Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters, and more: playwt.link/sirmanatee Thanks to War Thunder for sponsoring this video.
I wonder about your Opinion about Conrad von Hotzendorf ... I must admit that i have a very negativ picture of that man after following the Great War Chanel and learning all about how much damage he did.
It will never be different. You're so wrong you can't even imagine. I can easily claim it is much, much, much worse than how it was one day before last series of war. I don't believe it will calm ever again. It's boiling.
@@InternationalMaritimeStandards Well, it was not ironic, it is realistic view. I live here and remember that literally when war started it was still less hate than today. By the way, everyone is arming, waiting for the moment and saying publicly that peace have no price, that nobody is interested in confrontation and we all look in the future.
@@dams6829 I was on mobile, and Hotzendorf's name was highlighted blue. When I clicked it, it automatically searched up his name on CZcams. TikTok had a similar mechanic for some time now
Hey, hey, hey! Don't go dissing the sublime and miraculously efficient Austro-Hungarian bureaucracy! After all, as they say in Vienna, "The situation is catastrophic, but not serious."
Tomáš Masaryk, the defender in the Agram trial, would go on to lead Czechoslovak resistance abroad during WW1 and become the first Czechoslovak president. What a crossover.
I really need to let you know that you are the only German accentuated voice I know who is agreeable to listen to while talking about dubious imperial annexations. The fact that Manatees look friendly and non threatening and that your bowler hat and mustache gives you a friendly and honourable demeanour doesn't help to make your imperialist discourses even more convincing. Basically keep doing what you are doing.
The Three Emperors League (including Russia) in 1881: *sign a treaty where Austria-Hungary was actually allowed to annex Bosnia whenever it was necessary* Russia in 1908, even after its foreign minister agreed to the annexation in exchange for Austria-Hungary's assent to the opening of the Turkish Straits to Russia: "WAIT, THAT'S ILLEGAL!"
genius people in comments do not know obvious numbers. Russia left this absolutely stupid (from Alexander the Third perspective) alliance in 1887. In 1908 russian foreigh minister Iszvoyskiy did this agreement by himself, thats why there was such a scandal. There was a political decidion by tsar and duma, all slavs should be united (under Serbia, or even better, under Russia), so there is no hypocrisy. Also to mention, Treaty was signed by Alexander the second, left by Alexander the third and in 1908 there was Nicolaus the second...
@@egorsgor228 Well, in this case Iszvoyskiy did a huge blunder by making a deal with Austria-Hungary. Maybe he should've asked the Tsar and Duma before. But even then, the Three Emperors League Treaty signed on 18th June 1881 (which you can find on the website "THE AVALON PROJECT - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy") was still effective and Austria-Hungary only made Article 4 of the Separate Protocol on the same date to the Convention of Berlin official: "Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria-Hungary reserves the right to annex these provinces at whatever moment she shall deem opportune." (Which they exactly did in 1908.)
Funny you had found a photograph of Alexander II from 1884 @2:44. Since he passed away in 1881 😉 I'd also like to add that as a Finn and one that has lived most of his life no more than 40 km from Helsinki. I immediately recognized that this is not the same man who's statue stands at the Senate Square.
It's incredible how you completely failed to mention the reaction of Italy, who was extremely interested in the region and an ally of Austria through the *triple* alliance, as well as, paradoxically, a major rival of Austria. According to the stipulations of the triple alliance, any territorial gain in the Balkans was supposed to be compensated with territorial gains elsewhere, i.e. Trento and Trieste. Austria refused to entertain any compensation to Italy in return for the recognition of the annexation of Bosnia and, thus, further alienated Italy.
@@mojewjewjew4420 he commented on all great powers, even Serbia and the Ottomans..... You would think that the reaction of the third ally in the alliance would be important lol. Especially since among historically illiterate people (who seem to abound in the response to my comment) there is still the demented belief that Italy randomly "betrayed" Austria in WW1, when actually Austria had been abusing the alliance for decades...
@@Frd2004 and the Ottomans and Serbia were great powers then? Lol you're ridiculous. Btw here's a citation from Taken straight from the text of the triple alliance, since apparently you can't use Google to find sources on your own [However, if, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and in the Aegean Sea should become impossible, and if, whether in consequence of the action of a third Power or otherwise, Austria-Hungary or Italy should find themselves under the necessity of modifying it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a previous agreement between the two Powers, based upon the principle of reciprocal compensation for every advantage, territorial or other, which each of them might obtain beyond the present status quo, and giving satisfaction to the interests and well-founded claims of the two Parties.]
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 I am sure his students where very happy when they where freezing to death in the Carpathians. 😅 To be fair, most WW1 armies had idiotic chiefs of staf. And Cardorna was even worse than Hötzendorf.
@@DanielWW2 Hötzendorf's military plans weren't actually that bad in theory, they were just poorly executed due to Conrad's overconfidence and arrogance, since the Austro-Hungarian army's poor logistics and his negligence of the importance of modern rapid-fire weapons and heavy artillery during WW1. When the Germans used his plan for the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive, it went way better, because the Germans were way more powerful. Now, Cadorna's was much more brutal towards his own troops and fired many of his generals, although the huge losses at Caporetto were his own fault. And Potiorek? He couldn't even get basic things right in Serbia.
It's fascinating how the 90's repainted all early 19th-century Balkan history in the West (or, I guess Germany in this case). Here we see the Karadjordjevic dynasty framed as ethno-nationalists and irredentists to the point of irrationality, specifically Peter I, who is said to have wanted to rule over all south Slavs and deny their ethnic identities. This ignores some key future events, for one, the fact that post-WW1 Peter wasn't for the creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SHS at the time), but had to be convinced to take up Croatia and Slovenia by his son and prime minister. It paints Serbia as irrationally claiming Bosnia, despite the Austro-Hungarian census showing Orthodox Serbs represented the plurality(43.5%) of the population in 1910 and that said population was growing. It also ignores that the Yugoslav idea had some support from Croats and Slovens, and mayor detractors amongst the Serbs(something that would admittedly change with the interwar misrule of Alexander Karadjordjevic - another bad Alexander, God help us). Opposite that, your critique of Austria and its proxy Obrenovic dynasty is that it... had a lovesick warhawk near the Emperor's ear and that it started a trade war? How about the warmongering of the rest of the cabinet or the Emperor himself? How about the will-they-won't-they authoritarianism of Alexander I Obrenovic? The pointless proxy war with Bulgaria Austria demanded of Serbia in 1885? How about the policies of resettlement, the magyarisation, and the refusal to do any land reform in Bosnia, effectively leaving Serbs in Bosnia as medieval peasants serving Ottoman-enforced Muslim landowners? How about the, oh idk, obvious imperialism of Austria annexing land it had no claim to and whose people it did not represent? I don't think the post-1960s Yugoslav Serb nationalism should be compared to the pre-Yugoslav Serb nationalism. There's some similarity, but the nationalism of pre-WW1/WW2 Serbia was one of a pround nation riding high on liberation (which you paint as a consequence of the Berlin Congress as if that was even close to the primary factor in Serbian statehood). Post-60s Serb nationalism was a bitter offspring of two disastrous world wars, one genocide, and a Communist Yugoslavia that focused on suppressing Serbian identity for fear of Serbian separatism, something that would have spelled the end of communist rule. It is an admittedly horrible ideology that gave the world the Yugoslav Wars and still is dragging the region into instability. All told, this video paints a rather skewed picture of Serbia and the German world it opposed at the time. It invites us to see our world of Russian aggression on the European continent in 2024 and imagine that Imperial Germany and Austria are the EU, the stabilising force that liberates national minorities (while annexing them as a hobby).
@michele0076 it takes a minute to Google this. Frano Supilo, Ante Trumbić, and many more prominent politicians championed Yugoslav nationalism up to 1918. Obviously, they changed their minds once Alexander turned out to be despot and the idea of a federal Yugoslavia was off the table, but that doesn't change the atmosphere prior to WW1. I get that a lot of modern Croat identity is focused around not being Serbs, and lying in service of national interests is Balkan historiography 101, but I ask that you quietly internalize that there was a time when Croatia had massive non-Serbian problems, specifically, in the early 20th century. For one, Italy wanted a lot of its coast, Austrian rule was increasingly unbearable in light of Croat national awakening, the Hungarians wanted to erase the nascent Croatian identity altogether, the loyalty of Dalmatians was questionable, and Croatia had a significant Serb minority that was always going to be a thorn in their side. On the other hand, pre-WW1 Serbia wasn't perfect, but it did have a longer democratic tradition then most, even older, states, it had adopted(and torn up) many a constitution, it had a history of large ethnic minorities in its borders. I can see why some prominent Croats saw a union with Serbs as preferable over partition, or continued Austrian rule. To view everything in light of 2024 is forget that the people at the time weren't gifted with such powers of prophecy.
@michele0076 This is an unexpected objection, mostly in that I think it is important but unrelated to the discussion. So let me lay out what I think is the logical thread of our dissagrement? was and you tell me if I missed something. This video paints Serbia, during the events of the annexation of Bosnia, as denying the ethnic identities of the southern Slavs and on said basis provoking war with Austria. I, offhandedly mentioned that SOME Croatians and Slovines were in favor of Yugoslav nationalism. Just building on the narrative that Bosnia was not only plurality Serb, but also that there were intellectual currents within the non-Serb Southern Slavs that looked favorably on joining the Kindom of Serbia over say, being annexed by Austria. You contest that there were no such voices, and point to a massacre following a protest over the annexation in 1919, ten years and a world war after the events we discuss. I admit I was confused on this point, but I wrote this second part off as irrelevant as it didn't really say anything in opposition to what I did and moved on. I then rebut by naming some pro-Yugoslav Croatian politicians that existed in 1908 and even go so far as to outline why a Croat might look more favourably towards Belgrade then Vienna in this time. This is where I'm quite confused now. You acknowledge that there were non-Serb pro-Yugoslav voices, but now you want to discuss whether Yugoslavia's creation had its basis in any democratic body within Croatia as an entity within AH in 1919. This quite frankly doesn't make sense, the Treaty of Saint-Germain wasn't done based on any democratic principles and I didn't claim as much. It was, as all treaties were in that time, the contest of imperial and geopolitical interest made to empower the victors and maintain peace in Europe. So, here is my position. I'd gladly discuss the aftermath of WW1, the intents, outcomes and legitimacy of a Yugoslav state. Bu I do so with a fear that you are arguing against the voices in your head on topics that will shift until I am inevitably forced to concede out of fatigue. So, let me write out what I think might satisfy you more then any fact or argument. My moral judgment is... that Croatia deserved a sovereign state in 1918, as much as it did in 1991 and 1102. That all ethinc groups that want the same, deserve as much at least as a vague ideal that we should look to. And that the Yugoslav project was largely a disaster in execution, whether it found form in cynical Serb irridentism or political pragmatism, or idealism, communist or otherwise. I hope you all the best in the discussions to come, my ideologically captured friend.
@michele0076 "then I will quote one of the most prolific Serbian intellectuals up to that period, prof. Jovan Cvijich (1865-1927), who denied the existence of the Croatian and Slovenian ethnos, assigning them instead the trivial attributes of "Serbian-speaking Catholics" and "Alpine Serbs"." Can you please quote full scentence, and where have you read it, since i'm holding his "Psychological characteristics of Southern Slavs", and he writes about Slovenes and Croats without any hesitation, and quite fondly if i may add. He refers to them as a part of a broader groups of people who share similar characteristics, due to simmilar geografical area in which they developed, or hystorical factors, as for exanple "Panonian variety" of South Slavs, subgroup of which is "Alpine variety", with Slovenes and Zagreb-Zagora Croats", or "Dinarian variety" of South Slavs, where he wrote extensively about Croats, Serbs, Muslims etc. living south of Sava river.
1872 - The Serbian deputy in Istanbul with representatives of the Turkish government proposed the unification of the Serbian and Turkish armies. Russian General Ignatiyev rejected this possibility, fearing that Turkey aims to deprive Serbia of the tutelage of the great powers.
6:02 I'm really surprised this is what you make of this considering Pan-Slavism and the idea of Yugoslavia was well established since the 1840s. Not to say that nationalistic ideas weren't used for expansion into Habsburg territory, but you didn't even mention Yugoslavia or the opposition to germanisation among the south Slavic peoples within Austria Hungary which was a major reason the Yugoslav idea could even be materialized in the first place. This makes it sound like no one even considered the idea of a unified south Slavic state. I'd say this is a skewed view of things at best.
Both perspectives are simultaneously true. While within the Monarchy the main drives for autonomy and or independence were Germanisation, Magyarisation and economic exploitation of Kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia, Serbia on the other hand really did use ethnonationalist justifications outlined in the video. These views were outlined in the 1840's by Ilija Garašanin in his work Načertanije, and has been the ideological foundation for Serb expansionism ever since.
@@Nista357 What you say unfortunately isn't true, because Garašanin's work was based on that of František Zach's. Zach's works planned a dissolution of the AU Monarchy and a formation of a Yugoslav empire based on panslavic ideas. Garašanin removed all mentions of Yugoslavia in his work and changed them to Serbia. Both of them wrote on uniting Serbian people seperated in both the Ottoman and the Austrian empires. The reclamation of land then deemed Serbian under the Ottoman yoke was considered only to be the first step. And even if you were right, and all I wrote here was wrong, which it isn't, later Serbian governments still used Načertanije as an ideological basis for their expansionism.
Only Serbia was interested in a Pan-Slavic nation because they would be Yugoslavia's biggest ethnic group. There was some, but not nearly as sizeable, support for those ideas in the other Yugoslav nations.
@@annurissimo1082 This is also not true. From the beginning of the 20th century up until the dissolution of AU the most popular party in Croatia-Slavonia was the Croat-Serb coalition whose main goal was the establishment of a Yugoslav nation, in which they succeeded in 1918 by forming the SHS State before merging with Serbia to become the SHS Kingdom. There were debates though in that coalition whether the Yugoslav state should be more federalist or unitary, Serbs of course advocating for unitarism, while Croats for federalism. There were also ideas floating around of Bulgaria also joining this new Yugoslav state, they themselves also being South Slavs, but Serbs weren't interested in that because, as you said, they wanted to be the most powerful group within that state, and Bulgarians would outnumber them.
Protocol nitpick: When referring to Franz Conrad von Hötzenorf with only one name, the name should be "Conrad", not "Hötzendorf". Most people, including most Austrians I have spoken to, erroneously think that "Conrad" was his second name (or middle name). In fact, "Conrad" was his surname / family name. Von Hötzendorf was what is called "Adelsprädikat" in German; a particle attached to the surname, to indicate nobility (albeit typical of the very lowest ranks of nobility, from Barons and down). His name should thus either be "Franz Conrad", or "Conrad", or "Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf" or "Conrad von Hötzendorf". It should never be "Franz von Hötzendorf" or "von Hötzendorf" or "Hötzendorf". The same convention is observed when referring to Fischer von Erlach, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Auer von Welsbach, Ditters von Dittersdorf etc.
Very good "high level" review of AH "absorbing" BH. But would have really enjoyed more "on the ground" examples of AH actions such as AH assuming management of postal, tax, railroad, mining and trade situation in BH. Perhaps youll do another video as a follow-up. Thanks
This event was dramatized in the ninth episode of the old BBC miniseries Fall of Eagles. I like the words it uses to characterize Izvolsky: "...a cynical, unprincipled gambler who has no more regard for his friends than he has for his enemies."
I usually do not comment, but just wished to congratulate on creating such a great and thorough video! As a Serbian, I must notice that sources look pretty objective and unbiased and that you did a very good job on precise citation of your sources in every segment. Looking forward to watch more of your videos, existing and ones to come :)
6:30 To be fair, panslavism was already a popular idea and a significant amount of Slavic people within the Habsburg empire were sympathetic. Obviously not all, some had similar ideas but would rather put themselves in the center, saying it is the Serbs which are in denial
Unfortunately, Czar Nicholas II was not an expert in international relations. Essentially, he was outmanoeuvred by Franz Joseph and his very able advisers. The secret Treaty was intended to secure to Russia free access through the Bosporus in return for it agreeing not to object to the annexation of Bosnia Herzegovina. His understanding was that the annexation would only take place after Austria Hungary had used its influence on the Sultan to secure access for Russia. What happened, in the event, was that Austria Hungary simply proceeded with the annexation, re interpreting the secret Treaty so that their obligations were limited to not opposing Russia’s demands. The existence of this secret Treaty was highly embarrassing for the Czar, who was seen as the protector of all of the Slavic peoples. In the end, Russia had to quietly assent to the annexation, to avoid too much adverse publicity over the Treaty.
I'm so excited for the video! I've loved every other one thus far. There is a surprising dearth of history content on youtube for central/eastern pre ww1 political history.
Nice video man. It was interesting to see since I am a Serb living in the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It gives perspective on how it was seen on the outside. I would like to just point out that in our view, Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs in general, it was not a case of "Serb nationalists want this or that", it was Serbs wanted to live free and united. AH rule in Bosnia was seen as nothing else but occupation and the struggle against it was nothing else but the struggle for freedom. The National Deffence a mere spy network, some of its leaders and prominent members were writers, poets, artists of various types. While the Serbian lineage alternated beetween the Obrenovic dynasty and Karadjordjevic dynasty (the first being oriented towards the AH Empire and the latter towards the Russian Empire), the annexation of Bosnia would not have been looked lightly upon by the people and Serbs from all across no matter who was in power. To this day, for us, AH Empire was nothing more but an imperial occupier and Gavrilo Princip is a heroic freedom fighter.
@@lukakajevic7927 Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia resulted in freedom of religion and the construction of many roads, railways, factories, buildings, schools, etc. What did Princip do? Kill an anti-war reformer who wanted to give the Serbs more rights and deliberately provoke Austria-Hungary? Yeah, definitely a "hero".
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 He was a freedom fighter who fired at an occupier. Its as simple as that. Also, your version of history as an Austrian on this subject is to be expected quite biased. Not only were Serbs not in a great position, Benjamin Kalay was tasked with enticing the creation of the "Bosnian" nation, requesting that the Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina declare themselves as Bosnian in order to receive favorable treatment. You dont sugarcoat occupation.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87Princip killed Franz Ferdinand for what he represented, in his eyes. Whether Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia improved Bosnia or not, was irrelevant
Fantastic video. Great job as always SirManatee. I can't believe how badly the situation deteriorated for everyone in South Eastern Europe after the annexation. Very unfortunate and sad indeed that the only people calling for restraint was Franz Ferdinand who would tragically be murdered in Sarajevo with his wife.
This is a nice video. I like the focus on different politicians. But somehow i feel like like there should be more of reactions and opinions from Belgrade politicians no? It is a crisis between those states yet the other side is barely mentioned. It is funny how the may coup also ended another secret agreement between Serbia and AH. The claimant that "Serb nationalists considered other south slavs Orthodox Serbs in denial" is ridiculous to say the least.. Especially towards Croats and Slovenes. Serbian politicians at the time mostly saw Serbia as Sardiania-Piedmont in relations to other South Slavs. Croats Slovenes and Serbs were seen as "three-named people" but that is not the same as all three being Serb or Croat or Slovene. On a side note there was also a catholic Serbs in the AH, orthodoxy is not really that connected to being a Serb.
In a video about a confict between AH and primarily Serbia you spent more time talking about a supposed love affair of the Austrian cheef of staff then you did about Serbia. When the opinion of AH, Russia, the UK or France is mentioned you clarify it is the opinion or action of certain diplomats while in the case of Serbia you just say Serbia like its a single entity. When you claim Serbia saw all South Slavs as "converted" Orthodox Serbs you dont provide any source for this claim, neither do you say who actually expressed it, was it the Serbian pairlament building itself? Seeing you talk about a subject I actually know about shows how much you skip over and just ignore.
@@anonymous-hz2unThe Nacertanije was based on a plan by Polish emigree and diplomat František Zach who wrote that Serbia should free and unite with all South Slavs under AH and the Ottomans and then support the liberation of Poland from AH and Russia. At the begining Garasanin wrote Nacertanije more in favot of Greater Serbia but at the time the video talks about it was already pro Yugoslav. Anyway he doesnt even mention it, no Garasanin, no opinion of Pasic who was totally pro Yugoslavia, no nothing. Its pathetic and shovinistic and I am very disapointed with the video.
@@anonymous-hz2un Why then wasn't? Why wasn't proclaimed Serbian empire, no one internationally would have objected to it, since Serbia won in the war, and already was guaranteed with Greater Serbia in London treaty?
Well, we all know (At least ones that aren't in denial) that Bosnians are indeed just Serbs that bent the knee to the Turks. Just ask the man that created Bosnia, Tvrtko was a cousin of the Serbian Royal family.
The claim concerning 20th cebtury serbians beleiving other south slavs, were orthodox serbians in denial is a clear attempt at slreading missinformation and antagonisation. This is a more contemporary view that took hold due to histrical illiteracy and quasi history.. Serbiahad its ambitions within bosnia as actual orthodox serbs made up a major percentage of the country.
They've been living in separate nations for several hundreds of years, but only after Serbia's meddling did national identities emerge. Provided what you say is true, it still doesn't explain Serbia's denial to accept "Bosnian" as an identity, forcing them to declare themselves as either Serbs or Croats when they did become part of Yugoslavia.
@@annurissimo1082 seperate nations? They were both part of the Ottoman empire for almost 500 years. Bosnian identity is more reliant on religion than other south slavic cultures. You cannot imply that Herzegovina Croats arent croatian or herzegovina serbs arent serbs. When it comes to serbs and croats both countries cooperated both on matters of language and panslavism even before Yugoslavia. Bosnia is an odd one out for obvious reasons as before nationalism was a thing (before the 19th century) and even long after they refered to themselves as just muslims. Croatians also didnt recohnize any sort of bosnian identity up until Tito.
@@strahinjastevic7480You make yourself the victim by saying the claim for greater Serbia is slander yet you proceed to say Bosnians have no identity past islam,excellent logic buddy
@@MagnumLoadedTractor I didnt make no one the victim, the claim for greater serbia at this time was made in accordance to "regular" orthodox serbs, not "serbs in denial" as stated here. Take it as you want it. Get a life.
@@MagnumLoadedTractor also if what im saying is false, is, there ever a catholic bosniak? Or a catholic bosnian that isnt croatian? No. Also why is this relevant anyway. As i said, this aint a "serb in denial" thing, neither did i explicitly state, that they are.
Wow, what a massive bullshit at 05:55 when you say that the ''...Government claimed that All South Slavs were Orthodox Serbs in denial". This is just utter nonsense because this was never an official position of the Kingdom of Serbia. This was proven when in 1918 Serbia did not form some ''Greater Serbia" boogeyman state although it could, but it created the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. That sums up what a nonsense claim you made there. Right from the '90 propaganda myths. I really expected more from this channel and not this biased narrative.
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (not the one after WW2 of course) was just an illusion that Serbs and other minorities were equal (despite what it name claims). Out of 13 prime ministers, 12 were Serbs and only one was Slovenian. In fact, almost every Yugoslavian minister (whetever be foreign, interior, finance or justice) was Serbian and non-Serbians rarely got into these postions. Also, parties such as the Croatian Peasant Party still had massive issues with the government such as the assassinations of Stjepan Radic and Milan Sufflay and the 6 January Dictatorship of 1929 under Alexander I of Yugoslavia, which caused even EINSTEIN of all people to condemn the oppressive Yugoslav government. When ladko Macek wanted to improve the situation for the Croatian people, Alexander I of Yugoslavia simply arrested him until his own assassination where things slightly improved.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Have you heard of something called a democracy? Since Serb parties were largest in whole country and they ruled. Also in almost all goverments you would see members of JMO and maybe members of Slovenian people's party(Korošec)
Funnily enough, the Austrian annexation of Bosnia also led to Seebia focusing on land grabs to the south, in Ottoman Macedonia. A region which at the time, had a Bulgarian majority and very little actual Serbs within it. This obviously led to tensions, and to the 2nd Balkan war. So overall, the consequences of Austria's actions were far reaching I'd say.
Hey fr I keep coming back to this video and recommending it to friends such an important event in the lead up to the Great War and not enough people know about it
I don't understand something here. If the Serbs wanted "to make a great Serbia and they thought that all southern Slavs were actually Orthodox Serbs in denial" as stated at the beginning of this video, why then did they create the kingdom of Yugoslavia and give equal status to other nations. Literally not a single decision in the parliament of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia could be made without the consent of the Croats. I know that Serbs are often accused of wanting to ethnically cleanse other and make Greater Serbia during the war in the 90s, but c'mon man, listen to what you are saying and use a little logic. If they wanted to, they could have done it after the ww1.
Look into the writings of Ilija Garašanin, Vuk Karadžić, Nikola Stojanović and other prominent Serbian figures who all propagated the claim that the other south slavs are Serbs in denial and therefore that their lands should be annexed by Serbia. Stojanović even stated that the Croats would go extinct by converting to a Serbian identity. The decision for Croatia to join in with Yugoslavia was not in the hands of the Croatian parliament, but rather the National council, an unelected body of officials who were carefully cherrypicked by the Serbs, so that they would make the decision in their favour. Just five days after Yugoslavia was formed by those unelected officials, the Croats who protested against the unification were massacred by the Serb police in Zagreb's main square. In the following 20 years, the Serbs would impose a hegemony over all other nationalities in the country, they destroyed Croatia's economy to their benefit and killed any Croat politician who opposed them. After the most prominent Croat politician Stjepan Radić was killed, the king imposed a dictatorship and absolved the Croatian parliament entirely. Yugoslavia may not have been a Greater Serbia de jure, but it was pretty damn close to it.
@@ctd325 ah,yes we sure did destroy their economy , thats why zagreb went from a suburb to the full blown city under that evil serbian hegemonic kingdom. Yes that Stjepan Radic insulted serbian contribution to the fist world war so one of the radicals demanded him to apologize and later shot him, and then king imposed dictatorship forbidding everyone from declaring themself serbian or croatian or slovinian and making everyone be 'yugoslav', ah yes ,very serbian dominated . Croats were far better under our rule then they ever were under austrian, they had bigger representation bigger autonomy and overall more legitimate ruler.
Serbs are accudes but croats were one who do that clensing.They are protected from Vatican and in that time Vienna.Serbia give them country in 1918 in that favour they killed million serbs from 1941-1945,than in 90's wars they do etnhic clensing on about 500 000,and they go from land where they lived forever.So in hundred years from majority serbs becames minority in Croatia.Just so you understand something,80% of croats are former serbs,they speak serbian,they basicly dont have any historyc figure that were not serb,oldest monasteries and churches in Croatis are from serbs.They are so much poisended from Vatican and they only do dirty job for them...
@@vojatankosic7042 This guy just proved me right. He literally just repeated and parroted what Nikola Stojanović, Ilija Garašanin and Vuk Karadžić were saying 2 centuries ago. The Serbs slander the Croats by lying about Croatian history, they parrot a false narrative that the Croats are an artificial nation, and then use those lies as a justification to conquer and subdue Croatia. They attempted to do just that three times in the last century alone. Old habits die hard.
It's all about Ministers horse trading with other peoples horses. Nothing changes. Field Marshal Hortzendorf is a model for Military leadership at present it seems. Sir Manatees explains the situation is the best!!!!!!! ThanKS
not one time in this video you mentioned that in 1900s Bosnia there was a large Serbian Orthodox Population, same goes for Slavonia and Dalmatia, you make it sound like Serbia wanted Bosnia for the heck of it, not because it had milions of ethnic Serbs that have lived there for centruries
why would he mention that? goes completely against the Serbophobic narrative that the West has been trying to construct for the last three decades you must've noticed the uptick with Habsburg apologists and fans of Ferdinand's "United States of Austria" project (which was never Ferdinand's idea in the first place)
There was a large population but they weren't a majors by that logic us the balkans should claim germany cause there are a lot of balkaners in Germany...
Great video! I do wish you would've covered some of the stuff going on in Hungary during this time, as the subject of Bosnian annexation left a huge mark on Hungarian politics and public opinion of the period.
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the agram trial, which is unfortunate because I myself am a historian from the Austro-Hungarian and Yugoslav area (slovenia) i am satistied that Svetozar pribićević was in this trial becouse guy make bases for king Alexander dictatorship
I think a lot of commentators recently paint Austria-Hungary as the innocent victim of nationalist and great power intrigues. But the Empire was the one playing with fire in the Balkans - see the Balkan wars and the creation of Albania too.
How? Austria-Hungary did not provoke the Balkan Wars, these wars happened to kick the Ottomans out of Europe and to deal with Bulgaria's expansion. And Austria-Hungary actually had every right to create an Albanian buffer state after Serbia's genocidal and expulsion campaign of Albanians (see the battle of Lume in 1912), not to mention that it threatened both Austro-Hungarian and Italian interests in the Adriatic Sea with the Russian navy gaining naval bases in Serbian ports. And maybe the Serbian government should've prevented the Black Hand under Apis' leadership (who was part of the Serbian army) to prevent Franz Ferdinand's death, so Austria-Hungary might've been more passive towards Serbia.
Right...because Austria Hungary was in the wrong for backing albanian independence but not Serbia who wanted all of Albania for no other reason but to expand
I recommend reading "Towards The Flame: The End of Tsarist Russia", by Dominic Lieven. Great book, and talks about all the figures behind Russian foreign policy in this time.
Useful video. Read a lot about downfall of Ottomans and political and societal structure that came with Habsburgs from peoples perspective, but never from a broader perspective. Thank you for this.
oh that von Hötzendorf....he was such a warmonger. 22:30 “public opinion”. the chimera of. as if the average person in Russia in the early 20th century, even knew where Serbia, or Bosnia, were. or cared about what the “distant” people in those places might be facing. the average person of the time in Russia was more concerned with much closer to home issues, like food and shelter. I have always had an issue with the “pressure” of “public opinion” being said to be a cause of conflict. any public opinion on the Balkan Crisis that may have existed in Russia of the time, had been whipped up by the imperialist press in St Petersburg, at the behest of those who stood to profit from such things.
0:19 It matters very much. Without knowing enough backgroung you can't understand what happened and more importantly why. I understand there's not enough time for all that in such a short video. It means you need to make longer videos 😂
8:45 Hötzendorf's warmongering was because he wanted to marry a woman of the nobility, Gina von Reininghaus, which he couldn't do because he was of low birth. So he wanted to prove his manliness 23:45 Hötzendorf concluded that Austrian mobilization and a German ultimatum can make Russia back down.
Although with obvious ambitions of being non partial, this presentation has huge stupidities and shortages: It wasn't an intention of "liberation" of Bosnia (by Serbia), but instead of justified true liberation. Who was Bosnia ethnically consisting of and what kind of life had those ethnic- and religious groups lived? Bosnian Serbs were the biggest ethnic-religious group there, living supressed since Bosnia got occupied by the Muslims (Ottomans), i.e. living as serfs for about 500 years! Christian peasant in Bosnia (and serbian by ethnicity) was a main figure of taxed people in feudal ottoman system. One third of an annual crop was taken from them, they (as non Muslim, so called "non- faithful" by Ottomans) were not allowed to ride a horse, to have a drain for smoke from the home owen, were supposed to give bride to the local muslim lord (the rule of the first wedding night), etc. Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of the austrian heir to the throne, mentioned that he and his family originate from such surfs by many generations and that such life in Bosnia, preserved by Austro-Hungary (-A.U. had not changed it, making Bosnia the last pocket of feudalism in progressive Europe of that time), was- and still is very hard, bitter, unjust. So, annexation of Bosnia by Austria was an act of imperialistic politics of Austria-Hungary, buying Bosnia from dying Ottoman Empire, while bosnian Serbs were longing to finally free themselves from muslim-feudal rule and from the rule of a new foreign empire and even join with their ethnic brothers in Serbia, which is pretty human and justified under such circumstances and history. Instead, Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia, practicing anti serbian policy, forming and running infamous Schutzkorps, discriminating and suppressing bosnian Serbs and anything with serbian in it's name. Most of those who converted to Islam and hasn't moved with the retreating ottomans, LIKED that, making the main part of such terror- and support forces of austrian annexation. How big genius one has to be to understand what happened next under such circumstances? Yet, a real one, if one doesn't know these facts, ignored in this video.
While there is some merit in the idea geography influences history, which no one can deny, I'm always struck by the manor in which the personalities of singular men have inflamed nations towards war, often for selfish or at least vain reasons. Stick a different personality in a couple of these different men and this situation need not escalate into a diplomatic crisis that helped mark the steps on the road to the July Crisis.
How is it that whenever i wonder about something in history, you seem to always upload a video on the theme i was thinking about, last month it was about fiume !
This video is so comically one-sided. The entire Serbian geopolitical thinking and national self-conception are to be blamed (with lots of misleading stuff being said in the video) while, in Austria-Hungary, the actual ultra-conservative empire between the two, it's just a handful of bureaucrats who should've done better lol
So Serbia is the bad guy when it claims its right in a country where 45% of the population is Serbs, and the AH empire is the good guy when it annexes a country it never had before, nor does it have its own population there. Nice angle. I would say Germanic imperial.
"So Serbia is the bad guy when it claims its right in a country where 45% of the population is Serbs" Same as Serbia claiming Kosovo, a region where over 90% of the people are Albanians.
Why did Serbia annex Kosovo and Macedonia when those provinces had a very small serbian population and little connection to serbian culture? Why did Serbia push to annex all of Albania despite having no claim to the land? Serbian imperialism at its finest.
In early Middle Ages Bosnia was couple hundred years part of either Serbia or Croatia (925- 1102). But Posavina, Unska (until 1527), Tropolje and Hercegovina which were part of Croatia and were stolen from Croatia after 1102, given to Bosnia by either Hungary or Ottomans to Bosnia. For. e.g. Petar Kružić died for Bihać. Hercegovina and Tropolje were Dalmatian. From 1322 Bosniq claim Hercegovina and other.
Very good.. What is lacking in the program is the feelings of the bosnian people. Really, what did bosnians think? Did they really wanted to be a part of the AH empire?, Or, serbia? Secondly, AFAIK serbs vere very hostile to turks and to islam.. When aiming for the unity of south slavs, how did they plan to deal with the fact that bosnians were muslims?
That's a very interesting question! For this video, I decided to focus on the perspective of the Great Powers at the time because it was first and foremost a European affair. I will maybe one day make a video where I look at Habsburg Bosnia and its inhabitants
I want to be left alone. No America and no Russia, they are fake and Zionist/Kabbalist Satanist Freemasons, they are one team acting on TV as different and opposed to each other. I dont want to pay taxes or carry a piece of plastic with me that is supposedly me and so on, and also circumcision is Judaism, Islam is fake, orthodox Christianity is FAKE, ancient Rome and Greece are fake, nukes are fake, the news is literally fake, the elections are completely fake not just rigged, and it is a TV show, so people call me crazy, maybe they will even kill me for saying how I see the world. Fake people everywhere, sellouts everywhere, satans took over everything.
Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters, and more: playwt.link/sirmanatee Thanks to War Thunder for sponsoring this video.
I wonder about your Opinion about Conrad von Hotzendorf ... I must admit that i have a very negativ picture of that man after following the Great War Chanel and learning all about how much damage he did.
no
war thunder is run by a terrible company
Please use the community tab.
"we've delayed the massive war by 5 years. Here, have an easter egg"
Yippee * confetti *
I'm sure this region never saw nationalist unrest or ethnic division again.
Nervous Balkan noises ensue
Hold that thought
It will never be different. You're so wrong you can't even imagine.
I can easily claim it is much, much, much worse than how it was one day before last series of war.
I don't believe it will calm ever again. It's boiling.
@@bgdabg6769 You know there are no points for being ironic, yes?
@@InternationalMaritimeStandards Well, it was not ironic, it is realistic view. I live here and remember that literally when war started it was still less hate than today. By the way, everyone is arming, waiting for the moment and saying publicly that peace have no price, that nobody is interested in confrontation and we all look in the future.
For real, could you imagine if Europe went to war because of Bosnia
even wost, imagine going to war for 4 years over serbia, that would be madness !!
@@YksssySerbia, please, it’s such a small nationalist country, what could they possibly do to bring attention from great powers?
@@DwRockettIkr it's not like some Serb Nationalist in Bosnia would assassinate the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne like come on.
@@thorpeaaron1110 Yugoslav nationalist, not Serbian!
@@user-wj7ro8hy5j Yougoslav ? this concept is just a total fantasy, its not like this concept has created a contry that lasted 80 years !
I like the idea of the reason for Conrad von Hotzendorf's warmongering being because he was a simp.
Damn, CZcams has its own comment search function now
@@J_GamerSP Huh?
@@dams6829 I was on mobile, and Hotzendorf's name was highlighted blue. When I clicked it, it automatically searched up his name on CZcams.
TikTok had a similar mechanic for some time now
@@J_GamerSPI dont have it
@@Papaj579 It seems to be sporadic, probably in a testing phase
Hotzendorf lost battles, lost an empire and didnt even get the girl in the end and died in Germany Sigh...
He did get the girl.
@@univeropa3363 Wanted to get the girl as a noble, ended up getting her as a refugee
@@MarkVrem Still, got the girl.
Definition of "Game is Game"
Hey, hey, hey! Don't go dissing the sublime and miraculously efficient Austro-Hungarian bureaucracy! After all, as they say in Vienna, "The situation is catastrophic, but not serious."
Tomáš Masaryk, the defender in the Agram trial, would go on to lead Czechoslovak resistance abroad during WW1 and become the first Czechoslovak president. What a crossover.
Yeah, I was thinking it is "that Masaryk or somebody else with the same last name" :D
He will also play a very prominent role in the next video ;)
He has a famous street in Zagreb named after him
He also has streets in Serbia named after him.
@@Hadar1991His name is very unique (Czech Masařík spelled wrong), so yes, it is him.
I really need to let you know that you are the only German accentuated voice I know who is agreeable to listen to while talking about dubious imperial annexations.
The fact that Manatees look friendly and non threatening and that your bowler hat and mustache gives you a friendly and honourable demeanour doesn't help to make your imperialist discourses even more convincing.
Basically keep doing what you are doing.
The Three Emperors League (including Russia) in 1881: *sign a treaty where Austria-Hungary was actually allowed to annex Bosnia whenever it was necessary*
Russia in 1908, even after its foreign minister agreed to the annexation in exchange for Austria-Hungary's assent to the opening of the Turkish Straits to Russia: "WAIT, THAT'S ILLEGAL!"
Average russian attitudes towards treaty's
genius people in comments do not know obvious numbers. Russia left this absolutely stupid (from Alexander the Third perspective) alliance in 1887. In 1908 russian foreigh minister Iszvoyskiy did this agreement by himself, thats why there was such a scandal. There was a political decidion by tsar and duma, all slavs should be united (under Serbia, or even better, under Russia), so there is no hypocrisy. Also to mention, Treaty was signed by Alexander the second, left by Alexander the third and in 1908 there was Nicolaus the second...
@@egorsgor228 Well, in this case Iszvoyskiy did a huge blunder by making a deal with Austria-Hungary. Maybe he should've asked the Tsar and Duma before. But even then, the Three Emperors League Treaty signed on 18th June 1881 (which you can find on the website "THE AVALON PROJECT - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy") was still effective and Austria-Hungary only made Article 4 of the Separate Protocol on the same date to the Convention of Berlin official: "Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria-Hungary reserves the right to annex these provinces at whatever moment she shall deem opportune." (Which they exactly did in 1908.)
Bosnia is rightful Latvian land🇱🇻🇱🇻🇱🇻 return the stolen land to Latvia
FALSE! ITS RIGHTFUL THAI CLAY!
AWFUL FAKE NEWS, AS ANOTHER BALKAN COUNTRY BOSNIA IS RIGHTFUL PORTUGUESE CLAY
you’re both wrong it is rightful land of the Argentine Republic 🇦🇷
Rightful Roman clay
NOOOOOOOOOO IT WAS BOSNIAN SINCE 1000000 BC WHEN THE BOSNIAN EMPIRE WAS FORMED!!!!!!!!!!
5:37 Ha I love the slight pause before the name pronunciation.
Funny you had found a photograph of Alexander II from 1884 @2:44. Since he passed away in 1881 😉
I'd also like to add that as a Finn and one that has lived most of his life no more than 40 km from Helsinki. I immediately recognized that this is not the same man who's statue stands at the Senate Square.
Ah yes, the events that make Russia hell bent on defending Serbia in 1914.
Huzendorf threw all logic he had away over impressing a married woman. Smh
Truly a woman momment
It's incredible how you completely failed to mention the reaction of Italy, who was extremely interested in the region and an ally of Austria through the *triple* alliance, as well as, paradoxically, a major rival of Austria.
According to the stipulations of the triple alliance, any territorial gain in the Balkans was supposed to be compensated with territorial gains elsewhere, i.e. Trento and Trieste.
Austria refused to entertain any compensation to Italy in return for the recognition of the annexation of Bosnia and, thus, further alienated Italy.
He is german, what you expected?
Source? Italy wasnt the focus of the Video because it was only on paper a major power
Italy being mad at Austria for not giving them a territories they wouldn't even own a land or coastal connection is just so funny to me 😂
@@mojewjewjew4420 he commented on all great powers, even Serbia and the Ottomans..... You would think that the reaction of the third ally in the alliance would be important lol.
Especially since among historically illiterate people (who seem to abound in the response to my comment) there is still the demented belief that Italy randomly "betrayed" Austria in WW1, when actually Austria had been abusing the alliance for decades...
@@Frd2004 and the Ottomans and Serbia were great powers then? Lol you're ridiculous.
Btw here's a citation from Taken straight from the text of the triple alliance, since apparently you can't use Google to find sources on your own
[However, if, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and in the Aegean Sea should become impossible, and if, whether in consequence of the action of a third Power or otherwise, Austria-Hungary or Italy should find themselves under the necessity of modifying it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a previous agreement between the two Powers, based upon the principle of reciprocal compensation for every advantage, territorial or other, which each of them might obtain beyond the present status quo, and giving satisfaction to the interests and well-founded claims of the two Parties.]
9:58 I think that you meant Croatia since Dalmatia was not a part of Hungary at the time.
Yeah I worded that poorly. What I meant is that Austria would give up Dalmatia in exchange for Hungary agreeing to extend the customs and trade union.
7:53 Oh no, not the "military genius" from Austria. 😅
Hey, he was at least a good teacher and very well liked by his students, so that's something!
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 I am sure his students where very happy when they where freezing to death in the Carpathians. 😅
To be fair, most WW1 armies had idiotic chiefs of staf. And Cardorna was even worse than Hötzendorf.
@@DanielWW2 Hötzendorf's military plans weren't actually that bad in theory, they were just poorly executed due to Conrad's overconfidence and arrogance, since the Austro-Hungarian army's poor logistics and his negligence of the importance of modern rapid-fire weapons and heavy artillery during WW1. When the Germans used his plan for the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive, it went way better, because the Germans were way more powerful. Now, Cadorna's was much more brutal towards his own troops and fired many of his generals, although the huge losses at Caporetto were his own fault. And Potiorek? He couldn't even get basic things right in Serbia.
Gott verdammt, Hötzendorf!!
It's fascinating how the 90's repainted all early 19th-century Balkan history in the West (or, I guess Germany in this case). Here we see the Karadjordjevic dynasty framed as ethno-nationalists and irredentists to the point of irrationality, specifically Peter I, who is said to have wanted to rule over all south Slavs and deny their ethnic identities. This ignores some key future events, for one, the fact that post-WW1 Peter wasn't for the creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SHS at the time), but had to be convinced to take up Croatia and Slovenia by his son and prime minister. It paints Serbia as irrationally claiming Bosnia, despite the Austro-Hungarian census showing Orthodox Serbs represented the plurality(43.5%) of the population in 1910 and that said population was growing. It also ignores that the Yugoslav idea had some support from Croats and Slovens, and mayor detractors amongst the Serbs(something that would admittedly change with the interwar misrule of Alexander Karadjordjevic - another bad Alexander, God help us).
Opposite that, your critique of Austria and its proxy Obrenovic dynasty is that it... had a lovesick warhawk near the Emperor's ear and that it started a trade war? How about the warmongering of the rest of the cabinet or the Emperor himself? How about the will-they-won't-they authoritarianism of Alexander I Obrenovic? The pointless proxy war with Bulgaria Austria demanded of Serbia in 1885? How about the policies of resettlement, the magyarisation, and the refusal to do any land reform in Bosnia, effectively leaving Serbs in Bosnia as medieval peasants serving Ottoman-enforced Muslim landowners? How about the, oh idk, obvious imperialism of Austria annexing land it had no claim to and whose people it did not represent?
I don't think the post-1960s Yugoslav Serb nationalism should be compared to the pre-Yugoslav Serb nationalism. There's some similarity, but the nationalism of pre-WW1/WW2 Serbia was one of a pround nation riding high on liberation (which you paint as a consequence of the Berlin Congress as if that was even close to the primary factor in Serbian statehood). Post-60s Serb nationalism was a bitter offspring of two disastrous world wars, one genocide, and a Communist Yugoslavia that focused on suppressing Serbian identity for fear of Serbian separatism, something that would have spelled the end of communist rule. It is an admittedly horrible ideology that gave the world the Yugoslav Wars and still is dragging the region into instability.
All told, this video paints a rather skewed picture of Serbia and the German world it opposed at the time. It invites us to see our world of Russian aggression on the European continent in 2024 and imagine that Imperial Germany and Austria are the EU, the stabilising force that liberates national minorities (while annexing them as a hobby).
This is spot on!
Thaks for taking the time to pen this 👏
Thanks for voicing that, a Serbian's opinion is very relevant to this topic.
@michele0076 it takes a minute to Google this. Frano Supilo, Ante Trumbić, and many more prominent politicians championed Yugoslav nationalism up to 1918. Obviously, they changed their minds once Alexander turned out to be despot and the idea of a federal Yugoslavia was off the table, but that doesn't change the atmosphere prior to WW1.
I get that a lot of modern Croat identity is focused around not being Serbs, and lying in service of national interests is Balkan historiography 101, but I ask that you quietly internalize that there was a time when Croatia had massive non-Serbian problems, specifically, in the early 20th century. For one, Italy wanted a lot of its coast, Austrian rule was increasingly unbearable in light of Croat national awakening, the Hungarians wanted to erase the nascent Croatian identity altogether, the loyalty of Dalmatians was questionable, and Croatia had a significant Serb minority that was always going to be a thorn in their side.
On the other hand, pre-WW1 Serbia wasn't perfect, but it did have a longer democratic tradition then most, even older, states, it had adopted(and torn up) many a constitution, it had a history of large ethnic minorities in its borders. I can see why some prominent Croats saw a union with Serbs as preferable over partition, or continued Austrian rule.
To view everything in light of 2024 is forget that the people at the time weren't gifted with such powers of prophecy.
@michele0076 This is an unexpected objection, mostly in that I think it is important but unrelated to the discussion. So let me lay out what I think is the logical thread of our dissagrement? was and you tell me if I missed something.
This video paints Serbia, during the events of the annexation of Bosnia, as denying the ethnic identities of the southern Slavs and on said basis provoking war with Austria.
I, offhandedly mentioned that SOME Croatians and Slovines were in favor of Yugoslav nationalism. Just building on the narrative that Bosnia was not only plurality Serb, but also that there were intellectual currents within the non-Serb Southern Slavs that looked favorably on joining the Kindom of Serbia over say, being annexed by Austria.
You contest that there were no such voices, and point to a massacre following a protest over the annexation in 1919, ten years and a world war after the events we discuss. I admit I was confused on this point, but I wrote this second part off as irrelevant as it didn't really say anything in opposition to what I did and moved on.
I then rebut by naming some pro-Yugoslav Croatian politicians that existed in 1908 and even go so far as to outline why a Croat might look more favourably towards Belgrade then Vienna in this time.
This is where I'm quite confused now. You acknowledge that there were non-Serb pro-Yugoslav voices, but now you want to discuss whether Yugoslavia's creation had its basis in any democratic body within Croatia as an entity within AH in 1919. This quite frankly doesn't make sense, the Treaty of Saint-Germain wasn't done based on any democratic principles and I didn't claim as much. It was, as all treaties were in that time, the contest of imperial and geopolitical interest made to empower the victors and maintain peace in Europe.
So, here is my position. I'd gladly discuss the aftermath of WW1, the intents, outcomes and legitimacy of a Yugoslav state. Bu I do so with a fear that you are arguing against the voices in your head on topics that will shift until I am inevitably forced to concede out of fatigue. So, let me write out what I think might satisfy you more then any fact or argument. My moral judgment is... that Croatia deserved a sovereign state in 1918, as much as it did in 1991 and 1102. That all ethinc groups that want the same, deserve as much at least as a vague ideal that we should look to. And that the Yugoslav project was largely a disaster in execution, whether it found form in cynical Serb irridentism or political pragmatism, or idealism, communist or otherwise.
I hope you all the best in the discussions to come, my ideologically captured friend.
@michele0076 "then I will quote one of the most prolific Serbian intellectuals up to that period, prof. Jovan Cvijich (1865-1927), who denied the existence of the Croatian and Slovenian ethnos, assigning them instead the trivial attributes of "Serbian-speaking Catholics" and "Alpine Serbs"."
Can you please quote full scentence, and where have you read it, since i'm holding his "Psychological characteristics of Southern Slavs", and he writes about Slovenes and Croats without any hesitation, and quite fondly if i may add. He refers to them as a part of a broader groups of people who share similar characteristics, due to simmilar geografical area in which they developed, or hystorical factors, as for exanple "Panonian variety" of South Slavs, subgroup of which is "Alpine variety", with Slovenes and Zagreb-Zagora Croats", or "Dinarian variety" of South Slavs, where he wrote extensively about Croats, Serbs, Muslims etc. living south of Sava river.
Bosnia mentioned !!!
16:43 Bro is really telling the Serbs to make friends with Turkey 💀
1872 - The Serbian deputy in Istanbul with representatives of the Turkish government proposed the unification of the Serbian and Turkish armies. Russian General Ignatiyev rejected this possibility, fearing that Turkey aims to deprive Serbia of the tutelage of the great powers.
Something that happened more than once in history.
2:48: it’s Alexander III, not II
I’d love to see a video on the Congress Berlin next since it was kinda responsible for causing this whole crisis with its final settlement
6:02 I'm really surprised this is what you make of this considering Pan-Slavism and the idea of Yugoslavia was well established since the 1840s. Not to say that nationalistic ideas weren't used for expansion into Habsburg territory, but you didn't even mention Yugoslavia or the opposition to germanisation among the south Slavic peoples within Austria Hungary which was a major reason the Yugoslav idea could even be materialized in the first place. This makes it sound like no one even considered the idea of a unified south Slavic state. I'd say this is a skewed view of things at best.
Both perspectives are simultaneously true. While within the Monarchy the main drives for autonomy and or independence were Germanisation, Magyarisation and economic exploitation of Kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia, Serbia on the other hand really did use ethnonationalist justifications outlined in the video. These views were outlined in the 1840's by Ilija Garašanin in his work Načertanije, and has been the ideological foundation for Serb expansionism ever since.
Only what you say isn't the truth because "Načertanije" only refers to the territories under the Ottoman occupation.@@parazitkolol
@@Nista357 What you say unfortunately isn't true, because Garašanin's work was based on that of František Zach's. Zach's works planned a dissolution of the AU Monarchy and a formation of a Yugoslav empire based on panslavic ideas. Garašanin removed all mentions of Yugoslavia in his work and changed them to Serbia. Both of them wrote on uniting Serbian people seperated in both the Ottoman and the Austrian empires. The reclamation of land then deemed Serbian under the Ottoman yoke was considered only to be the first step. And even if you were right, and all I wrote here was wrong, which it isn't, later Serbian governments still used Načertanije as an ideological basis for their expansionism.
Only Serbia was interested in a Pan-Slavic nation because they would be Yugoslavia's biggest ethnic group. There was some, but not nearly as sizeable, support for those ideas in the other Yugoslav nations.
@@annurissimo1082 This is also not true. From the beginning of the 20th century up until the dissolution of AU the most popular party in Croatia-Slavonia was the Croat-Serb coalition whose main goal was the establishment of a Yugoslav nation, in which they succeeded in 1918 by forming the SHS State before merging with Serbia to become the SHS Kingdom. There were debates though in that coalition whether the Yugoslav state should be more federalist or unitary, Serbs of course advocating for unitarism, while Croats for federalism. There were also ideas floating around of Bulgaria also joining this new Yugoslav state, they themselves also being South Slavs, but Serbs weren't interested in that because, as you said, they wanted to be the most powerful group within that state, and Bulgarians would outnumber them.
This channel is legit becoming one of my favorites on yt, keep it up good sir
Protocol nitpick: When referring to Franz Conrad von Hötzenorf with only one name, the name should be "Conrad", not "Hötzendorf".
Most people, including most Austrians I have spoken to, erroneously think that "Conrad" was his second name (or middle name). In fact, "Conrad" was his surname / family name.
Von Hötzendorf was what is called "Adelsprädikat" in German; a particle attached to the surname, to indicate nobility (albeit typical of the very lowest ranks of nobility, from Barons and down).
His name should thus either be "Franz Conrad", or "Conrad", or "Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf" or "Conrad von Hötzendorf".
It should never be "Franz von Hötzendorf" or "von Hötzendorf" or "Hötzendorf".
The same convention is observed when referring to Fischer von Erlach, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Auer von Welsbach, Ditters von Dittersdorf etc.
Worth noting as well that this crisis further strained Austria-Italian relations as well, I’m surprised it wasn’t mentioned
Very good "high level" review of AH "absorbing" BH.
But would have really enjoyed more "on the ground" examples of AH actions such as AH assuming management of postal, tax, railroad, mining and trade situation in BH.
Perhaps youll do another video as a follow-up.
Thanks
Can we praise the beautiful edition? The music in the background followed the script graciously
This event was dramatized in the ninth episode of the old BBC miniseries Fall of Eagles. I like the words it uses to characterize Izvolsky: "...a cynical, unprincipled gambler who has no more regard for his friends than he has for his enemies."
I usually do not comment, but just wished to congratulate on creating such a great and thorough video! As a Serbian, I must notice that sources look pretty objective and unbiased and that you did a very good job on precise citation of your sources in every segment.
Looking forward to watch more of your videos, existing and ones to come :)
Oh no, not Conrad...
2:45 *Alexander III, not II
6:30 To be fair, panslavism was already a popular idea and a significant amount of Slavic people within the Habsburg empire were sympathetic. Obviously not all, some had similar ideas but would rather put themselves in the center, saying it is the Serbs which are in denial
Hotzendorf was the John Bolton of his time.
Unfortunately, Czar Nicholas II was not an expert in international relations. Essentially, he was outmanoeuvred by Franz Joseph and his very able advisers. The secret Treaty was intended to secure to Russia free access through the Bosporus in return for it agreeing not to object to the annexation of Bosnia Herzegovina. His understanding was that the annexation would only take place after Austria Hungary had used its influence on the Sultan to secure access for Russia. What happened, in the event, was that Austria Hungary simply proceeded with the annexation, re interpreting the secret Treaty so that their obligations were limited to not opposing Russia’s demands. The existence of this secret Treaty was highly embarrassing for the Czar, who was seen as the protector of all of the Slavic peoples. In the end, Russia had to quietly assent to the annexation, to avoid too much adverse publicity over the Treaty.
Could you do a video on the Fashoda Incident next if you can?
I'm so excited for the video! I've loved every other one thus far. There is a surprising dearth of history content on youtube for central/eastern pre ww1 political history.
Lore of the Bosnian Annexation Crisis momentum 100
After watching the entire Great War week by week series, I expect some kind of total clusterf*ck every time I hear the name von Hötzendorf
The Friedjung process and the High treason process as we call them are real interesting topics and I'm glad you covered them at least briefly
Nice video man. It was interesting to see since I am a Serb living in the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It gives perspective on how it was seen on the outside. I would like to just point out that in our view, Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs in general, it was not a case of "Serb nationalists want this or that", it was Serbs wanted to live free and united. AH rule in Bosnia was seen as nothing else but occupation and the struggle against it was nothing else but the struggle for freedom. The National Deffence a mere spy network, some of its leaders and prominent members were writers, poets, artists of various types. While the Serbian lineage alternated beetween the Obrenovic dynasty and Karadjordjevic dynasty (the first being oriented towards the AH Empire and the latter towards the Russian Empire), the annexation of Bosnia would not have been looked lightly upon by the people and Serbs from all across no matter who was in power. To this day, for us, AH Empire was nothing more but an imperial occupier and Gavrilo Princip is a heroic freedom fighter.
The National Deffence WASNT a mere spy network is what I meant to say in the comment.
@@lukakajevic7927 Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia resulted in freedom of religion and the construction of many roads, railways, factories, buildings, schools, etc. What did Princip do? Kill an anti-war reformer who wanted to give the Serbs more rights and deliberately provoke Austria-Hungary? Yeah, definitely a "hero".
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 He was a freedom fighter who fired at an occupier. Its as simple as that. Also, your version of history as an Austrian on this subject is to be expected quite biased. Not only were Serbs not in a great position, Benjamin Kalay was tasked with enticing the creation of the "Bosnian" nation, requesting that the Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina declare themselves as Bosnian in order to receive favorable treatment. You dont sugarcoat occupation.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87Princip killed Franz Ferdinand for what he represented, in his eyes. Whether Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia improved Bosnia or not, was irrelevant
There is no such as “Serb republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, go back to whatever parallel dimension you came from.
0:12 You'd be surprised to learn that the origins of this war are in 1975 Hercegovina uprising.
Be careful when skipping history
Fantastic video. Great job as always SirManatee.
I can't believe how badly the situation deteriorated for everyone in South Eastern Europe after the annexation. Very unfortunate and sad indeed that the only people calling for restraint was Franz Ferdinand who would tragically be murdered in Sarajevo with his wife.
Not falcons, hawks. Great video!
This is a nice video. I like the focus on different politicians. But somehow i feel like like there should be more of reactions and opinions from Belgrade politicians no? It is a crisis between those states yet the other side is barely mentioned. It is funny how the may coup also ended another secret agreement between Serbia and AH.
The claimant that "Serb nationalists considered other south slavs Orthodox Serbs in denial" is ridiculous to say the least.. Especially towards Croats and Slovenes. Serbian politicians at the time mostly saw Serbia as Sardiania-Piedmont in relations to other South Slavs. Croats Slovenes and Serbs were seen as "three-named people" but that is not the same as all three being Serb or Croat or Slovene. On a side note there was also a catholic Serbs in the AH, orthodoxy is not really that connected to being a Serb.
In a video about a confict between AH and primarily Serbia you spent more time talking about a supposed love affair of the Austrian cheef of staff then you did about Serbia. When the opinion of AH, Russia, the UK or France is mentioned you clarify it is the opinion or action of certain diplomats while in the case of Serbia you just say Serbia like its a single entity. When you claim Serbia saw all South Slavs as "converted" Orthodox Serbs you dont provide any source for this claim, neither do you say who actually expressed it, was it the Serbian pairlament building itself? Seeing you talk about a subject I actually know about shows how much you skip over and just ignore.
*Nachertanie* is the bible of Serbian nationalism.
@@anonymous-hz2unThe Nacertanije was based on a plan by Polish emigree and diplomat František Zach who wrote that Serbia should free and unite with all South Slavs under AH and the Ottomans and then support the liberation of Poland from AH and Russia. At the begining Garasanin wrote Nacertanije more in favot of Greater Serbia but at the time the video talks about it was already pro Yugoslav.
Anyway he doesnt even mention it, no Garasanin, no opinion of Pasic who was totally pro Yugoslavia, no nothing. Its pathetic and shovinistic and I am very disapointed with the video.
@@anonymous-hz2unIf it was so, in 1918 it would be proclaimed restoration of Serbian empire. But, sadly it wasn't. Read nachertanie first.
@@ivancertic5197 everybody knows Yugoslavia was just Greater Serbia.
@@anonymous-hz2un Why then wasn't? Why wasn't proclaimed Serbian empire, no one internationally would have objected to it, since Serbia won in the war, and already was guaranteed with Greater Serbia in London treaty?
Well, we all know (At least ones that aren't in denial) that Bosnians are indeed just Serbs that bent the knee to the Turks. Just ask the man that created Bosnia, Tvrtko was a cousin of the Serbian Royal family.
This video keeps talking of a "serbian aggresive policy" as if the Serbs were annexing territories where austrians lived and not the other way around
The claim concerning 20th cebtury serbians beleiving other south slavs, were orthodox serbians in denial is a clear attempt at slreading missinformation and antagonisation. This is a more contemporary view that took hold due to histrical illiteracy and quasi history.. Serbiahad its ambitions within bosnia as actual orthodox serbs made up a major percentage of the country.
They've been living in separate nations for several hundreds of years, but only after Serbia's meddling did national identities emerge. Provided what you say is true, it still doesn't explain Serbia's denial to accept "Bosnian" as an identity, forcing them to declare themselves as either Serbs or Croats when they did become part of Yugoslavia.
@@annurissimo1082 seperate nations? They were both part of the Ottoman empire for almost 500 years. Bosnian identity is more reliant on religion than other south slavic cultures. You cannot imply that Herzegovina Croats arent croatian or herzegovina serbs arent serbs. When it comes to serbs and croats both countries cooperated both on matters of language and panslavism even before Yugoslavia. Bosnia is an odd one out for obvious reasons as before nationalism was a thing (before the 19th century) and even long after they refered to themselves as just muslims. Croatians also didnt recohnize any sort of bosnian identity up until Tito.
@@strahinjastevic7480You make yourself the victim by saying the claim for greater Serbia is slander yet you proceed to say Bosnians have no identity past islam,excellent logic buddy
@@MagnumLoadedTractor I didnt make no one the victim, the claim for greater serbia at this time was made in accordance to "regular" orthodox serbs, not "serbs in denial" as stated here. Take it as you want it. Get a life.
@@MagnumLoadedTractor also if what im saying is false, is, there ever a catholic bosniak? Or a catholic bosnian that isnt croatian? No. Also why is this relevant anyway. As i said, this aint a "serb in denial" thing, neither did i explicitly state, that they are.
Wow, what a massive bullshit at 05:55 when you say that the ''...Government claimed that All South Slavs were Orthodox Serbs in denial". This is just utter nonsense because this was never an official position of the Kingdom of Serbia.
This was proven when in 1918 Serbia did not form some ''Greater Serbia" boogeyman state although it could, but it created the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. That sums up what a nonsense claim you made there. Right from the '90 propaganda myths. I really expected more from this channel and not this biased narrative.
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (not the one after WW2 of course) was just an illusion that Serbs and other minorities were equal (despite what it name claims). Out of 13 prime ministers, 12 were Serbs and only one was Slovenian. In fact, almost every Yugoslavian minister (whetever be foreign, interior, finance or justice) was Serbian and non-Serbians rarely got into these postions. Also, parties such as the Croatian Peasant Party still had massive issues with the government such as the assassinations of Stjepan Radic and Milan Sufflay and the 6 January Dictatorship of 1929 under Alexander I of Yugoslavia, which caused even EINSTEIN of all people to condemn the oppressive Yugoslav government. When ladko Macek wanted to improve the situation for the Croatian people, Alexander I of Yugoslavia simply arrested him until his own assassination where things slightly improved.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Have you heard of something called a democracy? Since Serb parties were largest in whole country and they ruled. Also in almost all goverments you would see members of JMO and maybe members of Slovenian people's party(Korošec)
Nachertanie is the bible of serbian nationalism and it claimed exactly that.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 is this why Banovina Croatia was formed?
@@branimirkolarov3493 wasnt there a royal dictatorship for most of its time?
Please use the community tab to announce upcoming videos!
Perfect timing for this video just as I'm visiting vodka
the warthunder plug is so funny for this highly diplomatic channel lmaoooo. War is politics by other means after all!
The background music is perfect for the subject.
Imagine being Austria-Hungary and losing your 1000 year monarchy over Bosnia.
Funnily enough, the Austrian annexation of Bosnia also led to Seebia focusing on land grabs to the south, in Ottoman Macedonia. A region which at the time, had a Bulgarian majority and very little actual Serbs within it. This obviously led to tensions, and to the 2nd Balkan war. So overall, the consequences of Austria's actions were far reaching I'd say.
Didn’t expect to see Masaryk in this one. A pleasant surprise.
6:02 Some things never change
And what are those things exactly?
Hear hear! Since 800’s.
Anyday Sir Manatee uploads is a good day !
5:30 I'm sure the Russians had nothing to do with this...
This
Austro-Hungarian non-intervention during the 1912-1913. Balkan Wars was purchased with Russian acceptance of the Bosnian annexation.
It was not saloniki it was Thessaloniki meaning victory of Thessalians
It's still Solun in some languages.
More balkan videos, please. Pretty please 😇😇
Hey fr I keep coming back to this video and recommending it to friends such an important event in the lead up to the Great War and not enough people know about it
I don't understand something here. If the Serbs wanted "to make a great Serbia and they thought that all southern Slavs were actually Orthodox Serbs in denial" as stated at the beginning of this video, why then did they create the kingdom of Yugoslavia and give equal status to other nations. Literally not a single decision in the parliament of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia could be made without the consent of the Croats.
I know that Serbs are often accused of wanting to ethnically cleanse other and make Greater Serbia during the war in the 90s, but c'mon man, listen to what you are saying and use a little logic. If they wanted to, they could have done it after the ww1.
Look into the writings of Ilija Garašanin, Vuk Karadžić, Nikola Stojanović and other prominent Serbian figures who all propagated the claim that the other south slavs are Serbs in denial and therefore that their lands should be annexed by Serbia. Stojanović even stated that the Croats would go extinct by converting to a Serbian identity.
The decision for Croatia to join in with Yugoslavia was not in the hands of the Croatian parliament, but rather the National council, an unelected body of officials who were carefully cherrypicked by the Serbs, so that they would make the decision in their favour. Just five days after Yugoslavia was formed by those unelected officials, the Croats who protested against the unification were massacred by the Serb police in Zagreb's main square. In the following 20 years, the Serbs would impose a hegemony over all other nationalities in the country, they destroyed Croatia's economy to their benefit and killed any Croat politician who opposed them. After the most prominent Croat politician Stjepan Radić was killed, the king imposed a dictatorship and absolved the Croatian parliament entirely. Yugoslavia may not have been a Greater Serbia de jure, but it was pretty damn close to it.
@@ctd325 ah,yes we sure did destroy their economy , thats why zagreb went from a suburb to the full blown city under that evil serbian hegemonic kingdom. Yes that Stjepan Radic insulted serbian contribution to the fist world war so one of the radicals demanded him to apologize and later shot him, and then king imposed dictatorship forbidding everyone from declaring themself serbian or croatian or slovinian and making everyone be 'yugoslav', ah yes ,very serbian dominated .
Croats were far better under our rule then they ever were under austrian, they had bigger representation bigger autonomy and overall more legitimate ruler.
Clearly you never read into Načertanije
Serbs are accudes but croats were one who do that clensing.They are protected from Vatican and in that time Vienna.Serbia give them country in 1918 in that favour they killed million serbs from 1941-1945,than in 90's wars they do etnhic clensing on about 500 000,and they go from land where they lived forever.So in hundred years from majority serbs becames minority in Croatia.Just so you understand something,80% of croats are former serbs,they speak serbian,they basicly dont have any historyc figure that were not serb,oldest monasteries and churches in Croatis are from serbs.They are so much poisended from Vatican and they only do dirty job for them...
@@vojatankosic7042 This guy just proved me right. He literally just repeated and parroted what Nikola Stojanović, Ilija Garašanin and Vuk Karadžić were saying 2 centuries ago. The Serbs slander the Croats by lying about Croatian history, they parrot a false narrative that the Croats are an artificial nation, and then use those lies as a justification to conquer and subdue Croatia. They attempted to do just that three times in the last century alone. Old habits die hard.
Von Hotzendorf comes across as a comic opera villain
Don’t worry Hotzendorf, your dream will be realized in five years. You can put your money where your mouth is though right? Right?
It's all about Ministers horse trading with other peoples horses. Nothing changes. Field Marshal Hortzendorf is a model for Military leadership at present it seems. Sir Manatees explains the situation is the best!!!!!!! ThanKS
not one time in this video you mentioned that in 1900s Bosnia there was a large Serbian Orthodox Population, same goes for Slavonia and Dalmatia, you make it sound like Serbia wanted Bosnia for the heck of it, not because it had milions of ethnic Serbs that have lived there for centruries
why would he mention that? goes completely against the Serbophobic narrative that the West has been trying to construct for the last three decades
you must've noticed the uptick with Habsburg apologists and fans of Ferdinand's "United States of Austria" project (which was never Ferdinand's idea in the first place)
5:56 open your ears wide, Ivan.
There was a large population but they weren't a majors by that logic us the balkans should claim germany cause there are a lot of balkaners in Germany...
This western nonsense will never stop. Serbs are the worst. The end. Don't ask them to use their brains.
Great video! I do wish you would've covered some of the stuff going on in Hungary during this time, as the subject of Bosnian annexation left a huge mark on Hungarian politics and public opinion of the period.
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the agram trial, which is unfortunate because I myself am a historian from the Austro-Hungarian and Yugoslav area (slovenia) i am satistied that Svetozar pribićević was in this trial becouse guy make bases for king Alexander dictatorship
"Just barely, Europe avoided war"
do not under any circumstances look up what happened next
Austro-Hungary really tried to be a smart-ass and piss-off three of it's neighbors in one move.
I think a lot of commentators recently paint Austria-Hungary as the innocent victim of nationalist and great power intrigues. But the Empire was the one playing with fire in the Balkans - see the Balkan wars and the creation of Albania too.
How? Austria-Hungary did not provoke the Balkan Wars, these wars happened to kick the Ottomans out of Europe and to deal with Bulgaria's expansion. And Austria-Hungary actually had every right to create an Albanian buffer state after Serbia's genocidal and expulsion campaign of Albanians (see the battle of Lume in 1912), not to mention that it threatened both Austro-Hungarian and Italian interests in the Adriatic Sea with the Russian navy gaining naval bases in Serbian ports. And maybe the Serbian government should've prevented the Black Hand under Apis' leadership (who was part of the Serbian army) to prevent Franz Ferdinand's death, so Austria-Hungary might've been more passive towards Serbia.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Did you watch the video?
@@forthrightgambitia1032 Yeah, I did. My points about your comment still stand.
Right...because Austria Hungary was in the wrong for backing albanian independence but not Serbia who wanted all of Albania for no other reason but to expand
@@average_enjoyer the problem is you think in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' in geopolitics.
I recommend reading "Towards The Flame: The End of Tsarist Russia", by Dominic Lieven. Great book, and talks about all the figures behind Russian foreign policy in this time.
The Documents were in Ivolzki's hand.
Useful video. Read a lot about downfall of Ottomans and political and societal structure that came with Habsburgs from peoples perspective, but never from a broader perspective. Thank you for this.
Imagine if the war started in 1908 GBR and France staying Neutral in a quick war.
Finally a video about this topic
A video from sir manatee! Is it Christmas!?
I told the little ones it was Christmas based on reading this comment and now I don’t have the heart to tell them I was mistaken. I’m in too deep
Watched for 5 minutes, yt displayed 4 of their ads and you put 2 of your own. too much, my friends.. too much
oh that von Hötzendorf....he was such a warmonger.
22:30 “public opinion”. the chimera of.
as if the average person in Russia in the early 20th century, even knew where Serbia, or Bosnia, were.
or cared about what the “distant” people in those places might be facing.
the average person of the time in Russia was more concerned with much closer to home issues,
like food and shelter.
I have always had an issue with the “pressure” of “public opinion” being said to be a cause of conflict.
any public opinion on the Balkan Crisis that may have existed in Russia of the time,
had been whipped up by the imperialist press in St Petersburg,
at the behest of those who stood to profit from such things.
I am very happy that the Balkans are the way we are now. We took so much abuse and came out standing, centuries later.
Let's friggin go
0:19 It matters very much. Without knowing enough backgroung you can't understand what happened and more importantly why. I understand there's not enough time for all that in such a short video. It means you need to make longer videos 😂
Awesome. Brilliant content. Danke.
Great video as always :)
8:45 Hötzendorf's warmongering was because he wanted to marry a woman of the nobility, Gina von Reininghaus, which he couldn't do because he was of low birth. So he wanted to prove his manliness
23:45 Hötzendorf concluded that Austrian mobilization and a German ultimatum can make Russia back down.
Although with obvious ambitions of being non partial, this presentation has huge stupidities and shortages:
It wasn't an intention of "liberation" of Bosnia (by Serbia), but instead of justified true liberation. Who was Bosnia ethnically consisting of and what kind of life had those ethnic- and religious groups lived?
Bosnian Serbs were the biggest ethnic-religious group there, living supressed since Bosnia got occupied by the Muslims (Ottomans), i.e. living as serfs for about 500 years! Christian peasant in Bosnia (and serbian by ethnicity) was a main figure of taxed people in feudal ottoman system. One third of an annual crop was taken from them, they (as non Muslim, so called "non- faithful" by Ottomans) were not allowed to ride a horse, to have a drain for smoke from the home owen, were supposed to give bride to the local muslim lord (the rule of the first wedding night), etc.
Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of the austrian heir to the throne, mentioned that he and his family originate from such surfs by many generations and that such life in Bosnia, preserved by Austro-Hungary (-A.U. had not changed it, making Bosnia the last pocket of feudalism in progressive Europe of that time), was- and still is very hard, bitter, unjust.
So, annexation of Bosnia by Austria was an act of imperialistic politics of Austria-Hungary, buying Bosnia from dying Ottoman Empire, while bosnian Serbs were longing to finally free themselves from muslim-feudal rule and from the rule of a new foreign empire and even join with their ethnic brothers in Serbia, which is pretty human and justified under such circumstances and history.
Instead, Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia, practicing anti serbian policy, forming and running infamous Schutzkorps, discriminating and suppressing bosnian Serbs and anything with serbian in it's name. Most of those who converted to Islam and hasn't moved with the retreating ottomans, LIKED that, making the main part of such terror- and support forces of austrian annexation.
How big genius one has to be to understand what happened next under such circumstances?
Yet, a real one, if one doesn't know these facts, ignored in this video.
Could you do a video on the “great Russian lie to Bulgaria” and the lasting impact it’s had.
Would allow you to also cover Macedonia and Thrace.
It's fine! It's not like this wil cause a 4 year long major global conflict.
While there is some merit in the idea geography influences history, which no one can deny, I'm always struck by the manor in which the personalities of singular men have inflamed nations towards war, often for selfish or at least vain reasons. Stick a different personality in a couple of these different men and this situation need not escalate into a diplomatic crisis that helped mark the steps on the road to the July Crisis.
How is it that whenever i wonder about something in history, you seem to always upload a video on the theme i was thinking about, last month it was about fiume !
Hands away from Serbian Bosnia.
This video is so comically one-sided. The entire Serbian geopolitical thinking and national self-conception are to be blamed (with lots of misleading stuff being said in the video) while, in Austria-Hungary, the actual ultra-conservative empire between the two, it's just a handful of bureaucrats who should've done better lol
So Serbia is the bad guy when it claims its right in a country where 45% of the population is Serbs, and the AH empire is the good guy when it annexes a country it never had before, nor does it have its own population there.
Nice angle. I would say Germanic imperial.
Yes, most probably.
"So Serbia is the bad guy when it claims its right in a country where 45% of the population is Serbs"
Same as Serbia claiming Kosovo, a region where over 90% of the people are Albanians.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 yes, because they deported and chased all away
Why did Serbia annex Kosovo and Macedonia when those provinces had a very small serbian population and little connection to serbian culture? Why did Serbia push to annex all of Albania despite having no claim to the land? Serbian imperialism at its finest.
@@average_enjoyer Little connection to Serbian culture. Omg. Just go and get a 🧠 please. But please.
In early Middle Ages Bosnia was couple hundred years part of either Serbia or Croatia (925- 1102). But Posavina, Unska (until 1527), Tropolje and Hercegovina which were part of Croatia and were stolen from Croatia after 1102, given to Bosnia by either Hungary or Ottomans to Bosnia. For. e.g. Petar Kružić died for Bihać. Hercegovina and Tropolje were Dalmatian. From 1322 Bosniq claim Hercegovina and other.
Very good.. What is lacking in the program is the feelings of the bosnian people. Really, what did bosnians think? Did they really wanted to be a part of the AH empire?, Or, serbia?
Secondly, AFAIK serbs vere very hostile to turks and to islam.. When aiming for the unity of south slavs, how did they plan to deal with the fact that bosnians were muslims?
That's a very interesting question! For this video, I decided to focus on the perspective of the Great Powers at the time because it was first and foremost a European affair. I will maybe one day make a video where I look at Habsburg Bosnia and its inhabitants
I want to be left alone. No America and no Russia, they are fake and Zionist/Kabbalist Satanist Freemasons, they are one team acting on TV as different and opposed to each other.
I dont want to pay taxes or carry a piece of plastic with me that is supposedly me and so on, and also circumcision is Judaism, Islam is fake, orthodox Christianity is FAKE, ancient Rome and Greece are fake, nukes are fake, the news is literally fake, the elections are completely fake not just rigged, and it is a TV show, so people call me crazy, maybe they will even kill me for saying how I see the world. Fake people everywhere, sellouts everywhere, satans took over everything.