Why Austria-Hungary was RIGHT to Invade Serbia | Lavader | History Teacher Reacts

[@MrTerry]

Was Austria-Hungary justified in invading Serbia?

[@panzerbanz7296]

Yes. As the whole Ulitmatum that A-H sent to Serbia really was not that strict.

[@mementomori1900]

​@@panzerbanz7296it absolutely was, no country would agree to it.

[@panzerbanz7296]

@@mementomori1900 Have you read it?

[@jordandino417]

It’s complicated

[@davor9217]

@@panzerbanz7296 They agreed to supress anti austro-hungarian propaganda, they agreed to dissolution of all nationalist organizations, they agreed to remove everyone who was believd to be involved, they agreed to Austro-Hungarian involvment in the investigation, what they didn’t agree was for Austria-Hungary to bypass their soveregnity and allow austro-hungarian officials to take control of their juidicial and police functions, which no country would ever allow… They even made a suggestion that an international body was involved in the investigation but Austria-Hungary declined that and decided to declare war

[@lloydgush]

Lavander has the most diverse audience... Prussianboos, ottomanboos, victorianboos, tankies, fascists, nazis, wokies, labor, progressives... And then libertarians, classical liberals, parlimentarians, tories, ancaps...

[@Pirate222-ho1kk]

True. And when you look into his comunity tab he even makes fun of the incredible diversity of his audience.

[@Jayvee4635]

You can count Neo-Corp SocDems among those

[@schaddenkorp6977]

An interest in history crosses all political boundaries, particularly if it’s an intriguing take on it.

[@Norbert_Sattler]

That's what you get, when you present the evidence in a relatively neutral way and encourage debate, and point out that your opinion is only your opinion and not fact, rather than preaching a single point of view as gospel.

[@wacherwicht1810]

What you said about ww1 being the age of absolute monarchies is incorrect. That could be said about the time before the french revolution or after the vienna conference but around 1900 russia was the only absolute monarchy left. Germany had a constitutional monarchy with wide suffrage. Similar in britain. France was a republic. Even austria was quite heavily influenced by landtags and federalism.

[@Avghistorian77]

7:20 He’s a Muslim Bosnian living in Germany.

[@JohnDoe-xs5gv]

Gross.

[@mittensandcoconut]

@@JohnDoe-xs5gvCringe.

[@androzani]

@@JohnDoe-xs5gv POV: Grape names are mostly French.

[@adamo1242]

Lavader???

[@NookaNifty]

And openly a monarchist, which shows in his videos.

[@knarfjen6896]

Possibly why he singled out France in connection to Russia's role in starting WW1 is that France undertook heavy investment in the infrastructure in the Russian Empire, specifically the areas bordering Germany and A-H. Keep in mind that the role of railroads in mobilisation is what contributed to France losing the Franco-Prussian war, so them investing in Russia's railroads can definitely seen as a provocation towards Germany. Notable is how the affected areas were the areas Germany would later demand to become independent in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

[@shadowmandeathstroke8232]

Also France and Russia had mobilized their troops during the escalation, before Germany. Germany had demanded for them to demobilize. Russia didn't respond with France replying with a no

[@doyce100]

Just commenting on one part... "give Bosnia independence" isn't really an option for AH. If they do that, they give in to terrorist demands for freedom, they better be ready to give up control of Hungary, Croatia, give lands to Romania and Italy or face new threats from each of those places. the choice is try to keep it all, or give it all away. Anything in between is completely untenable.

[@simonsimonovic4478]

"Terrorist demands" Fighting against foreign occupation, including against royal family of the foreign occupier is not a terrorism. Bosnia did not join Austria with free will, they were occupied and then annexed

[@simonsimonovic4478]

The solution for Austria was not to annex Bosnia into empire. In 1908 national identity and nationalism was very strong and trying to incorporate a new country into a dysfunctional state was a stupid idea

[@Prata304]

​​​@@simonsimonovic4478terrorism is not defined by the goals you are fighting for but by the methods you use. Also, serbia was annexing other peoples land as well, full annexation and not dual monarchy... even today they have disputed territory with their neighbours. Wether you believe his goals were right or not, his actions were terroristic. The black hand was a terrorist organization. Then again that was very typical at the time considering the rise of nationalism everywhere that defines that era.

[@simonsimonovic4478]

@@Prata304 If what the Black Hand did was terrorism, then how can you call what the Austro-Hungarian occupation authorities did to the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Arrests, harassment, suspension of rights and murders. Serbia did not annex any territories. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, Serbia liberated territories that had been under Turkish occupation for several centuries, together with Montengro, Greece and Bulgaria. Today, Serbia has no disputes with neighbours about territories, it just has part of the territory (Kosovo) under US occupation

[@Prata304]

​@@simonsimonovic4478yeah the same way they liberated the bosniaks i am sure. I have no problem calling what AH did tyranny just as I have no problem calling black hand methods terrorism. Serbia definetly annexed kosovo and parts of macedonia and albania. Calling it liberation is just a reframing that conquerors like to use. Real liberators would not have commited the masacres against albanians that they did. Like it or not, they were not not different. Well except that serbia's massacre was more genocidal in motive instead of the typical subjugation, and killing of dissidents

[@michaeldeww]

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.

[@090giver090]

He also literally averted a couple of Austro-Serbian wars by 1914 (the "customs war" of 1906 and the Bosnian Crisis of 1908 could have easily escalated into actual wars have not level heads led by Franz Ferdinand prevailed at the Austrian court).

[@p.f.5718]

Finally - someone mentioned it 👍 He married a bohemian Noble - Sophie Cotek - he was very with the slav. He has to make a morganatic marriage against the will of his uncle. A real love story. Sophie had a lot to suffer - she was second class at the court in Vienna. The are not buried in the Kapuziner Memorial in Vienna because Sophie was not allowed to. So Ferdinand made sure to be buried with her in Artenstetten near by Vienna. I think he was going on this day to Sarajevo - he thought he was sure because he liked the slavs. And as you mentioned - he has to be killed because he was dangerous for the plans of Great Serbia.

[@YourD3estinY]

People should stop saying this. Slavs aren't a monolith. Trialism would've benefitted both Croats (they would have gotten their separate kingdom) and the Habsburgs, because a Croatian kingdom would've been a bulwark against Serbian irredentism.

[@michaeldeww]

@YourD3estinY You make a great point about the diversity among Slavic groups within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Trialism could have provided a beneficial framework for both Croats and the Habsburgs, allowing for greater autonomy while countering Serbian irredentism. However I think it's crucial to recognize that the aspirations of different nationalities often conflicted, creating significant tension within the empire. Do you think the potential benefits of trialism would have outweighed these tensions, or would it have ultimately led to more fragmentation?

[@LazarOrthodox04]

Source trust me bro

[@wacherwicht1810]

Towards your beginning comment. I find this opinion quite interesting because I have come to the exact opposite conclusion, that it would have been better if AH hand acted quicker and more decisively. Them waiting let the window to resolve the crisis with swift action pass. When they eventually acted, the intdrnational shock had already lowered to a point that allowed history to take its way.

[@lazarmarkovic9404]

That's just not true. If they took the time and found the proof the the serbian government did collaborate, they would have had a stronger justification. It's the entire premise of Habeas corpus. Provide the evidence of it and then prosecute. If they had taken their time to investigate and engage in more diplomacy, they could've had absolute justification for war.

[@wacherwicht1810]

@lazarmarkovic9404 I dont think that would have prevented the worldwar because in the end justifications are mostly for propaganda purposes. Even if AH could have proven that Serbia is the statified evil, greatpower interests would still not change. Russia wont give up its Balkan policy because of better proof.

[@ivantorres641]

​@@lazarmarkovic9404How can AH can get proof against the Serbian goverment if the Serbian goverment don't let them investigate the Serbian goverment?

[@tacobowler]

I would say he did not prove Austrian innocence, but gave reasonable doubt of guilt.

[@mythiccass3837]

Overall, I do not think Austria-Hungary was justified, but I think he made very good points that do contextualise what happened in a more nuanced way that doesn't oversimplify Austria-Hungary as an evil empire but actually a regular empire with it's own national interests seeking to expand its sphere of influence. The Balkans seemed a playground for foreign empires trying to screw each other over. Russia was certainly not helpful in emboldening Slavic nationalist movements but neither were the ambitions of the Austria-Hungarian empire in expanding into the Balkans, gobbling up chunks of what was once part of the Ottoman empire. Lavader does well to contextualise what happened, but while he rationalised the thought process of Austria-Hungary well, I think he takes one step too far in saying it was justified. In my opinion, even within the framework of what was the international norm of the time, the rule of monarchs, imperialist & expansionist ambitions, & a balance of powers, Austria-Hungary only impaled itself in an ill-advised war against Serbia that would likely only intensify nationalist rage in the Balkans, & make governance of those regions more complicated & economically costly. As for WW1, I put a lot of blame on Russia, not only for their meddling beforehand, but in putting the two major alliances into a direct conflict by entering that war unnecessarily. At least theoretically, it could have remained a localised war between Austria-Hungary & Serbia.

[@jonathanwilliams1776]

I really like Lavader's take that "there were no villains in WW1" and pointing to competing national interests, etc. as the main culprit for the war. It has been argued that WW1 was inevitable, due to the various long-term factors that lead to it. I'm not wholly convinced that's true, but there were a lot of competing national interests and tensions that went into it blowing up

[@PROUD_TITOIST]

As a Serbian....i wouldnt mind if they annexed us,but gave us 3rd crown for south Slavs.Why?Well because if they collapse we would still get Yugoslaviab state,and even if they dont we would still have internal Yugoslavia

[@christianandersson4345]

Bro just solved ww1 😎

[@Real_MrDev]

Bro is playing 4d chess before the discovery of the 4th dimension.

[@Idontknowyou05]

I think commenter likes Yugoslavia just a little bit

[@ZS-rw4qq]

Interesting position! But what was to guarantee the collapse of the A-H, and the subsequent independence of Yugoslavia? What would the position of this breakaway province be? I think we got of to a rather good start by being technically a victor in ww1

[@PROUD_TITOIST]

@ZS-rw4qq as i said,if they were to give us autonomy like hungary had i wouldnt mind i tegrsting Serbia in AH And since they constantly had internal issues,it is likely to collapse at near poimt of future,leaving Yugoslav state indenpendsnt again And if it would not collapse it would be internal 3rd crowm

[@IvanMandic-f9l]

The Black Hand helped the already existing Mlada Bosna movement. And not only Serbs participated in that movement. There were Serbs, Muslims, Croats in it. Nobel laureate Ivo Andić was even in that movement as a young man. And he was a Croat Catholic who declared himself a Serb of the Catholic faith. the same applies to Muslims (Serbs of the Muslim faith).

[@willh4340]

I liked your analysis on the other video from thus guy, but I think he was WAY too critical of Oversimplified. There are some things where he's just like, "So, yeah, that happened," but it's usually with very minor points. Oversimplified's videos are actually pretty thorough, overall

[@MrTerry]

I agree

[@jhdix6731]

As for most consequential assassinations, I guess also Philip II of Macedon is a strong contender.

[@IESVSCHRISTVSDOMINVSNOSTEREST]

I love you and your content man, and I'm a sperg so maybe I'm failing to socially evaluate the situation, but you really seemed like you were coping throughout this video. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am

[@MalikF15]

Loved the video. Especially the part about and government being overthrown in a coup. That said all of Austria-Hungary’s issues boiled down to nationalism. If they did let Bosnia go then other minorities would be calling for independence

[@ordinaryrat]

I always hear this but then why was Austria-Hungary split up into states like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which were very diverse in terms of nationalism? edit: here -> hear

[@univeropa3363]

@@ordinaryrat Because it's ultimately only a small part of a larger picture that people focus on while the far more important point, they were on the losing side of a cataclysmic war and behind a starvation blockade, is sort of ignored. They didn't even suffer an ethnic uprising like the British did and held out longer than Russia. The problem was really more that Austria and Hungary had been arguing about how to finance the chronically underfunded military long before the war (and in case you are wondering why Austria performed so badly, that's in large part why. If you don't fund your army it's not going to be a good one).

[@amberanubis8336]

​@@ordinaryratbecause they couldnt declare independence on their own without geting destroyed by their neighbours. Look at Slovenia for example. As soon as it declared independence as part of state SHS it was invaded by Italy while war simultaniously flared up with Austria over northern border. All of that while being war torn and with its men power spent by ww1. So even tho they were already unified with Croatians they had to join with kingdom of Serbia after only one month just to get international recognition which halted foreign land grab. Still those were union of only South Slavic nations so way less diverse then AH empire

[@ektran4205]

anti austrian sentiments were beginning to take shape in hungary

[@simonsimonovic4478]

But why they annexed Bosnia in the first place? They would not have that problem if they did not occupied the place.

[@IvanMandic-f9l]

Man! In 4 minutes you talk about the Soviets and not about Serbia! Did you go to school? The USSR and the Soviet revolution was in Russia and not in Serbia and it was in October 1917! Three years later!

[@Malu-xy7nm]

Just a comment to help with the algorithm. Engagement at it's finest.

[@mathandsciences1980]

Lol, now in order to have more comments there needs to be a war disagreeing with each other in the comment section

[@Malu-xy7nm]

@@mathandsciences1980 NO! Absolutely and categorically wrong. In Order to boost engagement we need to 100% agree on everything and constantly stroke each others egos. Comments to the contrary are a counter-engagement propaganda and should be dismissed. /joke

[@mathandsciences1980]

@@Malu-xy7nm lol

[@countryballweirdo]

Um actually 🤓🤓🤓, In order TO ACTUALLY boost engagement we need Mr Terry, the channel we all support, to monitor all our comments and delete everything against the ideological idea we obviously all agree with. Hence what you are saying is the opposite of the ideas of Mr Terry, which results your comment in being fascist propaganda🤓🤓🤓

[@Malu-xy7nm]

@@countryballweirdo Ehrm, Hello!?!?! Who is this "we all" you're talking about and who said anything about support? Are you trying *and failing* to build a straw man argument? Unbelievable! Maybe i just want to put a spotlight onto the "pro-education" agenda this so called teacher is constantly peddling.

[@jockobeans]

The thing with Bosnia and Herzegovina was that they were given to Austrian rule by an agreement in 1878. The Berlin Congress was between Russia, A-H, Britian, Germany France, Italy, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Romania. All these states agreed to allow Austria-Hungary to take the lands from the Ottoman Empire after its loss against the Russians and their allies during the Russo-Turkish War. Serbia gained its status as an independent state due to the Treaty of Berlin. Now the Bosnians weren't naturally thrilled by this, but Serbia did not have much room to complain. Serbian support for Bosnian independence was seen as a slap to the face to Austria-Hungary after it supported their independent statehood. To be fair, the Serbians did not naturally trust Austrian long-term territorial ambitions, but Austria-Hungary likely did not see the issue after their 'nominal' success with integrating Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia, all Slavic states, into the Empire.

[@simonsimonovic4478]

There are no "Bosnians". Bosnia consists of 3 ethnic groups : Serbs, Croats and Muslims or Bosniaks. In 1908 when Austria annexed Bosnia almost half of the Bosnian population were Serbs. And an absolute majority of population opposed Austrian rule

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@simonsimonovic4478 "And an absolute majority of population opposed Austrian rule" Source: Trust me bro

[@simonsimonovic4478]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 No one asked the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina if they wanted to be under Austrian rule. In 1875, the people in Hercegivina and later in Bosnia rose up in an uprising against the Ottoman rule, and with an alliance with Serbia, Montenegro and with Russian support, Bosnia was freed from Turkish rule... but out of nowhere, Austria entered and occupied Bosnia. Russia gave Austria the right to occupy Bosnia, and in return it asked for Austrian support around the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles... No one asked the people of Bosnia, who in that situation were just one pawn in the game between the great powers. And as soon as the Austrian army entered Bosnia, an armed uprising broke out, and it was only after two years that Austria managed to suppress the rebellion. The Muslim population (modern Bosniaks) and the Orthodox population (Serbs) in Bosnia opposed the Austrian government, the only ones who supported it were mostly Catholics (Croats), and not all of them. Many of them formed various revolutionary pan slavic organisations to fight Austrian rule. Austria's mistake was that they thought that Bosnia would be easy prey, and that they would continue their further expansion to the south. However, the occupation and subsequent annexation of Bosnia only further contributed to instability in the multinational state, which was already an anachronistic phenomenon in the 20th century.

[@mementomori1900]

The whole TERRORIST point is a bit bizzare to me. Are Ukrainians terrorists for trying to not be part of Russia? Were resistance organisations in WW2 terrorists for uprising against German occupation? Austria annexed a territory where majority of pooulation were Serbs and other non A-H ppl, and people are surprised about incidents? Majority of ppl in Austria and especially Hungary at the time were not in the mood for war and wanted to get rid of the Slavs who were now part of their empire cause nothing good can come out of it. Serbia was experienced in war at he time, A-H was not, and A-H losses in battle were huge (so were Serbian but comparing sizes war shouldnt have lasted longer than a month). And the whole concept on the right to invade is bizzare as well, Serbia had full right to defend themselves and talking about Russia, Russia as well was grossed out by May coup in Serbia which was horrific and did nothing to bring countries closer together, quite the opposite. And why would Serbia have to smuggle people into Bosnia, they were born there, thats like saying Mexicans smuggle American citizens into US. Point is, if you annex a territory cant really complain about fallouts that are sure to come anywhere in the world. Even if AH invaded, and won, fast and WW1 never happened it wouldnt solve a thing as long as you keeo huge pooulation of ppl under your rule of different ethnicity that dont want to be part of your empire, its really simple.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Comparing apples with oranges, huh? The assassination was very clearly done by Serbians. The Austrians didn't attempt to get rid of the Slavs, they wanted a Triple Monarchy to lessen Hungary's influence.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

​​@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Some Austrians did, like killed Franz Ferdinand who was open to open talk about Triple Monarchy. But Franz Joseph was very conservative and didn't like the idea. So let's say that there were pro-reform faction that if in power would chase the idea of Triple Monarchy, but at the time much more conservative fraction was in power. And yes, Serbians and Bosnian Serbs did plan the assassination, but the goverment didn't organise it, it was a Black Hand and their supporters who wanted to unite Serbia.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@ozyrysozi6186 I mean, Franz Joseph was going to die anyways in 2 years. And I'm not blaming the Serbian government for the assassination, I'm blaming some officers of the Serbian army.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

@TheAustrianAnimations87 And with that I can fully agree. Just wanted to maybe try to clear some things up.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@ozyrysozi6186 Alright then.

[@oliver-matthiasheinrichmei4148]

I think in retroside It is easy to say Austria overreact, but it is easy to forget there that not all information were Public at that Point.

[@mendicus3601]

7:22 from what I remember, lavader is a practicant Muslim from bosina who lives in Germany

[@milanotovic8223]

I had an Iranian friend from Germany and she told me ours from the Balkans are really radical .

[@bhangrafan4480]

The deliberate mystification of the origins of WWI is something which has a political basis. It is particularly entrenched among British historians. It is basically "victors' history". The fact is that Russia and France were both dissatisfied with the rise of Germany as the new dominant power in Europe from 1870 and wanted to undo this. Germany had only one major ally in central Europe and that was Austria-Hungary. Russia and France were determined to cause the break-up of Austria-Hungary to weaken Germany's position. To this end they cultivated Serbia as a military power. France and Russia supplied Serbia with arms and money to build it up as a military threat to Austria-Hungary. The "Pig-War" of 1906-08 was an attempt by Austria to use economic sanctions to impede or deter the growing militarisation of Serbia. Serbia set out to destabilise and break up Austria-Hungary and was fully supported by the Franco-Russian alliance. "Apis" who British historians try to portray as a minor figure, was possibly the most powerful person in the Serbian state. It was a state where the secret 'deep state' may well have been more powerful than the elected politicians. "Apis" was personally involved in the bloody coup that ousted the pro-Austrian Obrenovic dynasty and replaced it with the pro-Russian Karadjordjevic dynasty. It was from this point that tensions grew and Serbia was cultivated by Russia. "Apis" was personally behind the campaign of state sponsored terrorism that was intended to destabilise Austria-Hungary, including the assassination of the heir to the throne, an obvious 'act of war'. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated not because he was a hardliner, but because he was a moderate who wanted to award concessions to Slav peoples inside Austria-Hungary. This threatened the attempt by nationalists to destabilise and break-up Austria-Hungary. When Austria responded to this 'act of war' by going to war with Serbia, Germany and Austria both conceived of a "LIMITED WAR" with Russia aiding Serbia and Germany Aiding Austria, a test of strength in which German and Russian homelands would not be directly involved. It was the Russians who decided that they did not want a limited war, but that it was time to settle accounts finally with Germany. In this they were apparently supported by France. By Russia opting for full mobilisation against Germany the Tsar made it TOTAL WAR, in which Russia and Germany could potentially be fighting on each other's soil. Germany's strategic position was not good, which must have emboldened Paris and Moscow. Not only was Germany almost full encircled by its enemies, but as is not commonly realised, it was quite substantially outnumbered in military forces. German strategy depended on the "Schlieffen Plan" for a quick victory in the west, followed by a longer fight in the east. Thus speed of response was vital and Germany had to get its blows in first. Hence Germany took the blame for 'starting the war'. As we know the Schlieffen Plan proved to be logistically unfeasible and failed, resulting in a long stalemate in the west.

[@thenameisx]

4:20 the Soviet government???

[@Wyliecoy0te]

48:30 according to historian Christopher Clark, the NATO’s 1999 Rambouillet ultimatum to Serbia was harsher than Austria’s 1914 ultimatum.

[@simonsimonovic4478]

Yes it was, Serbia rejected both. But the difference is that in 1914 Serbia had ally

[@StivKobra]

@@simonsimonovic4478 Serbia fully collaborated with every single term of the 1914 ultimatum, ratified its points except one. It was not rejecting. They asked for international arbitration. Stop historical revisionism and listening to baised KZbinrs who use circumstancial evidence to rewrite history and spread chauvinism and hate. Every single historical outlet on KZbin agrees that Austria-Hungary was an imperialist aggressor. German Kaiser even said that with Serbia's compliance and suggestion for the international arbitration that there was no cause for war. Austrians have started world wars twice now.

[@simonsimonovic4478]

@StivKobra Why are you telling that to me, I know all of that... Ultimatum in 1999 was even worst

[@bighillraft]

​@@simonsimonovic4478 the difference was, in 1999 the Serbs were doing exactly what they accused Austria of doing before 1914

[@simonsimonovic4478]

@bighillraft No, it did not. Serbia / Yugoslavia let hundreds of thousands of poor Albanians to escape from Stalinist terror regime of Enver Hodža from Albania to settle in Kosovo. They returned Serbian hospitality by launching armed separatist rebellion with Western help. Serbia responded, and then NATO came in to bomb Serbia. Kosovo was part of Serbia in 1999 under international law and under all agreements. Comparing that to Austrias annexation of Bosnia where 0 % of Austrians lived is laughable

[@jonathanwilliams1776]

Great analysis Mr Terry, I like that you're holding him to a high standard, which it feels like he wants to be. You were asking why going to war would have solved the Black Hand problem. Earlier on, Lavader had pointed out that Black Hand members were training and being supplied from within Serbia - with the possible collusion by members of the Serbian military and government. Going to war would have cut off that support and greatly reduced the Black Hand's ability to operate. You're correct that the underlying problem of the nationalist movement wouldn't be solved by a war, but I don't think that was the point- suppression of the nationalist movement would have to be achieved in other ways

[@Mixer2904]

Lavander just does revisionist history also he is proven Serbian hater considering his bias towards Serbs Lavander being Bosnian muslim his video on this topic is not objective and is very biased

[@GaugeBogart]

Mr Terry if you see this keep in mind your one of the best teachers I’ve ever seen, and that’s (kinda) saying something

[@mr.d8747]

*You should react to Zach Star Himself's "When kidnappers kidnap the president" trilogy*

[@karlgrimm3027]

“Extra History “ made a video about this called “The Seminal Tragedy” which is quite good.

[@ClericOfPholtus]

The good ole days before it went to crap Dang shame what broke that team up

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

​@ClericOfPholtus what happened to the original team? I only started watching the channel last year

[@dastemplar9681]

@@s.henrlllpoklookout5069The original host and key members of the crew went on to do their own things. The new crew made the channel a little too politically reactive with the historical topics. It’s really cringey and distracting when they shove in their left-leaning political views when you just want to learn history.

[@ByNameOfLea]

Mr. Terry's already done a reaction to the Seminal Tragedy, as has his friend Chris of Vlogging Through History. Check them out, if you haven't already! Excellent reactions to an excellent series from a channel that was, and remains, one of the best in the business.

[@IvanSam1]

"Our shadows will walk around Vienna. haunt the court, scaring the lords"

[@BlazeLycan]

14:40 - 14:45 Possibly, but assuming that in this specific situation would be a leap compared to a disconnect between one group of elites vs another group of elites.

[@roxxychik06]

Dude I got a gifted membership today yay :)

[@MrTerry]

We have a great community! Enjoy the early access to videos and members-only content!

[@raderadumilo7899]

He's purposefully omitting one fact: For the only point in the ultimatum that Serbia couldn't accept at face value, the Serbian response was: "Let's get independent international involvement into this matter."

[@christofpertl1]

The response was: "The Royal Government naturally considers it its duty to initiate an investigation against all those persons who took part in the plot of 15/28. June were or are said to have been involved and who are in their territory. As far as the participation of specially delegated bodies of the k. u.k. As far as the Government is concerned in this investigation, it cannot accept such an investigation as this would be a violation of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in individual cases the Austro-Hungarian authorities could be informed of the results of the investigation.” Thats a cheap excuse I don't see your counteroffer there. How would an "international" involvement be not against the constitution, but an Austrian would? The background was, that Serbia considered accepting the ultimatum in full, but Russia demanded a stronger stance.

[@raderadumilo7899]

@@christofpertl1 You omitted the ending of the document: - In the case that Imperial and Royal government is not satisfied with this answer, the Royal Government of Serbia is prepared, in the interest of the resolution of this matter not being hastened, as always to accept a peaceful resolution in a manner that this case could be presented to the International Court in Hague or to the judgement of the great powers that were the participants in the making of March 1909 declaration.

[@delgado.adrian160]

@@raderadumilo7899 The issue with that is that it's still vague and doesn't solve the issue of the investigation, which the Austrians didn't believe Serbia would carry out in Good Faith, that's the crux of the issue, at the point things were in July 1914 only the assurance that Serbia wouldn't be alone in carrying out the investigation (as opposed to the judgement of the matter as stated in that excerpt) would sate the Austrians.

[@christofpertl1]

@@raderadumilo7899 Ämm, that's something different. The point was that - for Austria - the Serbian government wasn't trustworthy regarding the investigations. And they didn't want a court to solve it. They wanted immediate involvement in the investigations. This particular point however was a justifiable request for a power that had just lost its heir. Just not to get a wrong interpretation - I don't try to spin Austria into being innocent and the war to be justified. Its just that Serbia wasn't innocent either.

[@raderadumilo7899]

@@christofpertl1 Of course Serbia wasn't innocent. First of all, there wasn't a thing that happened in Serbia that Nikola Pašić didn't know about. Second, both Apis and Tankosić decided to let those kids go back to Bosnia (they trained shooting in Košutnjak park in Belgrade). These two headed Serbian secret service (of sort) apart from being the founders of the Black Hand. They could have held them in Belgrade. However, what happened was a diplomatic incident. There are appropriate responses to a diplomatic incident. What K&K did was akin to a medieval monarch or warlord using a personal insult as a pretext for war. That's why the international community was pissed off with Austria, and why even Germans tried to back off, and hold them back but it was too late. It's all about diplomatic choreography, and AH just went back couple of centuries. Why is the world so pissed off with RuZZia? Not because of Ukraine. The world is pissed because that frustrated midget in his mind lives in mid XX century.

[@xjakanton2576]

Oh boy. As an austrian, good luck.

[@MrTerry]

Were the Crusades justified? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKulqaGEmMSrotE

[@ClericOfPholtus]

Did they need to be? Most war isn't particularly just in the first place, especially back then.

[@xjakanton2576]

Yes. Afaik they were in part a reaction to eurasian countrys attacking and enslaving european women, because they were "sought after". Also piracy. And sometimes both of these things happened at the same time.

[@nics4967]

Yes, they seem to be taken in defense after long tolerating aggression.

[@bullmoosevelt4495]

In retrospect, the initial Crusades were justified with the intent to prevent Islam from expanding any further into Europe. However PaxTube’s video doesn’t do a good job explaining it (often glossing over many details), and unfortunately the whole thing was exploited by fellow Christians against one another which inevitably undermined the entire operation.

[@wuxiagamescentral]

How high do you think King Phillip of Macedon's assassination ranks? I think its pretty high because Macedon was extremely strong under King Philip but they neclver really had grand ambitions for great conquest until Alexander came to power. If Philip died on his deathbed at 70 or so and Alexander was middle aged when he came to the throne I don't believe he would have gone on that huge land grab

[@090giver090]

Alexander's initial invasion of Persia was Alexander carrying out his father's plans, not his personal idea. Also, middle-aged and more politically experienced Alexander might have established a more stable empire and would definitely have a firm line of succession by the time of his death.

[@TheCsel]

I put most of the blame on France and Germany. Austria was in a war-mongering stance yes, but in their context they had cause and it was still a local conflict. Russia was the one that escalated the conflict because they had interest in expanding into the region. But in the end it’s Germany’s backing of war against Russia and France’s seething hatred of Germany is what made it a world war. Without France and Germany antagonism, it’s possible the western nations could have talked Russia out of getting involved and repeating the Crimean war.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

I mean, A-H played the Tsar with Bosnia when they had an agreement, so Russia was on a bad terms with A-H already. Add to that promise of protection from Tsar who is seen as weak, bad ruler and you have situation where Tsar needs to keep his word and act, becouse he already had a revolution, tried to supress reforms further and was still early into the industrialisation with semi-serfdom still in place. If Tsar doesn't act - he probably gets abolished, maybe even by a military who needed some victory after disaster that was Japan. So I would blame every great power for escalating tensions.

[@davidsteed7278]

Germany had been a formal ally of A-H for over 40 years and FF had been a personal friend of Wilhelm - do you think Germany should have bent the knee to state sponsored terrorism and have abandoned its only significant ally?

[@ozyrysozi6186]

@davidsteed7278 Germamy and especially german Military Staff would never abandon A-H. But they did escalate when they gave Franz Joseph blank cheque to their actions with Serbia. That was something that encouraged A-H to be more agressive and their Milotary Staff was preparing for war, becouse they knew that they have German Empire on their side. So it is fair to criticise Germany for encouraging aggression of Austro-Hungary.

[@davidsteed7278]

@@ozyrysozi6186 How would Germany ignoring long standing commitments under its A-H alliance not be construed as abandoning A-H? Despite being painted as militant warmongers, Germany and A-H had avoided war for over 40 years. In those circumstances, trusting its A-H Ally with a 'blank cheque' to sort shit out was perfectly reasonable and expedient. Alternatives would have Germany either assuming oversight over A-H foreign policy, or abandoning A-H altogether. In your opinion, what would have been the appropriate response to state sponsored terrorism?

[@ozyrysozi6186]

@@davidsteed7278 First of all they had no proof that Serbia sponosred or supported Black Hand in any way. Giving A-H with Conrad von Hötzendorf a blank cheque where he is known to ask for war for many years is irresponsible and is only making more tensions. Germany could support A-H, yet still disagree to full out war, A-H had a chance to do this thing diplomaticaly, not only declare war on a country that was knowm to have guarantess by Russian Empire, who was known to have French Republic as it's ally. Both A-H and Germany were aware of that politicaly. Also A-H should be aware that they played Russia once and made them fools with Bosnia and it's annexation, they are probably also aware of failed Russo-Japanese war, it's stupid to think that with that loss of prestige Russia will back down if A-H will push for conflict. And remind me if I'm wrong Triplealiance was a defensive pact - Italy knew that, so Germany was still obligated to support war of aggression from A-H? They could support them when Russia would act too agressive and movilize their troops (they kind of did that, I know). But it was always clear that german Military Staff was pursuing a war, becouse of modernisation and industrialisation of Russia.

[@nebitno5054]

Here these kinds of videos need to be seen in Ukraine, Serbia was Ukraine of that time close ally of west English secrets service organised protests in Belgrade which resulted in confrontation with Germany in ww 2, Serb people lost in both wars around 2 mil ppl and now they saying Serbs are to blame same west, mark my words this is future of Ukraine as well

[@p.f.5718]

Austrians are not Slavs - I can assure you there are many of Austrians who are mixed - see the Bohemian. My mother was full german and my father was Bohemian - part german , a part slav and a part hungarian. Thats why we are not the same like Germany 😂 My grandmother was very slavic. Love from Austria 🇦🇹 By the way - my grandfather mentioned always - The only reason the serbs were for Pan Slavia was the hope to get the Great Serbia back and he also mentioned Kaiser Franz Joseph was very strict against the war - but he was very old and very tired. First his heir and son Rudolf killed himself, then his wife Sisy was murdered and then Ferdinand. The Serbs didn’t care of all other slavs for sure. And the Bosnians were never really good friends with the serbs - till today. My nice married a Bossnian refugee - don’t ask him or his family about Serbia.

[@ChristianCollins-ux1zr]

45:38 part of that question is actually answered in Lavader’s Peace Kaiser series, he outlines how the despite the Serbs either accepting or asking for further arbitration on the ultimatum. Austrian officials manipulated things behind the scenes to convince Franz Joesph the Austrian Emperor to declare war, even going as far as to falsify Serbian attacks against Austrian troops.

[@090giver090]

This is a great topic. Too sad it is being publicly discussed by wacky deniers and contrarians more often than professional period historians.

[@StivKobra]

One biased Bosnian muslim in Germany makes a video twisting the facts, and suddenly every other history channel on KZbin is a denier and contrarian? I have no reason to believe a literal nobody from KZbin over a channel like The Great War, for example. But hey, if you have an anti-Serb boner, you will believe every anti-Serb on KZbin over actual respectable historians with credible sources.

[@neruan5109]

what i always find baffling is the idealism of both sidedes what is Seriba trying to acomplish by playing hardball with a country cant can potentialy end its existence if they push it to far

[@mezmerizer9422]

are you having a stroke, m8?

[@Progamermove_2003]

An advice: Please pause his video while you are speaking. Otherwise it became difficult to properly hear your voice.

[@dennycarty4576]

As in have learned a lot studying History, one thing I have learned. Is most wars where millions die for are caused by just a few!

[@TheCsel]

It was my understanding that Austria had taken too long to declare war, and that other nations had initially felt sympathetic to retributions but having spent so long sending demands and ignoring offers for mediation that it made it look less and less connected to assassination.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Yep, and it was a huge mistake from Austria-Hungary's part. Austria-Hungary could've just quickly taken Belgrade and forced Serbia to surrender instead of waiting for weeks.

[@nemanjaugljesic8911]

Serbia won and some people should take the L and move on

[@stefankane852]

He said FRIENDS not France when you said singling out France

[@frankivarlie1426]

Dear Mr. Terry! You havent done Sabaton in years now! Time to give them a listen again? Such as their fabolus cover of Motorhead - 1916 as WW1 was your "favorite" if I'm not mistaken? And for the love of all things that is holy, DONT STOP THEIR FILMS BEFORE THEY ARE FINISHED! :D

[@Djole_NS246]

A very unusual understanding of the term: "Being right" or "Having the right"! 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.

[@karlgrimm3027]

What is really insane is that there are statues of Gavrilo Princip in Serbia today. That’s like having a statue of Bin Laden.

[@femboyshitposter676]

Lmao almost like you don't have statues of Jefferson a slave owner in the US you clown

[@Lazymericangamer]

Yes and no, it would be more like a statue of the unabomber or some other American "Terrorist"

[@aurelije]

Bad parallel because Gavrilo was never financed and helped by AH empire but Bin Laden wsa by USA

[@GK-cb3vc]

Bin Laden??? Princip was a 16 year old kid, get a grip on yourself man. This is what happends when Hollywood is your history teacher. What makes it even more hillarious because if not for 9/11 you know that the US would be building statues to Bin Laden themselves for his help against the russians.

[@lloydgush]

So, like college?

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

5:50 Those are "tankettes", prolly Italian L33 from the 1930's.

[@wastpaperbasket]

the people of croatia was very thankfull and lucky to get under serbian rule in the kingdom of yugoslavia, a very nice and multiethnic paradise that last forever

[@MrAGNTJ]

ok, imagine an alternate timeline where after WW1 is ended basically instead of Germany getting the total blame, all powers agree BOTH Austria and Serbia are to take the blame?, BRUHHHHHhhhhhhhh after all of this i see the hole thing as Serbia opening the gas valve and filling the house, Austria arrives and can smell the gas but proceeds to hand Serbia a match box as if daring it, and Serbia non chalantly, strikes a match starting the neighborhood fire, i legit see it more that both countries were at fault

[@StivKobra]

So.... Austria is still the only one at fault. Greatest mistake of history was blaming Germany, when Austrians were to blame (ironically, an Austrian also started WW2),

[@kirkperez7947]

I'm excited to hang out live for the election...but only for the stream...not the actual election

[@Wyliecoy0te]

57:00 MANIA: Militarism, Alliances, Nationalism, Imperialism, Assassination-of-the-Archduke.

[@IvanMandic-f9l]

The English school of history is what you let go. Thanks for the comments.

[@Scrooge1Percenter]

I am an Austrian, and I am half Serbian. I am a WW1 history fan. The assassination itself didn't cause much turmoil at that time. Franz Ferdinand was not very popular even in Austria. No, Austria had no right, and so many more facts exist around it. Konrad von Hoetzendorf asked the Kaiser over 20 times for war with Serbia long before the assassination. Also, when the Kaiser finally signed the declaration of war, his officials tricked him into claiming that Serbia had already attacked. Serbia asked for the one point not accepted in the Ultimatum to be discussed in the Hague, but it was never even expected to be considered, as the Ambassador left Belgrade before the end of the Ultimatum. If you want to blame anyone, it's Austria. The region's people freed themselves from the Ottomans, and the Austrians came and annexed Bosnia.

[@davidsteed7278]

An alternative WW1 history fan? Konrad is frequently cited as a war-monger, but if he had any influence with the A-H leadership, he would not have been ignored "20 times" - I doubt it was that many, but not an important detail. Any declaration of war would have been triggered by the mobilization status of the Russian, French and German armies - the Kaiser would not have given a shit about Balkan niceties. A-H had been administering Bosnia-Herzegovina for decades prior to its annexation. The annexation was the formalization of the status quo. In my opinion, A-H did this to cock-block the Serbian expansionist ambitions, while Russia was still recovering from the Russo-Japanese war and unable to intervene. The majority of the Bosnia-Herzegovina population did not see themselves as Serbian and the economic opportunities within the A-H empire exceeded those of its Balkan neighbors.

[@MrSquigglies]

It's interesting that this interaction is basically what is happening between Israel and Iran right now where Iran is funding these groups and everyone knows it. But no one can do anything directly to Iran about it. And now Israel is starting to get absolutely fed up with it and attacking Iran directly. All because nobody is ever held accountable for the crimes and attacks they commit.

[@willywonka7812]

Imagine if Israel were ever held accountable. The US would have to have fallen

[@simonsimonovic4478]

What crimes did the Black hand, Young Bosnia or any other organisation committed on innocent Austro Hungarian civilians ? The were attacking the Austrian occupation forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and assassinated prominent representatives of the Austrian government.

[@dastemplar9681]

Treaties was what made WWI happen. Imagine what the world would’ve been like if Russia and Germany kept out of it and let Austria-Hungary duke it out with Serbia. It’s rather ironic that the Serbian movement had to assassinate the ONE guy in Austro-Hungarian royalty who was somewhat the most sympathetic to their cause. Even Austria tried to negotiate with Russia in that they planned to stop the invasion and cease hostilities with the capture of Belgrade.

[@090giver090]

> It’s rather ironic that the Serbian movement had to assassinate the ONE guy in Austro-Hungarian royalty who was somewhat the most sympathetic to their cause. Probably _this_ is why he became the target in the first place. After all the Black Hand wanted war as much as von Hötzendorf did.

[@filiplazic9970]

This is a lie he was only sympathetic to Croats and didn't care about serbs

[@liubron4435]

I just got to the blank check in my western civ class. Does anyone know if the grilled cheese caused it or no?😂

[@invadertifxiii]

Can you or have you done more videos on Austria Hungary empire? I have ancestors from Poland and slovakia/Hungary during those times they came to America and I'd like to learn the history

[@HiveTyrant25]

MrTerry: Revisionist history being pushed on KZbin - “I sleep” Austria-Hungary might have been justified in declaring war - “real shit?”

[@Norbert_Sattler]

4:25 Soviet Government? I think you had a little mental mixup there. ^^ 49:25 I'd more debate the second one. Doesn't the knowledge, that the Serbian government knew about the plot come from what the at the time minister of education unveiled only ten years later? So at the time of the ultimatum, the Austro-Hungarian government could only assume their Serbian counterparts knew, but could not be certain. The Serbians did sent a kinda-sorta, but not really warning, but that was so vague it only means they heard something was going to happen, not necessarily that they knew about the date and that it was specifically an assassination. If there is one blameless victim in WW1, it'd be Belgium As for letting Bosnia go... that would not really have been an option. National movements were jumping up all over the place, so letting one province go over received terrorism, would have been the deathknell of the empire, even without a straight up war breaking out. And it'd probably would also have been the deathknell of the Hungarian Kingdom. I wonder if an international gremium, like a kind of proto League of Nations, or something like the legation council for China, being put in charge of the supervision of the investigations, instead of Austria-Hungary itself might have been a compromise, acceptable to both sides.

[@mathandsciences1980]

Idk man, but even if Austria-Hungary was justified in invading Serbia, shouldn't they have known that it would start and create a whole war in Europe?

[@Osteichthyes]

If memory serves, someone looked at what was happening and just said "It's a Europe wide war..." Many people tried to prevent it, but due to miscommunication, stubbornness, and some of the worst possible luck, everything they tried failed. Wasn't just one side either. Great minds in every country involved could see it coming, but ultimately could not stop it despite having done everything they could.

[@mathandsciences1980]

@@Osteichthyes ok

[@isgamer-8732]

That's everyone else's fault for making a bazillion protection pacts.

[@I_Stole_A_BTR-80]

Russia joining in on the side of Serbia without any treaty or other written agreement caused the conflict to spread to the rest of Europe. If Russia hadn't thrown their hat into the ring, then the war wouldn't have happened (at least not yet).

[@yj9032]

నువ్వు అనుకున్నంత తెలివి వాళ్లకు ఉండేది కాదు.

[@Danielhuren]

if russia and germany were not involved i could see this going a very different direction considering that if russia wasn't involved serbia would have likely accepted the demands of austria and if germany wasn't involved austria would have given them more time or avoided war entirely

[@jankusthegreat9233]

This video was so good and deserved a reaction

[@cheezburger2000]

I'd love to see mr terry react to dj peach cobbler lmao

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

52:08 IDK whether Serbia got "blank checks" from Russia and France, but I would not be surprised...

[@StivKobra]

If Serbia had a blank check, they would have just denied the whole ultimatum and wouldn't have ratified all but one point from it. It makes no sense. The OP is just biased, not sure why people are so hung up on his video, especially because he has proven to be an avid revisionist of history and a chauvinist.

[@dusancville]

Some Western square heads like to discuss world issues that they know very little about. Question Why Abdulmajid ll was not good in Bosnia 1910 but Franz Ferdinand was ? Neither Otoman nor Habsburg empires were ok there in 1910 or ever before. They were just occupiers and haegemons. Gavrilo Princip just put a full stop to that, that's why he is Hero.

[@TILENFABE]

AH was not right to invade. I don't even want to watch this. Know that Serbia has moral highground. Always had.

[@svet1slav602]

We can argue was or wasn't it justified, but in my opinion archduke going to Sarajevo, and basically parading there, knowinf very well that there is a high chance of a attempt on his life, dispite having a vast landscape to go to with his wife. I feel like, even though it is a stretch, they delibratly did it, but didn't except for him to be killed. It's kinda irritanting to have a occupator bassically parading around a city filled with your people, it's pushing the limits. Yes there was a lot of bad stuff happening, but I feel like it was a delibrate move by Habsburgs for them to wage a war. And you have to understand the position of Serbia. In that position you would feel pushed around and bullied into submission. Were we, as Serbs saints? Certainly not. But Austrians were not much better and I feel just needed a political reason good enough to give a justification for the invasion.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

I mean Archduke Ferdinand had quite a personal thing why he wanted to go to Sarajevo for a parade. It was his order as he, if I remember correctly, then would supervise militarty training in Bosnia (yes, making tensions with Serbia even higher), but for Ferdinand he could finally show himself with his wife by his side - he was on milotary duty and it was probably only of few occassions where he could sit or even stand next to his wife - they weren't equall royalty. Was it a good idea? No, it was important day for Serbs, so it hurt even more and created tensions as the occupator makes a parade on such an important day. But most likely Ferdinand wasn't aware of it, does that defend him? Not at all. Like in the video was said, Serbia sent a warning that there might be some danger, so they also ignored that. I don't want to defend the Austrians and Franz Ferdinand, but maybe add a bit of information to the whole situation as it was indeed complicated.

[@Scrooge1Percenter]

In a Nutshell if AH would have not annexed Bosnia nothing would have happened 🤔

[@ozyrysozi6186]

I doubt that nothing would have happened as there was a still France and German tension with Germany getting afraid of the Russo-French alliance, trying to build their naval superiority over UK. A-H did mess up with annexation of Bosnia while talking about a deal with Russia, so they also pushed Tsar to act next time, especially when Tsar positions himself as a champion of Slavs. If he doesn't act this time, he probably gets assasinated or abolished as he already struggled in his rule.

[@Scrooge1Percenter]

@ozyrysozi6186 I agree with you. with nothing would happened I refer to the Assassination.

[@draganmarkovic491]

I would say that he does have some good points but in the end I don't agree with hi overarching point, which is that Austria was right to invade Serbia, he also doesn't acknowledge some difficulties Serbia would have if the government really tried to do a real investigation, the power of the Black Hand is not taken into consideration at all by the creator of this video neither is the public opinion. AH Empire certainly had some legitimate grievances against Serbia but I don't think they rely justify war, unless they are used as an excuse for a war AH already wanted, I don't see how invading and occupying Serbia solves any of the AH grievances regarding the assassination, yeah they could punish some additional conspirators, but they already had in their custody people who committed the crime and the people who thought of the crime in Serbia was just some logistics. AH still had plenty political, diplomatical and economical options to punish Serbia or to force Serbia to punish some individuals involved especially having in mind that at that point AH did have a lot of sympathy from other European nations, especially monarchies. Also author of the video for some reason assumes that AH was unaware of the potential scale of the conflict, but diplomatical and military activity of AH empire suggests otherwise, did they expect a 4 year long war with tens of millions casualties, probably not, but they were not surprised by the fact that it was not jus a minor regional war.... Oh and also author of this video fails to recognize how "usual" political assassinations were around this time all over Europe which could add to an opinion that AH did overreact with the ultimatum and the war declaration.

[@ChristianCollins-ux1zr]

2:29 I know this might be controversial (especially for my fellow Americans) but I would consider the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to be comparable to 9/11. Not only was the political shock around Europe sound similar to the Al Qaeda kamikaze attack on the World Trade Center, but also in that it led to a major power invading a “minor country” despite said minor technically not being directly involved outside of harboring the terrorist organization responsible and refusing to cooperate.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

I mean Serbian goverment didn't refuse to cooperate, they just opposed the idea of giving their independence to another country, by allowing their judicial system to fall under austrain one. Their response was wildly seen as fully justified and even Kaiser Wilhelm II acknowledged that when he was reading the serbian response. Ultimatum was made to give casus belli to Austria, but they made a huge mistake as they lost symphaty for the tragedy and now were seen as agressors. Also about comparison, I would argue if that is even needed as we can analise it on the base we have, scales are much more different - few organised terror attacks vs one organised assasination where it failed at first and by the sheer struck of luck it succeded. So for me it is still false comparison.

[@ChristianCollins-ux1zr]

@ while you do have some points there, however as lavader points out and terry admits (somewhat) the Serbs didn't treat the matter seriously (due their own nationalist bias) and both the “investigation” and the “warning” that was sent to Vienna before the plot could be objectively seen as covering maneuvers. So while the Serbs didn't straight up refuse Austrian demands like the Taliban, they still didn't really care about the Austrian’s perspective about the whole crisis. In fact I'd argue that Serbia’s actions with their dealings with the Austrians were worse than the Taliban’s with the US: with the Taliban they just straight refused to cooperate so they weren't gonna try to gain International sympathy unlike with Serbia who despite their actions or lack there of worsening tensions between them and Austria still tried to claim that they were being unfairly treated by them. Also about the whole luck factor with regards to 9/11, it is possible to say that all four planes could've turned out like the fourth one where the passengers were able to retake the plane but ended up crashing into a random field, so to say that luck didn't play as much of a part in 9/11 as much as it did in the assassination just doesn't seem right with me (I'm not supportive of the terrorism of any kind, especially the kind that caused 9/11). Finally both of these events are equally complex (both the intentions of all participants, and prelude to both) so to truly see how similar and different they are from each other would require a lot more research and explanation.

[@ozyrysozi6186]

@ChristianCollins-ux1zr Starting with a luck factor - I agree, yet still if we talk about the plot 9/11 mostly served its purpouse (I know it sounds really harsh, but I'm not supporting it in any way) and assassination attempt succeded only by luck, the plot failed in terms of what was planned, Franz Ferdinand got killed mostly becouse of his decision, luck and inexperience of a driver who took a bad turn, and of course luck on Gavrillo Princip side - picking to go to that restaurant at the time and being there untill Ferdinand arrived and driver wanted to turn the car, as he could go further and do it, but he did it at this point. Now it's not a plot, nothing planned here it is just luck, throw of the dice. As for ultimatum - I can mostly agree with you, but I will point to one thing - Austria had a sympathy for a time, maybe international intervention could push hand of Serbs to act more decisevly. But Austria took the worst approach where after awfull ultimatum, fair response from Serbia and some of their own machinations, they declare war. They aren't at all justified and International opinion of course is against them as they took bad approach to whole situation, letting Serbia play the innocent there (also doesn't help that most of austrian royalty really disliked Franz Ferdinand and they showed it a lot).

[@ChristianCollins-ux1zr]

@ yes I'd agree, in end both plots succeeded in their goals (even if the assassination had to wait till the end of ww1). And yes despite how justified the ultimatum would be, there could certainly be a way for Austria to use their International sympathy to get a fair investigation out of Serbia.

[@davidsteed7278]

@@ozyrysozi6186 While the Kaiser is frequently cited as being satisfied with the Serbian response, he also stated Belgrade would need to be occupied by A-H in the interim. This he reasoned would be required to ensure Serbia fulfilled its commitments outlined in the response, because the Serbs could otherwise not be trusted.

[@Meow_Tse-Tung]

I went to his page saw his most recent community post is an announcement that he's starting some kind of roundtable for "fellow monarchists and royalists". I didn't even know that there were real people who unironically had that political affiliation.

[@TheHorzabora]

Plenty of them in the UK today, they’re very much a minority. But they exist. Some of them even have some interesting ideas on government. Some of them are just braying authoritarians.

[@Meow_Tse-Tung]

@TheHorzabora That's fascinating. They are pretty much unheard of here in the US.

[@dawoifee]

@@Meow_Tse-Tung Austria still has a Monarchist Party with like 10 members or so. They exist. I considered myself once one when I was 12 or 13.

[@LavaWarrior101]

@@TheHorzabora Not sure what you mean about them being a minority in the UK. Most Brits are not republicans.

[@Meow_Tse-Tung]

@dawoifee I guess it's because there's more history there with monarchy. Early teens are about the average age of ancaps too. I love the internet, but it's also the only reason fringe belief systems like this can exist and gain popularity. Luckily they remain trapped here on the world wide web for the most part lol

[@SomeStupidPeasant]

Please do not support Lavader This is a right wing monarchist channel Don’t give people like this a platform

[@crusader2112]

What's wrong with supporting Monarchism? It's not like he's a Fascist. In fact, Lavader has done videos attacking Fascism from a right wing perspective. P.S. He has quite the diverse audience and he isn't an absolutist, I think he's in favor of a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.

[@hofnarrtheclown]

​​@@crusader2112Our Advocates of Monarchism have Changed since the Royal Edge Vid, I wouldn't Say we've Lowered Back to a Constitutional Monarchy but Instead even Above a Semi-Executive Framework.

[@IvanMandic-f9l]

All other comments are correct.

[@BasedZoomerQT]

4:20 I imagine you meant Serbian, but they're close word haha

[@Swedks]

When you said I don't know this historian (harry elmer balmes) I did a quick google search and o boy. First hit (and wikipedia) claims he is a holocaust denier.

[@ClericOfPholtus]

Yeah this Lavadar's just a dime a dozen contrarian in the subject of history

[@Pirate222-ho1kk]

​@@ClericOfPholtusI think Lavader goes into his videos with the mindset of "Lets kick a hornets nest" Like for example his videos defending monarchies and kingdoms as a political system. At that polint its not kicking a hornets nest but a box of activated landmines.

[@ordinaryrat]

They guy isn't on wikipedia though. harry elmer balmes doesn't show up anywere on the site. The only 'hit' is Harry Emerson Fosdick who was a fundamentalist and has nothing about the holocaust. Harry Elmer Balmes was technically a 'ww2 revisionist' but as far as I can tell it relates to the pacific front of the war, and is about the history of pearl harbor. Like he said that America forced Japan's hand. Not the greatest of takes but not a holocaust denier. Also he was a part of the mises institute or is at least widely praised by them, so I gotta assume he was more than just a 'ww2 revisionist'.

[@herzimhimmel]

As from his previous video, I believe Lavender is Turkish, but I might be wrong.

[@lureyourpery5569]

He is Bosnian. Last I checked

[@simonsimonovic4478]

He is Bosniak

[@StivKobra]

Bosniak muslim, he is baised against Serbs.

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

35:45 Official apology AND extradiction of a dozen of so subjects AND allowing Au-Hu officials into the investigation on Serbian soil, maybe would have convinced the Monarchy.

[@StivKobra]

Multiple warnings and implementation of all but one point was not enough? International arbitration is not enough? Did people forget that Austrian officials themselves admitted that they purposefully want Serbia to reject the ultimatum. They wanted Serbia annexed or as a puppet state, to secure the influence over the Balkans. Funny how the bosniak muslim OP left those things out and keeps painting Austria-Hungary as a benevolent empire. Just take two seconds to think about it.

[@Mapperman-h5b]

Can you watch ‘Possible History’ s newest video about ww2? I think it’s really good and more than just an alt history video.

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

I think a lot of critical historians and economists put the main blame on thr rise of ww1 tensions on imperialism and the capital accumulation issue in Europe, which made rising European powers a lot more for confrontation and growth by conquest. The Franz Ferdinand incident was just a catalyst.

[@090giver090]

Dude, "critical" is not a synonym for "Marxist". 🤣

[@brooklyn5755]

❤❤❤

[@GK-cb3vc]

Stay tuned for part 2 - Was Germany right in invading Poland?

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Spoiler: No.

[@univeropa3363]

Apples and oranges.

[@GK-cb3vc]

@@univeropa3363 Both are round shaped fruit that come from a tree therefore we deem them - close enough. Isn't historical revisionism fun!

[@univeropa3363]

@@GK-cb3vc I hope you don't pull something from all the stretching you are doing.

[@lazarmarkovic9404]

I have concluded that Lavader is himself a hypocrit and untrustworthy as a historian. From what i could find without wasting too much of my time, these are his sources; Sean McMeekin, the least troublesom of the bunch, wrote controversial points about the Armenian genocide and is mildly revisionist. Christopher Clark, tied with the former, wrote a germanophilic book on what led up to ww1 that german historians criticized for ignoring the views and Ambitions of german government officials. Harry Elmer Barnes, the guy who made me say "wtf" under my breath. He is a revisionist and holocaust denier. He wrote on the causes of ww1 in 1920 while getting paid by the german government and used a person who was also getting paid by the german government as a source. I couldn't find any easy to access ata on Ljubomir jovanović but based on the track record above, i wouldn't be surprised if he was a revisionist. This is the second video of his i watched and, hypocritically, the first video was on how a yt historian is bad at research and sourcing. He also mentions none of the above in his video. I am severely disappointed by his actions.

[@BeanManolo]

I didn't found anything bad on Jovanović but I found something very interesting: I actually found the article he wrote, and while the free trial on the Oxford Academic (the academic research platform for the university of same name) only gave me access to the first page, it was enough to poke some holes in Lavader's use of it as justification; First, he gets things a bit wrong with the title: Jovanović never wrote an article under that name. 'Krv Slovenstva' ('The Blood of Slavdom') was actually the name of the book the article was written for, and the article's actual name was "After Vidov Dan, 1914". Also while the first part of the page given for free is what Lavader reads in his video, nowhere (at least on that) Jovanović states there was a cover-up attempt; He actually cuts out the very next part of the article: "M. Pašić and the rest of us said, and Stojan agreed, that he should issue instructions to the frontier authorities on the Drina to deny a crossing to the youths who had already set out from Belgrade for that purpose, But the frontier "authorities" themselves belonged to the organisations, and did not carry out Stojan's instructions, but reported to him (and he afterwards reported to us) that the order had reached them too late, for the young men had already got across" For someone who complained about Oversimplified not giving important context and information about some events, he himself cuts off a important chunk of the same article he mentioned being his "main argument".

[@lazarmarkovic9404]

@@BeanManolo thanks for finding this. It's just mind blowing that he has the gall to make a video about videos that misinform viewers who won't look into the topic further and then make a video that relies on people not looking into it further to retain the presumption of truth. I used to think that Lavader never grew out of the "history nerd" faze in college where nothing is specific enough but now i know that he's just a dick

[@kylepickus5712]

Under the classical interpretation of Just Cause which only sees self defense as a proper just cause, this video is correct. The fact he refused to mention the occupation though is by design thouhh. In contemporary just war theory, any occupying force must have popular support among those they rule. If they do not have popular support, that occupation must only be temporary and not significantly obstruct the native population’s sovereignty. This is due to the fact that a state is defined by its monopoly on violence. Under contemporary just war theory, the Bosnian people have a right to violently resist that occupation if all peaceful methods of resistance have failed, even through terrorist organizations like the Black Hand, and the occupier has no right to start a regional conflict to defend their inherently unjustified rule of a land which it does not represent. The Serbian government may have backed the black hand, but that violence would have likely occurred anyways. Maybe not at the scale it did, but it certainly would have happened as a result of the pan-Slavic movement of the time. This tenet is reflected in the United Nation’s general Assembly resolution on Aprtheid South Africa.

[@Shifty69569]

Why is europe so toxic lmao but at the end of thousands of years… they ar e cool

[@middler5]

About as toxic as any other continent

[@PTaylor1087]

They all united against the Nazi’s then after WW II they turned it against the Soviet Union. They only stay united by common enemies, not common goals

[@thcrimsnfckr666]

Even after reading about all the horrible stuff Sebs did before and after the world wars you really just feel horrible for Serbia in ww1 like god its some of the most depressing reading material of the entire war

[@fabianauer1986]

That is the treatment they give everyone else

[@MN-yb8un]

i dont like the clickbait title. Like was the Danzig corridor vital to Germany in the 1930's

[@090giver090]

No, it wasn't _that_ vital. But anyway, Poles didn't assassinate Goering or Bormann in 1939.

[@JJ-kj4dy]

The people like you do a diservice to actual historians. Not only that, you are an apologist to the imperialism that marred the 2 centuries and destroyed countless lives and groups. The atrocities commited alone that you gloss over and the pride with which you watch the goosesteppers says even more about you as a "historian". No, you will not take a dump on the blood of my ancestors that quite literally wiped the floor with AH armies. Nor will you do that to the victims of the AH warcrimes. Gavrilo was right,"Our shadows will wander the streets of Vienna; our ghots will haunt its palaces, and terrify nobility..."

[@chompriest]

Archduke was assassin's ba Young Bosnia, as we now say al Austrian nationals, not Black hand.

[@mementomori1900]

Who cares, they got their ass whooped.

[@jaredgreen2363]

Remember this guy is a monarchist. That is the reason and no other that he has such a stance. Even with the context he provides you could only come to such a conclusion if you don’t care about the will of the people.

[@fabianauer1986]

Serbia was a monarchy. So was Russia, and the UK

[@ClericOfPholtus]

Kind of odd to presume a small terrorist group instead better represents the will of the people...

[@jaredgreen2363]

@ the empire was the least democratic of them all.

[@jaredgreen2363]

@ clearly the will of the people was independence. Their methods were the problem.

[@theChaosKe]

If it was about the will of the people then germany would have been justified in the anschluss of austria and the sudetenland. Its very understandable that the slavs of austria wanted to be independent but that isnt really what the video is about. Its about wether austria was justified in seeing serbia as a threat, worthy of launching an attack against.

[@LazarOrthodox04]

12M💀🇩🇪