyway, Austria haf imperial goals in the Balkans.
@@macakucizmama831 I tried to be politically correct
@StanislavCollic 👍
I thought that Danilo Ilić (who is a member of the black hand) organised the whole assianation attempt?
@@StanislavCollic Bosniaks didn't exist during time of Young Bosnia, and all Catholic ones declared as Serbs
after watching this i now very much understand his problem with Oversimplified, given how he portrayed the ultimatum and july crisis in his WW1 video.
5:15 The tragic thing is that the guy who was mostly against any kind of war on the governmental side in Austria-Hungary got murdered in Sarajevo. Franz-Ferdinand also planned to have Hötzedorf sacked after his return from Sarajevo. They had been political allies once, but Conrad's desire for a pre-emptive war against Serbia and his poor handling of the Redl affair had led to a falling out between the Crown Prince and the Chief of the General staff.
For anyone who doesn't know what the Redl affair was: Colonel Alfred Redl had been the deputy head of the Evidenzbüro, the military intelligence agency of the k.u.k Monarchy, who got turned by the Russians and sold out all the Austrian agents in the Russian Empire and all Austrian war plans against Russia. He got found out and was forced to commit suicide in May 1913. Because of him, A-H was fighting Russia basically blind, which is a major reason for the poor performance of the A-H army against Russia in the beginning of WW1, just for a bit of context A-H suffered nearly quarter of its losses in 1914 in the first 5 months of WW1 a war that went on for another 47 afterwards (also Potiorek's piss poor handling of the Serbian Campaign added a lot to these losses). Contrast this to Italy's entry into the war in 1915, where A-H still had a functioning intelligence network, on the day of Italy's declaration of war the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine attacked the Italian Naval Command in Ancona and took out basically the entire train network on the eastern coast of Italy, derailing, quite literally, the Italian mobilisation for weeks.
I would say that is the whole reason the black hand targeted F-F in the first place. This way a war between A-H and Serbia was most likely and as long as Austria-Hungary started an official war, they could play the victim card and count on getting russian support.
It's like making a bait move in chess. (i hope that's the correct way of wording it)
Franz Ferdinands position meant sweet fuck all. Only Hungary was more or less onboard with having no war. Austrian nobles were salivating.
Say he does become a ruler, how is he gonna accomplish any of the reforms Karl was trying in the final years? For an Illyrian crown Hungary would have to agree since Croatia was theirs. What of the Slovenes then? Do they get representation? Autonomy? Or become a part of that crown? What of Istria?
What will the others think? Czechs were going to Russia just to not be ruled by Austria any longer. They would 100% demand more power. Slovaks werent gonna sit by and let Hungary repress them either. Nor would the Romanians, Poles and Ukrainians.
Fact is under their model, adding a crown meant making them their own country with its own passport, army and everything. There is simply no way devolution wasnt going to result in independence eventually. A united states of austria is a pipedream about as realistic as the british imperial federation, aka CANZUK on crack
Would've, could've, should've... It was just a cost of the business of imperialism. We all wish we were better at our jobs.
As an Austrian, I’d like to add a different perspective to the question. Discussions around who’s to blame-Serbia or Austria-Hungary-and the power politics involved often miss a crucial point: the responsibility of the Austro-Hungarian ruling class toward their own people.
Some argue Austria-Hungary didn’t anticipate the full scale of the conflict, but as VTH highlighted, they very likely expected a bloodbath. Strong warning voices in Austria and Russia foresaw the potential for massive escalation, yet their concerns were ignored. Given this, the decision by Austria-Hungary’s leaders was irresponsible. This doesn’t mean Serbia played no role-there were certainly crucial actions on their part. But from a moral standpoint, knowing that their choices would lead to the deaths of 1.5 million Austro-Hungarians (not to mention the catastrophic losses in other nations), it’s clear the decision was reckless.
Additionally, the war ultimately brought about the fall of the empire itself, a tragic end that reshaped Europe. While I don’t believe WWI could have been entirely avoided-since larger issues were at play beyond just Austria-Hungary and Serbia-the actions of Austria-Hungary’s leadership did pave the way for a tragic outcome.
I was thinking something quite similar while watching the video: even if the decision was justifiable, it still doesn't mean it was the right decision to go to war with Serbia, because they knew Russia would intervene and that the consequences of such a decision would therefore be much bigger than the initial cause.
"Strong warning voices in Austria and Russia foresaw the potential for massive escalation, yet their concerns were ignored."
That is literally happening right now and nobody sees it. History is systematically pushed away from school in order to be able to repeat the warmongering rhetorik.
When you keep the sheeps in check they will be glad to give up their life for the higher-ups.
P.S.: Oberst Reisner as historian and officer understands that perfectly.
@@roerd first and foremost, why did Austro-Hungary take the territory of Bosnia when not a single German or Hungarian lived there
As a Serb who loves history and enjoys different views, I agree with what you said. I must add that Serbia was in very bad shape before WW1 after all the casualties in the Balkan Wars and another major war was not what the Serbian government wanted at all.
@@ivicatasik7923 No one else gave it to them. They were tasked with the administration of the region after the Russo-Turkish war, but it remained officially part of the Ottoman Empire. Then the Austro-Hungarians themselves decided to annex it in 1908.
saw the length of the video and got so happy, got my popcorn and sweet tea lol.
From the video it seems like Lavader made the case that Serbia was untrustworthy but doesn't make the case that "Austria-Hungary was RIGHT to Invade Serbia" which was the video title. It was, however, an interesting take on the traditional narative of the Central Powers being the enemy.
The grandson of the man who SINGED Austrian demands said that EVERY SINGLE DOT was accepted, even the one that is to this day stated as ''non-singed'', every single one, and they still invaded.
lol, the world must have been dreaming the whole thing then
What you fail to understand in general is that all this was part of German and Austrian plan to occupy Balkans, as there was literary no single inhabitant of their nationality there. In the same time they also held occupied many other Slavic lands, including Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, even parts of Poland and Ukraine. Claiming that they were somehow RIGHT to do so is plain stupid.
1. The assassination happened in Bosnia, a Serbian land, occupied by Austria 1908. - so only 6 years prior to the event. What Gavrilo Princip did was a pure retaliation against the oppressors - heroic act.
2. 1906. Austria imposed sanctions on Serbia trying to weaken it's economy, because they were already planning to invade Serbia. However the sanctions failed, as they only made Serbia ties with Russia and France stronger.
3. Balkan wars (1912-1913): Serbia emerged from these conflicts with significant territorial gains, further challenging Austria-Hungary's influence in the region. It fueled up Austrian war plans.
Nice post, did the Jesuits manipulate and or hijacked the Black Hand?
Bravo baki, samo tako nastavi!
Territorial gains = occupation, is this correct?
Bosnia isn’t serbian land lmao
@@Rugess-Nome Every medieval Bosnian king had Serbian name and Serbian last name, was baptized in Serbian orthodox church, including the 1st king of Bosnia and the most important one Tvrtko I Kotromanic, he was baptized in the Serbian Orthodox Church of Saint Nicholas in Mileseva Monastery, located near Prijepolje in Serbia. He called himself King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Coast, and the Western Lands. By far majority of population was Serbian, mostly orthodox, some catholic and later in 15th century some bogomils as well.
Further your claims that Serbs committed some crimes in Balkan wars or World wars where they fought against German, Austrian, and Turk occupation, and were massacred in millions is beyond disgusting.
Austrians only needed excuse to attack Serbia. Main goal of Austria and Germany was to go on shores of warm seas and on Mediterranean .
So, Austria can use excuses to justify start of great war, but behind everything were their old plans to go on Mediterranean an Bosphorus
The whole video is nonsense, without any knowledge of how law works.
We won't even talk about the fact that Gavrilo Princip was born in Austro-Hungarian empire, while Bosnia was a legal colony of Austria. He had their personal ID card. He was not a citizen of Serbia.
Let's just look at the "terrorist assassination" false premise:
In 1878, at Congress of Berlin, the world was divided between big powers.
Autro-Hungarian empire got Bosna and Herzegovina as its colony, for 25 years concession.
The concession expired in 1903. If Austria wanted to keep its Bosnian colony, a new treaty had to be made with the big powers. Instead, Austro-Hungarian empire just unilaterally extended its concession on Bosnian colony indefinitely. And then annexed it into its empire.
"Unilaterally" means: without the agreement of other parties (big powers). That's the official term from international law.
As this annexation has been done against the international law - then any act against the Austro-Hungarian forces in Bosnia - can not be considered as a terrorist act.
But instead as an act of liberation.
Franz Ferdinand - was not assassinated in Vienna. But in Bosnia, an area which Austro-Hungarian empire held illegally occupied after 1903.
Thus Austro-Hungarian empire, under international law - had no legal right to occupy Serbia, and kill 1.2 million (official WW1 casualties data) of its citizens.
As a Serbian and someone who follows Chris's channel for years I'd like to offer my perspective and possibly a counterpoint:
1. When it comes to organization Young Bosnia which carried out assassination (Which Princip was part of) was a pro-Yugoslav anarchist organization based in Bosnia (which was part of Austria-Hungary) Princip himself declared himself as anarchist Yugoslav at his trial, also Young Bosnia had Bosnian muslims members as well as Bosnian Serbs, as for the Black Hand they were the shadow organization that controlled 1/3 of Serbian government as well as they had influence in the army, they did wanted to provoke a war and helped with planning, training and logistics, Serbian prime minister at that point Nikola Pasic as well as Serbian King Peter I and Serbian chief of staff Field Marshal Radomir Putnik were against black hand and had 0 knowledge about assassination and would be against it because Serbia already had 2 wars in 1912 and 1913 and Serbia was exhausted, so the argument that Serbian government approved the assassination was complete falsehood.
2. As said in the video Gavrilo Princip and the all accused members of Young Bosnia that carried out assassination were Austrian citizens born and raised in Austro-Hungarian empire so Archduke was killed by it's own citizens so by international law that itself removes the argument for invasion, at his trial Princip said his only goal was to kill Archduke and that his was Yugoslav revolutionary and he had no intention to kill Archduke wife.
3. Several German and Austrian historians provided theories that Austrian government knew about assassination plans and let them carry on with it because they wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Serbia, evidence to it is the day that Archduke visited Sarajevo 28 June which was seen as provocation by Serbian population because 28 June is most important day in Serbian history it is the day of Battle of Kosovo in 1389 and marks the beginning of the end of Serbian medieval kingdom but it is consider as symbol of resistance in Serbian history, secondly security for his visit was very light and thirdly he went again to the streets after a failed bombing attack earlier in the day.
4. When it comes to ultimatum Austria sent to Serbia, Serbian government did everything to avoid war (if Serbia wanted war it would reject ultimatum outright) Serbia accepted 9 out of 10 points of very harsh ultimatum and British politicians said that ultimatum was made in such a way that no country that consider itself independent would accept such a thing, point in ultimatum that was in dispute was Austrian police and court officials be allowed to go around and arrest people in Serbia, Serbian government DIDN'T REJECT THIS POINT but offered that point in question be submitted to arbitration by the great powers of Europe and whatever they decided Serbian government would abide by it, but Austria rejected arbitration offer and declared war, not to mention that German government itself said there was no cause for war after they saw Serbian response to ultimatum.
ps: I do believe Lavader being Bosnian muslim comes with certain bias and prejudice against Serbians and it's hard for me to take his video srsly and objective, cause he forgot to mention a lot of stuff, also let's not forget Austrian soldiers committed many war crimes when they invaded Serbia killing lot of civilians which was well documented by Red Cross so there is no doubt in my mind that they were the bad guys to us in Serbia.
Interesting points, thank you. There are so good points on both sides and it's impossible to make a final conclusion for me.
But FF was in Boania for a few day....maybe a week, but why? 😂....he was monitoring military exercises.
@@palmanbracht9125 I would recommend watching Austrian movie called "Sarajevo 1914" also called "Das Attentat" in German, it explains a lot and confirms conspiracy in upper levels of austrian government and military about them wanting to get rid of archduke and to invade Serbia they were just looking for a reason.
Thank you! The point about the ultimatum almost never gets mentioned in the discussions about WW I and Austria’s agenda, and in this video particularly, it just shows the clear bias and at the very least, complete lack of desire to research in detail.. the fact that the ultimatum was so obviously set in a way in which it would almost guarantee any sovereign country rejecting it and despite Serbia actually agreeing to all of its points and suggesting one most outrageous point be up for arbitration and Germany actually seeing Serbia’s response as very reasonable, Austria still attacked, and committed atrocities..
Lavader makes an VERY compelling case here even to Me as someone who is pro Entente, the fact how they made a statue of a guy who was a killer who killed an innocent couple just because they were royalty is disgraceful and those cheering that statue of a man who killed a woman should be ashamed of themselves and can f-off.
I know very little about ww1. Are the majority of people pro Entente or pro CP?
@@idisplaypace2411 majority are pro central powers since they like to defend the underdog. although there is a balance
“Who killed an innocent couple just because they were royalty”
Yeah that’s definitely the sole motive behind the assassination
@@rockmycd1319That's basically why they were kill . Because Franz F was royalty .
He didn't want to kill Sophie, just Franz. He later said that hi was sorry.
VTH Trigger Cheer: WOODY WILSON (clap clap clap clap clap) WOODY WILSON (clap clap clap clap clap) LOL
He does make a brief appearance in this one
EDIT: I have to edit my comment here. I posted the upper paragraph of the below text on the original video, but someone pointed out that there’s no evidence that A-H supported Albanian insurgents. And I actually (and surprisingly to me) couldn’t find any neutral sources regarding this (only some Serbian articles). Someone can help me out on this? Until then I have to admit that my comment might be wrong. I apologize if I misled some 30+ people. Ouch. A lesson for me not to rush into debate in things I’m not that much familiar about.
The original comment:
This video initially left mixed feelings to me, but it deepens this whole debate so it’s good and interesting. I loved Lavader’s conclusion at the end. Both Austria-Hungary and Serbia had conflicting interests. That’s simply it. I’ll add a few points from Serbian perspective, that he didn’t mention, without going into justification or reasoning. Watching this video people might get impression that the super patient Austria-Hungary was giving Serbia chance after chance to correct herself, but Vienna was a lot more proactive. For example, just like Austria-Hungary was accusing Serbia of causing unrest within Bosnia, they themselves were arming, financing and guiding Albanian groups to wage insurrection within Serbia in 1913 and later. The question of why they did that makes for a good debate. Expansionism? Or just keeping Serbia in check so they don’t grow too dangerous? In any case there are two sides to this. The other topic from this period that he didn’t mention was The Pig War of 1906-1908.
Also, I have to say this about Gavrilo Princip. I’m a patriot, but I feel disgusted by this chest-beating kind of nationalism that’s promoted for masses in Serbia. I can’t hate Gavrilo though. Growing in his shoes surrounded by ardent student nationalists and anarchists, I would have most likely done the same thing on that June 28. But, my fellow Serbs… what did we gain? What was the interest? Gavrilo fired a bullet that sent around 1.2 million Serbs to their graves, eliminated their greatest foreign protector, the Tsarist Russia, and cleared the path for communism under which the Serbs suffered too after 1944. Not to mention around 17 million other deaths in WW1. And the failed project of Yugoslavia. Gavrilo definitely should NOT have gotten the monument erected by Serbia… 100%!
Very reasonable and thoughtful standpoint. Greetings from Vienna!
How many pig wars have there been?
@@ignatzmeyer1978 👋👋 Thank you! Greetings from Vancouver (Lol)
@@ignatzmeyer1978 I edited my comment. I might not be accurate on this, I apologize.
It is insane how Serbia erected a statue for a terrorist. Guess their backwater mindset is the reason why they plunge the world into war, because of some stupid agenda like "make Yugoslavia great again".
9:30 Movie is Von Richthofen and Brown (1971)
Thank you
Yes!! That's the film!
It appears to be shot on the grounds of Leinster House
Took some scrolling, but there is always one who knows. Thank you sir
I've always thought the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a tragic event all on it's own. Franz was a genuinely good person, and would have been a far better king than his father, and him dying but telling his wife that she had to live was so beautiful but deeply sad.
Yeah, a guy referring to slavs (Serbs particularly) as pigs, thieves etc. Great guy. I also know a guy who thought the same thing 20 years later.
@Mihajlo1469 Yeah, a guy who wanted to reform the Empire so as to give Slavs greater autonomy, is a good one. Your comparison to to a failed painter who fled his home country is quite uncalled for. Also, telling everybody you are Serbian without saying so.
Archdukes can be weird too. Both are true. FF wás a racist towards Serbians ánd called for more autonomy for minorities, including the Serbian one.
@@Mihajlo1469 Franz Ferdinand didn't plan to invade other countries and exterminate all non-German people here, he wanted reforms and peace. Your comparison is also disrespectful to all the Habsburg family members who were either arrested in concentration camps or fought against Nazism.
@@str.77 In addition, Hitler was technically a traitor to his own homeland, since he utterly hated Austria-Hungary and wanted it dead, which is why he fought for Germany in WW1 instead. The fact that Archduke Joseph Ferdinand of Austria was arrested in Dachau concentration camp and Otto von Habsburg was forced to flee Austria further showed Hitler hatred for the Habsburgs.
You should react to this video called "Why Spanish America Didn't Unite Like Brazil" by Icebulb. It's like Polandballs and Oversimplified and just as informative
Agreed i've been waiting for this reaction for a while now
Totally agree
100% my same feeling, I saw that video by chance and I absolutely loved that mix of vibes. Polandball/countryball + Oversimplified is exactly what my mind immediately thought of and it was a super interesting watch, it fueled so much curiosity in me for the latin/southern american history. Would love to see what Chris think of it!
Yes!
The only thing that is certain is that Bosnia is not the country of the Austro-Hungarians, but of the people who live there. Bosnia is a country in particular that belongs to those who defend it from foreign invaders. The Serbs expelled the Turks and the Austro-Hungarians from the Balkans, while the Muslims and Croats welcomed the occupier with flowers. And now they say it is their country, not Serbian.
Greetings. As a Serb and a historian, I have to react to a few things here. The first thing concerns incorrect statements, and the second is the pass over of an important piece of information.
The first thing is about King Aleksandar Obrenović. During his reign, the separation from the AU and the turning towards Russia began. His best man at the wedding was Tsar Nicholas II (I think the Russian ambassador was on behalf of the Tsar at the wedding), after the wedding he announced that ties with Austria-Hungary were to be severed. The reasons for his murder are long. He often caused political instability, he often changed and replaced the constitutions, the queen's fake pregnancy, the question of the heir and neglecting the military is a topic for another video.
The second thing is one piece of information that has not been said, and it is very important. And that is that during 1912 and 1913 Conrad von Hötzendorf (Chief of the General Staff of the AU) demanded war with Serbia more than 30 times! That's a fact. This tells us that AU really WANTED a war with Serbia. The only man who prevented the war with Serbia was Franz Ferdinand. What irony.
There's a lot more nonsense said in the original video, and misinterpretations, but I'm really not in the mood to comment on them all. Especially with the subway, because I'm not sure what the author is referring to: a physical railroad (which didn't exist), or is it just a figurative term for a network of smugglers.
So much from me. Cheers and Good luck.
P.S. I will not respond to comments, except for comments and questions from the channel owner, because I really don't have time to fight with every keyboard warrior who wants to feel important.
famous Conrad von Hötzendorf, dictator of A-H.
If that's what it takes to place the entire blame for a war on a nation, try some French, German, Russian, English and US politicians before the war, especially France and the Boer war cabinet in UK, ca 1899-1910
Great sign of respect. You were personally asked to analyze his video.
Its lava-der.
Lava as in volcanic lava
Der as in darth vader.
He explained it on a community post. It comes from his username in online games
Stop, stop stop! You're going to take someone's eye out. Besides, you're saying it wrong. It's lava-der, not la vader
The Vader"@@noelstachowski9533
@@noelstachowski9533 ?
@@igormikuska4369 its a harry potter reference
@@noelstachowski9533 It is a poor reference.
WWI did not break out because of the Sarajevo assassination, it broke out because everyone in Europe wanted it:
-The Russian emperor wanted to take revenge on the AH emperor for his betrayal during the Crimean War
- The Serbs wanted to continue expanding with the help of the Russians
-AH wanted to prove that it is still a world power
- The German emperor wanted to prove that he was more successful than his father
- The French wanted to take revenge on the Germans for the disaster at Sedan
- As usual, the English incited the European powers against each other in order to maintain world hegemony
If the assassination had not succeeded, they would have found a reason to settle old scores.
Serbs did not want to "expand" they were simply in a process of liberating their ancetsral lands.
@@vanja2565 In other words, they wanted to expand.
@EmmettMcFly55 nope, those 2 words have very different meanings.
Serbs could not expand to Bosnia because they already lived there. For more than a thousand years. Serbia could expand to include that territory as well, and did want that. Eventually, not in 1914. But that’s called liberation.
@@dzeremy13 Serbs did not even make up 30% of the population at that time. Croats wanted to be with Croatia, as part of AH, and Muslims especially did not want to experience the fate of Muslims from Serbia, who were ethnically/religiously cleansed in the 19th century. The only pure Serbian part was Eastern Herzegovina. So here we are still talking about expansion into the territory, where at least 70% of the population did NOT want them. Another thing is that they reported on propaganda lies, myths and legends, which they themselves believe.
Part of the population was Serbs, but here by "Serbs" I mean the expansion of the kingdom of Serbia into the territories of other countries.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but couldn't the Austro-Hungarian monarchy have tried to speak to Russia before giving the ultimatum to Serbia? I'm sure the tsar would be sympathetic to the cause of not wanting one's royals to be assassinated. Not because of hindsight, but because Tsar Alexander II was also assassinated.
The Tsar might have been, but he didn't make the policies. It was the minister of foregin affairs Sergey Sazonov
who was a mad ''pan-slavist'' who also wen't behind the Tsars back.
Oooh, I made a similar statement about bringing in Russia, but I hadn't considered the assassination of Alexander II, that seems like it would make it more likely the Russians would have at least some sympathy for the Austro-Hungarians. Good point!
They did communicate with Russia through diplomats, and the majority of European monarchs, including the Tsar, was sympathetic to the Austrian royal family. The problem was that nations are dictated by INTERESTS, not by SYMPATHY. Austria wanted justice, but Russia also wants to keep/protect their Serbian ally (cultural and strategic ties).
The tragic part is even before the creation of the ultimatu. The Austrian and Russian ambassadors were close to figuring out a deal, but the Russian ambassador died before it was finalized. This along with miscommunication and military mobilization, also delayed/prolonged the issue which subsequently led to a much bigger war than intended.
Ironically, both the Tsar and Kaiser personally did not want a war but eventually were convinced by both their own military and politicians to war. If you think about it if Germany and Russia were really absolute monarchs, then the war would not have escalated into into a world war since both monarchs did not want to fight each other.
If you want a little more detail, I recommend watching extra history's Seminal Tragedy series on RUclips.
@@rmk4452 Thank you so much for the enlightening comment and recommendation. I'll definitely have to watch that series again. I remember it as excellent but didn't think much about the details (just the main takeaway), which I have now an angle for. Thanks again!
@@therealignotus7549 Interesting. I'll look into him.
Why cant yall get what bosniak means,it's not a nationality,they're called that because of the name of the state Bosnia.But all and i mean all of them are descendent from serbs and croats ,orthodox or catholic.Today's bosniaks are muslim because they were the families that gave in to the turks under Ottoman invasion they became muslim and were left alone by Ottomans,while serbs who did not change their belief were treated like dogshit and their children were getting taken away.If you look at their names of their ancestors throughout history it's like this Alija,Mehmed,... all muslim names till you get a little deeper and find a christian name is their great great ancestor Ilija,Marko,Nikola....
Just from watching the video. I think its too complicated to say if Austria-Hungary was right to invade. On the other hand, why didn't Serbia crack down on the Black Hand in the first place.
Serbia did crack them down, but in 1917 at macedonian front. And yes it is very complicated.
Bro,all members of Black Hand were executed during the war. The trail was planned for in 1914....but its kinda hard to conduct a trail when some asshole is lobbing artillery at the courthouse
"black hand" did not exist, you are talking about "unity or death". Yes, Serbia did crack on them, but beacuse they were up to speed on what the traitorus regent and his prime minister were doing, unfortunately didn't get to dispose of them and save many people.
A few things I need to point out:
1) Serbia offered to have the July Crisis mediated by the Great Powers in order to avoid war, this was suggested in the rejection of the 1 point in the ultimatum
2) Austria didn't care about the potential of Russian involvement due to their own hubris and seeing Russia as a glass elephant due to their defeat in the Russo-Japanese war
3) Lavader is extended biased against Serbia in his other videos, basically blaming Serbia and Serbs for the collapse of Yugoslavia, something very prevelant in Bosnian and Croatian nationalist circles
4) Serbia lost a quarter of its pre war population between 1914 and 1919 with Austria destroying cultural and religious monuments (such as the Njegoš chapel on Lovćen) & brutally murdering Serb civilians during the occupation
5) There were evil actors during the Great War, such as the Young Turks and the Bolsheviks
It is a shame to ask such a question. Serbia lost 25% of its population in the aggression of Austria, with the intention of occupying and controlling the Balkan countries. which is the only cause of war. Ferdinand was killed as the occupier of Bosnia as a Serbian country. No Serb went to occupy and rule over any country inhabited by Austrians or Hungarians.
My grandfather was austrian, i have no idea what he and his family thought of the war, but i do know it was a great country for them
HOWEVER
Austria Hungary should have peacefully let go whichever country did not want to be part of that entity (which maybe was most of them)
No one has the the right to occupy another country
Wish Serbia the best of luck
You're right. Imagine we say today Hitler was right to attack Poland 1939. because they didn't want to be part of Germany.
"No Serb went to occupy and rule over any country inhabited by Austrians or Hungarians."
Does this mean that you are giving up the province of Vojvodina because you took that territory from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and have never ruled there in history?
Don't fool yourself, you are neither better nor worse than other states from that time, you could hardly wait after WW1 to move the borders west all the way to the Alps.
@@valis25 you are full of shit habsburg fanboy
@@valis25 There was always Serbs in Vojvodina. Also Hungary lost that territory due to Austro-Hungarian war crimes during ww1.
50:34 They could’ve have gotten a neutral third party involved. A country that did not have affiliation with either country and could have heard both sides of the argument and made a decision based on evidence alone
As a non-american, I think the best comparision an american can make between the Austria-Hungary attack on Serbia and 'something' that happened in USA recently would be 09/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack that lead to USA invading Afghanistan. The Afghan government and the taliban were not "involved directly" at that attack, yet they covered and protected Al-Qaeda from USA, wich is the same thing that the serbian government did back at 1914.
Destroying a National Landmark and economic strongpoint as well as thousands of people is way more severe than killing 2 people.
It would be interesting to compare the ultimatum the Austro Hungarians sent to Serbia with the ultimatum sent by George W to Afghanistan
@@razuer2920 True, but let's create a scenario that would be a bit closer to the US. Lets' say that there were a pro-Chinese and pro-Russian coup in Mexico and the Mexican president and his wife had been murdered, butchered really, by the terrorist group staging the coup. This group wants for Mexico to get everything that used to be part of the Spanish Empire in North America, from California to Venezuela, including Florida and the Caribbean islands. Fast-forward a few years, and the President-elect of the US and his wife get assassinated while visiting troops stationed in Puerto Rico by this terrorist group. I'd say there is just a "tiny" chance for the US to go to war over that. Even if the Mexican government, put in place by said terrorist group, had nothing to do with the assassination.
This scenario is basically the situation between Serbia and Austria-Hungary prior to WW1.
@alejandroparra362 Correct, as long as one considers the Taliban the "Afghan government" at the time, which they weren't.
@str.77 in 2001, they were.
To answer your question, the way I see it the only possible way to avoid war and get out of the situation, but also get the necessary investigation into the crimes and a suppression of the terrorist activities, would have been for Austria-Hungary and Serbia (and all the other European powers) to jointly agree to an international team to investigate the matter within Serbia, preferably with both Central Powers and Entente participation, but with the exclusion of Russia and AH.
So probably a German/French, or better yet a German/British team to act as neutrally as possible.
Oh, and Russia would have to actually call off mobilisation.
To get to the point would have been tricky, though, and I'm actually afraid that a genuine war scare would have had to first sweep across the continent for that to be agreed to, why else would the UK take an interest in the matter otherwise? (Which means that the crisis had to escalate, as dangerous as it of course was.) And it probably would have had to be the UK for the Entente side, as France and especially Russia would have been seen as too Serbia-friendly by AH.
It could have satisfied Vienna in that it would have been able to force a breach of Serbian sovereignty, even if AH hadn't been the country to carry the investigation out, while Serbia could have at least sleep somewhat well at night with knowing that it weren't officials from just across the border being at work in the kingdom.
They would still have had to swallow a breach of their sovereignty, though.
That was what I was thinking too, some type of neutral party to investigation. I was thinking Spain or the USA, but I'm not 100% sure.
@@Dragonite43 Good point on adding a wholly neutral country to the mix, even if the entire team can't consist of them (I don't see a scenario in which AH does not insist on Germany being part of the investigation if it itself can't be).
That said, I think the USA wouldn't fly simply because of how uninvolved it had been in Europe and Spain was a bit of a mess during the time. Maybe a nordic country like Sweden then or go to the OGs, the Swiss.
@@univeropa3363 True. I wasn't sure about Sweden, just because I wasn't sure how much influence Russia had on Sweden at the time.
@@Dragonite43 Not that much. Swedes hated the russians. I would worry more about German influence than Russian in the case of Sweden.
50:37. I think the only way Austria could’ve taken a different path is if they attempted to get another great power like the United Kingdom or Russia to side with Austria on the investigation portion of the demands. Because Germany wasn’t able to do that in our timeline. But Russia was allies with Serbia and had a weak government image and the UK was too far to care. Another thing I could think of for a peaceful solution would be Serbia or Austria back down, or they somehow create a pre League of Nations system to settle the issue internationally. But that would be impossible pre World War One horrors.
There are some issues with Russia and Britain being apart of it. One was that Russia and Austria-Hungry were rivals due to the Balkens. To Russia they were the protectors of the Slavs and wanted more Slavic nations to have independence with warm water ports. Hell the falling out between Germany and Russia came due to the Balkens twice. Once due to them not agreeing to Bulgaria getting more land and having ports in the Aegean, and in 1887 when Bosnia was made a protectorate under Austria-Hungry. Britain was mainly due to the close ties with Germany, hell when Edward VII was king he had sent his foreign minister to Vienna to talke with Kaiser Franz Joseph about siding with the Britain in the Entente as a way for them to get German lands they lost to Germany. They refused and their relations soured.
39:33 another parallel to this would be Afghanistan. With them refusing to crack down on the terrorists, they were turning a clear blind eye too. Now, of course, I know the lead up to that was wildly different. But the US reacted in a very similar way Austria Hungary did.
The sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is a must read on the start of the war.
The rest is history podcast on beginning of WW1 is also a must listen
Came here to comment this. Absolutely fascinating series
Nobody died in Sarajevo June, 28 1914. Prince Ferdinand simply made a turn, his car went into a street with no exit, there he stepped out of the car with his wife, took a boat to the train station and went back to Austria. About 500 photos of his arrival were taken that day by many different journalists, of the Prince arriving at the train station, of him going in and out the town hall, etc but what we saw the next day in all newspapers in the world, was a drawing. How interesting... right?
The clothing he and Sophie were wearing, blood stained, is on display in the European museum in Brussels. So that is quite the conspiracy that you are arguing for.
Sources?
@@AIexOut-A-Magic-x6w The clothing he and Sophie were wearing, blood stained, is on display in the European museum in Brussels. So that is quite the conspiracy that you are arguing for.
Sources?
@@andrewwilson9183 You are free to believe whatever you want and make any thesis, antithesis and or conclusions that seem plausible and logical to you. This is your duty if you are a person of reason and not faith. History books were not written for you to believe everything you read or any drawing you see as you would believe in a religion. My thesis is that nobody died that day. Why do I suggest such a thing? Well, as I said before, we have no photos of the dramatic "event" itself, only drawings. But nobody told you that there were actually more than 100 journalists from many countries and each of them had a portable camera and we have many photos of almost any moment they spent in Sarajevo that day. There were journalists with cameras in every corner of the city. Specially because they exactly knew where the car was going to drive so it was not difficult to stand there and wait and take many photos which they did. So why did we get only drawings from the fatal "event" and not even a photo of the place where it happened, nothing? Just drawings. Please explain that. Thank you. Suddenly all cameras of all journalists stopped working or they were out of film?
And about the clothing in Brussels: you really believe princes and princesses had only one set of a certain official clothing? Really? And if they would do a 10 days official visit somewhere in a foreign country, they would wear that exact same one which after two days in the Summer would smell like it had fallen in a cesspool because they must have been too poor to have more than one set of official clothing, right? OK, if we assume they were too poor to have more than one official suit, then I can understand that you think the one in Brussels can ONLY be the ONE and they were wearing that day. And since that suit has has blood and holes in it... yes, that´s amazing proof!! Wow... 100% proven. Fantastic research, bro. Now I must sadly retract all I said before, you are so correct and I was so wrong. Sorry, my bad. Princes were too poor in those days, no way they could have had more than one suit with the same design so they traveled wearing the one and only suit they had even if they smelled like s**t. Brilliant, bro. I must congratulate and applaud your detailed and exhaustive research which proves they were a pair of terribly smelling people not able to afford for themselves two exact same suits for official visits!! I never had thought such a thing could be true but now I am convinced, because of you. I learn new things every day.
@
Why is the consensus of historians that the Arch duke was killed.
@@andrewwilson9183 Perfect!!! You nailed it. It´s just a consensus.
Napoleon Bonaparte summed it up in two famous quotes:
1. "If you want a thing done well, do it yourself".
(Side note: in our case, you want to study history well? Do it yourself.)
2. "History is a set of lies agreed upon".
(Side note: this second quote by Napoleon needs no side note because it is self explanatory.)
15:38 one comment I’d like to add, one thing that gets overlooked in the buildup to WW1 is that Germany was feeling very isolated and as a result more inclined towards aggression to secure themselves. The killing and usurping of the throne from an allied monarchy to a hostile monarchy understandably would’ve made Austria Hungary feel less secure and more in need of self defense
German isolation was a product of it's own policy from the 1890 onwards.
@@slome815
Germany offered an alliance to the British who in their stupidity refused.
On one side, there is an AH aggression. Then there are the events that occurred prior to aggression that could justify it to an extent. What is not covered in the video is what happened after the aggression in Serbia. This is the reason for that Princip statue, not the assassination itself. He is merely a symbol. Public hangings, forceful deportation to concentration camps in Austria, summary executions, burnings of entire villages in punitive raids. What AH did in Serbia would be in rank to what Ottomans did to Armenians. Go check the percent of total population Serbia lost in WW1. What could AH have done better? Not performing an equivalent of genocide for 'not performing professional investigation'.
I think that your comparison at the begining is not very accurate... far from it.
Here's the thing, Bosnia has always been the tumoluos part of the Balkan. It wasa mix of serb and croat states, that was independant at some point, then vassal to a Hungarian empire, then an Byzantine empire and Hungarian after that. Bosnian king Tvrtko even conquered a part of Serbian kingdom at some point, when serbia was invaded by the Ottoman empire and even proclaimed himself the king of bosnia nad serbia.
And then everything came under the Ottoman rule, under which the third nation was formed by the muslim population (which was converted from the serb and croat christian population mostly). During the 400-500 years of Ottoman rule they formed themself as a separate nation, Bosniaks.
Now, coming to 1900's... Ottoman empire was crumbling, Serbia was fighting and winnindžg the war for independance (and expansion, as that is usually the case with almost wvery country facing the falling emoire). Austrohungarian empire wasquick to annex the Bosnia under its rule once again.
Amongst all of that, there was a movement to unite all of the slavic nations under one country. Serbia, being the largest, and strongest among them, of course was interested.
And there comes the Young Bosnia orgnisation whose member the Gavrilo Princip was. But there were croats and bosniaks members also. And they all were bosnians. Did the Black Hand, clandestine organisation made of the serbian officers had a part in training young bosnians (out of which not all were serbs)? Probably... they had part in the assasination of the serb king in order to bring the dynasty that suited them more. But, was the country of Serbia involved? Not that much, since it was clear to the government that the assassination of the Austria-Hungarian monarch would lead to a war with, not only them but with the Germany as well.
I don't know what the correct comparison would be... maybe Texas or new mexico with mexicans living in parts that were mexican once, trying to unite with all mexicans and puertoricans and cubans in a country called Latin kingdom with the Mexico as the biggest and most influential. I now that I sound silly now, but I'm not that familiar with american nations and that side of your history.
It feels not good from the start when he claims serbia is always seen as the victim with no wrong doing, so he then can make his points against it.
I think this is in no way compelling at all, because the bigger picture has to be the bosnian occupation, their consequences especially in a time full of
nation building.
If one negate this point, of course every government can justify anything in respond to threats to their national security and sounding reasonable.
On the point of "isolated war vs greater war" i dont think everyone was sure that russia gets involved.
The austrians thought the russians wouldnt "protect murderers of the monarchy" and also that the german involvement would frighten the russians.
And the german military played vabanque with that possibility, because they believed sooner or later war with russia would be inevitable and if they act now on
behalf of serbia it would confirm their belief...and if not then it would be just this isolated war.
So of course blaming is difficult in a world of cold interests from all sides, but these are main factors that lead to this escalation and i definitly think austria
wanted this isolated war regardless of the consequences.
Also without blaming Clark as a historian, but there are a lot of his sources and i remember 10 years ago he was very popular in germany.
Why...because his work was being used by a lot of revisionists and nationalists as proof for their ideology.
At this time i was glad to watch debates with historians like Gerd Krumeich, who is a leading expert on WW1 and tried to pushed against this narrative.
For the question you asked- What could Austria-hungary do differently. I really do not believe there is much of a choice. Even if (using fairy dust, duct-tape, hope and dreams) the Monarchy managed to somehow get a conclusive end to the assassination, this would probably just kick the can, or in this case the fuse, Down the road. Bismarck knew it. Europe is a powder-keg, and what'll set it off is Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans. You would need a lot of fairy dust to prove the iron chancellor wrong. In my opinion.
A few interesting points:
1. Franz Josef’s wife was assassinated by Italian anarchist (part of Italy was occupied by Austria). The war didn’t start. Another assassination (Ferdinand) was used as an excuse.
2. Princip was member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organisation that fought for liberation and union of south Slavs. Not a Serbian nationalist.
3. At the time majority of population in Bosnia were Serbs. After 500 years of occupation, constant uprising against Ottoman Empire, when they saw a possibility for freedom, Austria-Hungary empire occupied them.
4. As a result of A-H occupation thousands of Muslims left Bosnia.
5. All Serbs national rights in Bosnia were abandoned.
6. The Serbian government accepted all points of the ultimatum (read the original telegram before anyone comment on this) because Serbia was exhausted liberating south parts of Serbia from the Ottomans in 1912-1913.
7. 10 concentration camps (first ones in Europe ever) were opened in A-H monarchy mainly for Serbs (236.807) and others (63.000). Some of them are Doboj, Arad, Mauthausen (which will be used in WW2 too), Braunau (Braoumov), etc.
you forgot the last 3 commandments of the reddit historians, shame on you.
8. You shall never question what the victor says after the fact.
9. You shall only attribute motives to the other side of the conflict
and last, but not least
10. you shall not wonder why there are literal tons of documents sealed away in top secret archives in the UK.
source: trust me bro
While the Habsburg government was not warmongering, Conrad von Hötzendorf definitely was
He was the oldschool hard headed "show of force settles the argument" kinda guy, not necessarily the best approach in this crisis.
He probably was a Roman Senator in another life.
I’ve listed to plenty of podcasts and videos on the assassination plot and July Crisis and I’ve really come around to Russia and Serbia having more blame/responsibility for the outbreak than what I was taught in school.
That is probably because Austria-Hungary and the German Empire still are the ones to initiate the war. While Russia and Serbia certainly aren't blameless, the actions Germany and Austria-Hungary took turned the July Crisis into a war, which escalated into WW1.
Believing that completely requires me to believe that Austria was acting completely in good faith. Do you?
@Brandon210-q4n none of the governments in question were acting in good faith. They were acting in self interest, as all governments do, including the desire to avoid war within the realm of reasonability as perceived by their nation. What those conditions consisted of varied wildly between nations, and alliances were formed partially around similarities in those interests, but no one had the fervent desire to avoid war that came after the conflict was "resolved".
@@kyleheins But the provlem is that to believe that Russia and Serbia are responsible for the war as OP said requires a truly absurd amount of mental gymnastics, as does Lavader's video itself.
OP and Lavader expect me to believe that Austro-Hungary was some innocent nation that did everything they could to cooperate with Serbia. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. They treated Serbia like a client state; the British government at the time said that no national government could accept the list of demands because it would be a mockery of independence.
I'm sorry, but to believe that Austro-Hungary is the complete victim in this situation-as OP and Levader seemingly want me to think-requires a shocking amount of naivety and refusal to consider the Serbian point of view as well. As someone who is posting these sorts of videos, Levader has a responsibiltiy to represent things fairly, and he is not representing these fairly at all. he is directly painting Austro-Hungary as doing everything they can to cooperate, when I really don't think any sort of cooperation was what they wanted.
The goalposts would've shifted even if Serbia had agreed to undermine their independence completely and allowed Austria to control the investigation. They were always going to.
This video wants me to believe that Austro-Hungary was acting in good faith despite one or two token statements otherwise. I fundamentally disagree.
@@Brandon210-q4n Yes, Austria is not innocent, but what can you do when your neighbor is wrecking havoc in your territory. Austria just can't let it slide. The British government statement was after Austria gave the Ultimatum, which was Austria's last resort when the Serbian government just won't cooperate. I do agree with you that Lavader has some kind of bias, but all he did was just give the Austrian POV.
Glad to see some more Lavader content being reacted to. Found him not too long ago and he's been an interesting watch.
Failed to mention that the nineteenth century was a period of birth of nations. Serbs wanted to live in one country not in AustroHungary and Turkey. In 1878 AustroHungary occupied Serbian Bosnia formerly part of Imperial Turkey. Since then they started using the term "Bosnian" favoring Muslims. That was intended to create antagonism between "Bosniaks" and "Serbians" (Serbs were at the time majority in Bosnia). In 1908 AustroHungary ANNEXED Serbian Bosnia. History proved Serbs to be in the right. After WW1 EMPIRES vanished and nations were awarded the right to form nation states joined in the League of Nations. For that we are grateful to the president Woodrow Wilson. That was the last time the USA was true to the ideals of the American Revolution (anti colonial). After that the USA became an empire hijacked by the ideology of racist "exceptionalism" authored by Cecil Rhodes. Princip was not a member of Black Hand. He was a member of Juoung Bosnia in which part were taking not only the Serbs but the Muslims and the Croats. AustroHungary succeeded in intent to create antagonism between peoples of the province of Bosnia. You wanted a broader view of events leading to June 28 1914. Now you have it.
America has always viewed itself as exceptional, and our most of anti imperial policies starting with Wilson were stupid.
Empire is inevitable, the world moves by it.
@andrewwilson9183 "All men are created equal" and exceptionalism can't coexist. The first idea is a product of the age of enlightenment the other one is racist. Cecil Rhodes didn't have children so, all his wealth ended up in Harward for scholarships for "world leaders" from the British Commonwealth in order to further exceptionalism of Anglo-Saxon race. The American ruling class got infected that way.
No, the 1903 assassination was done with the knowledge of all major powers. The politicians who joined the coup preparations informed Austrians at least a year beforehand. They even suggested AH or Russia send one of their own noblemen to start a new dynasty which they refused and suggested Karađođevićs.
The Austrians also spurred king Milan to engage against Bulgaria and stopped him from properly invading Bulgaria after they reached the agreement with Russians. Not to mention that they forced Serbia and Montenegro to return territories he captured from Turkey, thus preventing Serbia connect with Montenegro.
Also, Austria forcefully tried to create more than 10 new nationalities in Bosnia (in what they failed) and, with the help of Vatican, were trying to rebrand catholic Serbs in Dalmatia and Slavonia as Croats.
As soon as Balkan people liberated themselves from the Turks, they became a target for the Germans. Other major powers didn't like it as well, particularly the British and the French, the former assassinating prince Michael Obrenovich in 1868 (who wanted to create the "Balkan Alliance") and poisoning Milovan Milovanovich "Balachko" in 1912 (who actually manged to create the "Balkan Alliance" under everyone's radar), while the latter supported Turkey military-wise.
The Black Hand had its ties with the British Secret Service Bureau and the Young Bosnia was also sponsored by them (probably without the member's knowledge), the same as Young Turks and any other "Young" revolutionary organisation. Furthermore, Franz Ferdinand was one of the leading anti-war figures in the Empire. For Serbia, who was not ready and did not want the war, assassinating him would be extremely stupid as are all the claims that Serbian authorities wanted this. One really needs to question the agenda of people claiming this.
P.S. F.F. was killed by an Austro-Hungarian citizen in A-H territory. But, no-no-no - they knew Serbia was responsible even though there is not a single evidence for it even after 110 years. Rubbish. Would not hold in any court. On the other hand, "Drang nach Osten" was very well documented and preparations were being made for at least 10 years. The OG dude simply hates Serbia or likes Austria/Germany too much.
The OG dude is Bosnian...
who ever says that Austria-Hungary was right to invade Serbia is just an ordinary idiot. That kind of hybris has had severe consequences and the Germans and Austrians have paid dearly for that mistake.
At the end of WW1 the serbian army only stopped a few dozen kilometers away from Vienna because the war had ended, and the Austrians lost their empire. It was a catastrophic defeat for those who thought they could bring Serbia to heels.
What is frightening though is the level of stupidity exposed by such a statement made in the year 2024, while we can watch in real time how the reckless "Drang nach Osten" by NATO/ USA is endangering all of us as the whole humanity.
What exactly is the U.S. and NATO. Doing wrong?
@@jovanvojnovic194 What exactly is the U.S. and NATO. Doing wrong?
@andrewwilson9183 the US is the forced behind NATO, the others are vassals.
And what the US does is killing millions and millions of innocent people in one illegal war of aggression after the other in their pathetic will to bully the whole world into submission.
But attacking Russia through their Proxy lap dog Ukraine was their last mistake.
NATO is being humiliated in Rest-Ukraine and the decline of the western empire has already started.
What the US did wrong, you asked?
I'd say everything.
Funny you say that about NATO, the Entente, which you regards as godsent liberators, did the exact same thing back in the day, just with a little more assassinating and conning along the way.
This argument that AH had a moral right to invade Serbia rests on the core unstated assumption that AH also had a right to continue to occupy its south Slavic territories and to do whatever it needed in order to continue that occupation. If you think that empires are a bad thing and nations have a right to self-determination, then AH is already in the wrong and had no right to take further action to cement its control over those territories.
Beyond that, I just don’t believe that really anything could justify AH intention to invade and annex Serbia. Even before that, the ultimatum fundamentally asked for Serbia to become a de facto client state to AH, and that also cannot be justified. It was out of proportion and clearly designed not to get to the bottom of an assassination but to put Serbia under the Habsburg thumb.
There’s also a much better modern parallel involving the US. A terror group based in another country that carried out an attack on American soil, leading to the US invading that other country. Imagine if Afghanistan’s government had actually had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and agreed to a host of demands, yet America still invaded with the intention to permanently occupy Afghanistan as a new American territory.
except A-H wasn't tyrannical towards Slavs, in fact, they let people from various nationalities including Poles, Bosnians, Croats etc. into the parliament
They weren’t trying to annex Serbia that would be a nightmare. Also by this logic Serbia shouldn’t have the right to claim the territory of Kosovo
@@Partizani192 Bosnia was under military occupation with no say in even its own government, never mind the empire’s. Even looking outside of Bosnia, lots of places that had representation within a larger empire still wanted to become independent (and I personally think had the right to choose that), such as the various Russian imperial territories.
@@lt3746 at the very beginning of the war the government said it wouldn’t annex Serbia, because the Hungarian premier thought it was a bad idea. But AH was an expansionist power at this time, which hoped to capitalise on the Ottoman’s being pushed out of the Balkans. By mid war, they were openly planning to annex all or part of Serbia and similarly had plans for Montenegro and Albania. AH was not just a peaceful empire just looking to protect itself.
@ ok but how does a mid war decision have anything to do with the July Crisis?
The Government wasn't involved. It was on the quite contrary... Serbian officals knew the plot and have warned the AustroHungarian official on multiple occasions and they've told them that to parade in that part of the land on that specific date would be VERY unwise.
June 28th, the 2nd biggest HOLY day in Serbia. The date that signified the birth of Serbian identity and the struggle for it's independence. 28th June 1389 Serbia refused to submit to the Ottoman Empire and decided to meet them in the field of battle, Kosovo field thus forever branding that land and date as HOLY for the Serbian people. Kosovo & Metohija, the full name of the province, METOHIJA - literal translation = Holy land. Fun fact it was also the only time an Ottoman Sultan had been killed in battle, by Milosh Obilich.
The response of the Austro-Hungarian officials would be something along the lines "Is Serbia trying to dictate how and when will his majesty act on his own land?" and it was dismissed as such.
The reason why I believe this to be so is because of another great figure Vojislav Tankosić, the person who basically made Serbian "special forces". They wanted to liberate the aformentioned Holy land of Kosovo & Metohija from the Turkish grip but the Government, as always was extremely hesistant to get involved in another conflict, he was arrested a time or two as well but in the end he forced the hand of Serbian government to start liberating Kosovo & Metohija by actually training and starting conflict on his own, without approval or support from Serbia, Serbia didn't get involved for many days of the conflicts that he started on his own until it was finally forced to do so, on one hand due to massive support and sentiment to liberating the Holy land by the people(Most likely this will be one of the cases where History repeats itsself).
The Gavrilo Princip is a cousin, his village was on the opposite side of the mountain from ours xD
P.S. just so you know i believe the who thing to be super dumb. We went into a dumbest war we could, lost 50% male population and a MASS of good, patriotic and decent people. What followed next was the rise of the red plague, amorality and a whole mass of things afterwards that could've been prevented.
Totally disagree. How can any decision which led to the second most destructive war in terms death toll, the peace treaty of which led to the most destructive war in terms of death tolls only 25 years after the first one ended be considered remotely right.
After the decision to send arguably the second most important Austro-Hungary into Serbia on their official “we love ourselves and hate the Austro-Hungarians” day, into a city filled with young people who want to kill him but then he and his wife drive around with no roof on their car nearly get killed by a grenade, and then their reaction to all this was to drive around some more until they are both shot.
Then getting the almost unilateral sympathy for themselves and rage at Serbia from the rest of Europe then squandering that precious time while the world is on their side with seven months of planning and talks before finally after Europe is tired of it all do they finally issue 10 ultimatums to be met in 48 hours and Serbia agrees to nine of them coming out looking like the good guy.
But in spite of this, they start a war, lose it badly, and are no longer a country.
I’ve been taking a class on modern European history this semester (I was inspired to major in history in part by this channel), and was actually having a conversation about this the other day with my professor. I’ve generally held the belief that Austria-Hungary’s demands were unreasonable and I blamed them for the war (which I still believe their government is partly responsible), but I hadn’t realize until that class how provocative the Serbian government had been towards Austria-Hungary as well in trying to stir up unrest and whatnot.
For context...
Austria was not benevolent in the story. In 1908, Austria illegally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although Serbs made up almost half of the population at that time. Then, under the threat of war, Austria forced Serbia in 1909 to accept the Austrian annexation and to suppress attempts to destabilize Austrian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
All of that was done without any legal authority, but just with a millitary blackmail.
Of corse that Serbs continued to "destabilize" Austrian occupationional authorities within Bosnia and Herzegovina...
How was it illegal? By that logic all war and fighting is illegal
@@simonsimonovic4478 wars are not illegal but you better be sure to have a good reason to start one or everybody else is gonna side with the other side.
@lt3746
Annexation of Bosnia in 1908 was in violation of decisions made in congress of Berlin in 1878. Hence the term illegal
@michael-gb3rn
Learn about annexation crisis in 1908/1909... I don't think you ever heard about it...
There are so many holes in this theory, it might aswell be swiss cheese. Germany wanted the war due to cult of offensive and expense of mobilization, without the blank cheque and loss of russian allies, austrians would have never acted. Gavrillo princip was never proven to be member of black hand, even though black hand took credit. Serbians agreed to 9 of the 10 demands which was already unreasonable, similar situation between soviets and finns, finns only agreed to 3 and chose to go to war instead.
If Al Qaeda takes credit for a terrorist attack… I don’t think you need much investigation to figure it out….
@@wolfgang6517terrorist groups take credit for lone wolf attacks all the time
Feel a bit odd being here early. Good work as always. 👍
Well now let us look for an even bigger picture. All this is happening within the context of Austro-Hungarian illegal annexation of Bosnia in 1908 which was probably the biggest crisis that hit the balkan that didn't result in a war.
Also, Princip most likely wasn't a member of the Black Hand because the organization was formed in the upper classes of Serbian Royal army by soldiers and intelligence operatives, he was for sure a member of Young Bosnia a student movement that were used, supplied and trained by the Black Hand operatives.
Edit: I forgot also yes that was Alexander I the Great Unificator of Yugoslavia in the film. It is believed that his last words were "Keep my Yugoslavia safe" so much for that.
Literally how was it Illegal? The Agreement was between the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary just like in 1878, Serbia did not have its signature anywhere during that time. You can't just barge in and make it about you when you were never involved in the first place.
Furthermore, the 1881 convention was still in place, even after the 1903 coup. Serbia never decried the 1881 convention or announced that it was no longer in effect. And guess what that convention stated? That Serbia was not gonna contest Austrian authority in Bosnia.
There was absolutely nothing illegal about it, the Austrians were acting fully within legal territory. You of course can say that Serbia was concerned, but there was absolutely nothing "Illegal" about it.
@@nolancer5974 In Berlin in 1878 great powers agreed to let Austria occupy Bosnia until it is decided what should be done with those territories and in 1908 Austria-Hungary used the turmoil in Ottoman Empire to completely and formally annex Bosnia without consulting the other European powers and the people of Bosnia lost the ability to determine the future of their land.
@@nikolal.8053The Treaty of Berlin granted Austria-Hungary the right to “occupy and administer” Bosnia-Herzegovina, though formal sovereignty technically remained with the Ottoman Empire. This created a "dual sovereignty" situation in which Austria effectively governed Bosnia while the Ottomans retained nominal sovereignty.
The Treaty of Berlin may not have explicitly granted full sovereignty to Austria-Hungary, but it created a de facto situation where Austrian control was established and accepted by European powers, creating a legal gray area.
Thus, while the annexation wasn’t in strict compliance with the Treaty of Berlin, it wasn’t entirely illegal either. Instead, it fell into a legally ambiguous area where Austria’s administrative control had been recognized for thirty years, so you can't objectively call it illegal.
The best you could call it is legally ambigious.
@@nolancer5974 Sure, I see and somewhat agree with your point that illegal could be a strong word but it also doesn't change the fact that Austria created tension in the region with that legally ambiguous decion which wasn't approved by European powers and people of Bosnia and was arguably also immoral (Morality of that could be a one loooooong debate maybe a great idea for a video for VTH or Lavader)
So, based on his reasoning, the Germany was right to invade Poland also? Is that guy some psycho?
Which invasion of Poland
Lol, you need to seriously grow up. The only reason why you are offended is because your ill-conceived notions are challenged.
My friend Bosnia was annexed by Austria while more the 60% was Serb population and Bosnia was always a Serb land. I am Serb from Bosnia and i nor any Serb in Bosnia don't recognize Bosnia as a country but just a Serbian State.
apply that logic to any other state in history, you'll have to revise consensus a good bit, especially WW2
I think he's being a bit too lenient on the Austrians to be brutally honest. Sure, it was only 5 and 6, but 5 and 6 also directly undermine Serbia's sovereignty. Serbia had not even been a kingdom for that long by this point and now Austro-Hungary was saying that they needed complete oversight of their investigation? That's how you treat a client state, not an independent nation.
More to the point, I just don't trust that the Austro-Hungarians would've been completely fair in said oversight even if Serbia had accepted it. They would've been instantly suspicious of any investigators and may demand that they end up controlling the investigation. Moreover, do you really believe that they would not demand the extradition of those responsible? If they thought they could get away with it after the investigation, the goalposts would've shifted to 'extradition or war'.
What this video does not mention either is that Hotzendorf had been pushing to invade Serbia since 1913 no less than 27 times, well before the assassination had taken place. So yes, there were definitely parts of the Austrian military who wanted to invade well before the assassination had occurred, which muddies the waters of this video even further.
All of this requires me to believe that Austro-Hungary was acting completely in good faith, which I have a very hard time believing.
Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia without international permission, you didn't mention that.
LMAO on this response.
Trying to justify war crimes against Serbia by declaring that Serbia was threat to AustroHungarian empire …
1914 Serbian population was around 4 millions and AH had almost 60 millions.
On the other hand when you twist things you can justify almost anything.
Looking forward to see his explanation how Germany was pushed into WWII by Jews …
I do believe that in the historical view Austria-Hungary had a Causes-Bella for invasion, to anyone who says otherwise just needs to look at the prior 50 years of Empires invading smaller nations and see that your Heir being murdered is a very strong causes-bella for war compared to what many invasions where based on. I will also say that Austria-Hungary didn't need to invade and it could have handled things differently but I say this with Hindsight and the fact that Austria-Hungry did control southern slavic peoples, their treatment of individuals who were not Austrian or Hungarian (To an extent) was very poor track record so they are not clean of issues. What I have never fully agreed with is that only Germany and Austria-Hungry wanted war, that take that gets pushed around ignores the actions of France and Russia, France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and Russia wanted a distraction from its humiliating defeat at the hands of the Japanese and believe war would help stop its internal struggles.
Really of all the parties involved in WW1, Belgium, United Kingdom, and US were "innocent" for the causes and outbreak of the war. Belgium was just invaded by Germany, United Kingdom joined on the side of France and Russia to protect Belgium, would the UK have joined otherwise who knows. Italy and Japan sure didn't start the war but joined on the Allies side for territorial gains in their regions they considered there sphere of influence. Looking at what Italy actually wanted would have been the same land that Serbian Nationalists had claimed to as well.
A better name for this war would be the clash of Empires, no matter what it was bound to happen. Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia were looking to expand. Serbia was just the perfect excuse for everyone to go to war. Italy, Japan, Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria though not initial joined seeking territory. Belgium, United Kingdom, USA were dragged into the war based on the actions of others.
(Edit) I disagree with the no Villain part, Germany had no reason to invade Belgium like they did. They already had a border with France over Land, could also reach them by sea so declaring war for military access is a line that they crossed that puts them into a Villain status. If Germany never invaded Belgium then I would agree.
Buckle up! LOL. I don't mind it when the topic is interesting. Especially interesting that the Creator has asked for a reaction. Very kewl.
men, you do not have a clue. what was austrian bussines in bosnia?
Having watched the interview of Empress Zita on RUclips I know that Emperor Franz Josef did not want to go to war at all, but she said that at that moment when he declared war (she was in the room) he had no other choice left, as all of his attempts before to make it go by peacefully failed.
That is something that she would say though, isn't it?
@@Brandon210-q4nwarmongers openly support war. Just look at American politicians advocating for war whenever a conflict starts.
@@Brandon210-q4nwarmongers openly support war. Just look at American politicians advocating for war whenever a conflict starts.
no way a member of a royal family would absolve their family of any responsibility wow that's crazy 🤯
To answer your question: There was an alternative proposed by Serbia: instead of allowing Austria-Hungary to investigate the incident directly, Serbia suggested it be handled by a neutral third party in The Hague. This proposal was considered reasonable by every major European nation, except Austria-Hungary, which rejected it and chose to wage war instead.
To say this video was biased would be an understatement.
The guy is wearing turkish cap in 21st century 😂😂😂😂😂too funny
Its called a fez my friend, and it's not just Turkish, lots of Muslim countries wear them
I like the summary. "If you dont prevent it, you are not against it". Same as Bush said: "I call on all nations to do what they can, to stop this terrorist killers. Now, watch this drive". Austria Hungary = George Bush.
First!!!! Greetings from Chile ❤
I must say that everything that has been said makes sense, but let's also state some facts from the other side. Before World War I, Serbia participated in two Balkan wars. After its liberation from the Ottoman Empire, Serbia was weakened by those wars and was not in any way suited to a new war, and certainly not a war against Austria-Hungary, which at that time had over 50 million inhabitants, while Serbia had barely 3.5 million. Gavrilo Princip belonged to an organization called Mlada Bosna, which had in its ranks Muslims and Croats from Bosnia in addition to Serbs, who sought the unification of the South Slavic peoples. At that time, all the great empires had their own colonies, except for Austria-Hungary, which, due to its geographical position, could only create its colonies in the Balkans. The Black Hand organization was not an organization of the Kingdom of Serbia, but it had significant influence in Serbia. I think it is true that Austria-Hungary was waiting for any kind of provocation to enter the war, and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sofia was more than enough for that. After the war, it became known that long before the assassination, Austria-Hungary had military plans to attack Serbia, which is more than good proof that it was also planned in advance.
I agree that Austria was justified in declaring war, since the concept of punitive operations was, fundamentally, war. HOWEVER I believe they prosecuted the war in the worst way possible, engaging in near-genocidal acts which, even within the context of removing terrorists and a complicit government, were unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Why do you guys remove my comment that simply show you how wrong you are for agreeing with Hitler's view of Serbia, Princip and those events? It is a rather easy way to check if you/author of the video is right or wrong. You can be against Hitler and admit historical facts that it was Austria who was the agressor not just in WW1 but in all events that led up to it, or agree with Hitler and believe that Austria was right and Serbs in Bosnia who were citizens of the monarchy were terrorists etc.
Филипе Мајкићу, ти врло добро знаш да пита не бива од свачега. Него, реци ти мени, зашто си престао пре 4 године да снимаш за радио 2М?
Филипе Мајкићу, ти врло добро знаш да пита не бива од свачега. Него, реци ти мени, зашто си престао пре 4 године да снимаш за радио 2М?
How rude can be someone that never lived in Balkan to be brave to think he is smart enough to talk objectively about this topic? Shame on you
What shame? Chris or even anyone can talk about this topic ?
entire nations who haven't been there "talked" about this stuff for 4 years
Princip was young bosnia. Black hand was an org. Made up of serbian military officers. Its real namenwas unification or death, and black hand was a derogatory term by the press trying to make them sound like the black hamd mafia in america at the time. The black hand did not train princip and his friends for the assassination, althoufh its said they did give them some basic firearm training, as BH officers werre training young men to join the komite or chetniks fightimg the turks pre 1912
The storm Is that the BH officers thought princip and his friends didnt show any aptitude for the organisation or military capability so have them some Basic firearm training and sent them on their way...
Glad you are become more open to other viewpoints.
And when did Austria-Hungary invade Bosnia? Hungary wanted Serbia after the defeat of the Serbs in Kosovo, but they had no chance. The Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne was sent to die, because Bosnia is not a friendly country but an occupied country, they just needed an excuse.
The smartest thing for Austria to do would of been to get other countries (Mainly Russia and France) to believe that the Serbians conducted their investigation hastily and poorly and also bring up the fact that they had failed to crack down on their own citizens that have been destabilizing Austria via assassination. This would ideally make other countries unwilling to to support Serbia in a war or maybe even put pressure on them to accept the ultimatum or conduct a more thorough investigation on what happened.
Just for your information. Serbia accepted all points of the ultimatum. They were exhausted from 1912-1913 war against Ottomans. Saying that Serbia didn’t accept the ultimatum is a pure lie. Read the original (in French) answer from the Serbian government.
What happened in 2000 when Serbia allowed the West to interfere in the war in Yugoslavia? Thousands of Serbs were convicted, but not a single Slovene who started the war in Yugoslavia, as well as no one from Croatia, who was also the first to start killing the Serb people in that area of Yugoslavia, where more than 33% of the Serbs lived, who remained alive there after WW2, when the Nazis made one of the largest camps for the Serbian people from Croatia, and that is Jasenovac, which is also known in the United Nations, where the Serbs were killed.
You spare us nothing in this hour long breakdown, Chris; but why else would we come to you?
Videos like this are exactly why I love your Channel! There is so much here that I never knew about in regards to A-H and what led to Great War. Thank you so much for this reaction video. So much to consider and so much to think about. Great stuff Chris and thank you again for this!
I think another interesting thing to think about is Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, actually took a pretty moderate stance on ethnic issues especially with Slavs. He envisioned a “trialist” empire, where Slavs would have more autonomy and representation alongside Austria and Hungary, hoping it’d ease tensions and strengthen the empire. Ironically, Serbian nationalists saw his plans as a threat to their vision of a Greater Serbia. So, even though he wasn’t hostile to Serbs, groups like the Black Hand targeted him, which only added to the tragic chain of events leading to WWI.
"greater Serbia" is a 90s croatian propaganda myth, it did not ever exist as an idea.
"black hand" likewise did not exist, organization was called "unity or death"
Define Serbian nationalists, because by western standards every Serb at the time would've been a hardcore nationalist.
Have you heard yourself saying: Austro-Hungarian Slavic territories! What is this but the occupation of territories that are not yours, in this case belong to the Slavic people.
Why choose to come to Sarajevo, on Slavic soil, on July 28th, one of the most important dates in Serbian history, the date which is known to be The Day when the Battle of Kosovo took place in1389 between the Serbian and Turkish armies? A deliberate provocation that ultimately led to enormous human casualties, the collapse of the dual monarchy. Serbia suffered enormous losses in military and civilian population in the Great War, but emerged proud, independent, in the company of victorious countries.
Austria-Hungary had the right to send an ultimatum, declare war and attack Serbia? Yes, yes, just as the USA had the right to attack Iraq, Russia Ukraine, Israel... everything around it... Let's think logically and rationally. Did Serbia, just emerging from two major wars (not mentioned here), with a huge number of victims, weakened materially and humanly, threaten Austria-Hungary in any way? The video is long, and maybe I missed it, but is the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia mentioned anywhere here? There is an order of things and there are interests of the countries involved, and they should definitely be taken into account. Serbia was supposed to be just a stop on the way to the further expansion of a great empire that wanted to benefit from the expulsion of another, once great, empire from the Balkan peninsula, and that's all. This is the real reason and cause of the outbreak of war. The assassination in Sarajevo was only used as a convenient occasion and excuse for it. And, at the end, when it comes to a war, there's one clear proof who was right: one who wins! If the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was right, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, France, the USA... would not have stood up against it... and on the same side with Serbia. So, everything is crystal clear here, and there's no any dilemma.
what kind of flawed and naive reasoning is this?
@@publichearing8536 And you are... who?
It’s funny to me watching several channels slow down considerably when approaching 500k subscribers. It’s like RUclips purposely tries to limit exposure so it doesn’t happen. Just my observation, not just on this channel, but others as well.
I love both of your channels.
justified or not i think a lot of people still cant get over it that they took the big L and admit that their empire deservedly fell apart
I know Chris is not an aggressive guy but based on his reaction every time he sees WW i imagine that it would be hands on sight if they somehow could cross paths
Gavrilo Princip killed only person in Austrian empire that was AGAINST the war. Gavrilo was Bosnian national, not Serbian. And Serbia did not help him in any way.
they just happened to completely fumble the investigation by chance
He isn’t wrong…. But not fully right. His way of planning it is wonderful. The Austro-Hungarian empire did have a succession crisis, before and after the events my great x whatever uncle did what he did. The issue is that many of the policies that did and would have benefited the Serbs were proposed by the exactly person assassinated. Us Balkan folk, as the original poster labeled, are not always calm and rational as a people lol
Also… was Austrian support actually helpful or legitimate? For those who don’t really know, this is a semi religious ethnic conflict. Catholic, orthodox, and Islam all fight for dominance of a crossroads. It’s Israel with more players
It would be fair to invite a historian from Serbia to say something about this!! And this is coincidentally right now, for the simple reason that similar things are happening in Bosnia today, and the Serbian people as a whole are being accused again, regardless of the fact that the Serbian people have been expelled from all parts of Yugoslavia where they lived, while all those who today have their own states besides Serbia, in which the houses of the Serbian people who have no right to use them are empty, remain in Serbia?!?!
I am mexican and its the first time i have ever heard of the whole assassination thing, my god, i have so much to tell to my class now
If you have time at hand, and are really interested in the topic, the book he mentioned "Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clarke is very insightfull.
It's not like most WW1 books, as it focusses on what lead to WW1 and basically ends with the start of WW1.
I watched half and can not watch more... What a stupid video on so many levels. And yes I am Serb and Gavrilo Princip was a hero. Basicly almost everything that guy is saying is false or half truth.