SAS_RULES_OK

i just wanted to know if austria hungary is responcible for ww1 in any way

oh yeah and do you know any1 in the SASR if yes post a message to me [/quote]

Commander

According to the Treay of Versailles is responsible for starting World War I when they attacked Serbia on July 29, 1914.

UberCryxic

Yeah I don't see how anyone cannot vote yes for this one. If the standards are "in any way," then you can argue that every major participant was responsible for the start of World War I....Austria-Hungary, Germany, Britain, France, and Russia...

Nikd

Yes, definitely and positive YES.
Their foolhardy and arrogant out of time and space politic and the Ultimatum that they give to Serbia was the fuse that started WW I.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/...nultimatum.htm

Belisarius

Is this a trick question?

Nick

No, the Serbian terrorists who provoked Austria by shooting their archduke are responsible.

Nikd

And for the act of individual idiot has a state the right to humilliate and consider responsible a whole nation?
No, Austria-Hunagary looked for an opportunity to solve the problem (for them) called "Serbia", and allow me to point one more fact : Asutria-Hunagry was behind the assasination of the King of Greece George I.

DigitusImpudicus

This is a common reasoning, but on closer examination it doesn't hold up. In the previous decade, dozens of European political figures had been assassinated. Of these, the duke was of middling importance at best. It was more the time and place than the actual person.

It has been argued that Germany, France, and Russia all had aggressive military leaderships that were looking for an excuse to invade their neighbors. Everyone in Europe knew the old aristocratic empires were in decline, and some kind of major change was in the wind. So the diplomatic behavior after Princip's assassination was somewhat provocative and unyielding. Germany was geographically the most vulnerable to attack from Russia, France, Italy, England, or all of them. From their view, if they waited to be attacked by one, they would be unable to respond and counter invasion from an opposite front.

There is a terrific summary of the situation at the time in Wikipedia. Here it is:

"Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the war plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer and his followers have emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia. Conflict on two fronts meant that Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other, relying on a strict timetable. Germany’s strategy called for a strong right flank on the attack on Belgium, and to conquer and crush French mobilizations to cripple the French army.

After the attack, the German army would then be rushed to the eastern front through railroads and quickly destroy the slowly-mobilizing military of Russia.

However, things did not end up as planned and early mistakes would cost Germany the war. France’s well defended border with Germany meant that an attack through Belgian (and possibly Dutch) territory was a necessity, creating a number of unexpected problems.

In a greater context, France’s own Plan XVII called for an offensive thrust into Germany’s industrial Ruhr Valley, crippling Germany’s ability to wage war.

Russia’s revised Plan XIX implied a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.

All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs were anxious to take the initiative and seize decisive victories. Elaborate mobilization plans with precise timetables had been prepared. Once the mobilization orders were issued, it was understood by both generals and statesmen alike that there was little or no possibility of turning back or a key advantage would be sacrificed. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, which resulted in delays from hours to even days."

Sad to think the tragedy of that war --which set the tone of vicious 20th century warfare waged against civilian ehtnic groups even more than armies,-- was more about men's egos and lust for power than neccessity.

Chris--

DigitusImpudicus

Yes, when you win a war it's always nice to be able to blame everything on the other side, LOL!

Chris--

Nikd

True that winners put the blame to the losers but the treaty of Versailles is a document that can't be put aside with light heart.