Learning from the past: the July crisis

"The July Crisis" is the term for period between the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the commencement of World War One, when intense diplomatic activity was underway (and diplomatic activity continued during the war - see here). I recently came across the BBC series "37  Days" online (I had been looking for it for quite some time, and it has evidently been up for some years, so the time needed to find it was frustrating). 

As always with such documentaries (and series / films), once I'd viewed it, I started doing some quick online checking, and I found that the Wikipedia entry on the July Crisis has been very considerably improved. 

A few points I hadn't noted previously (and they may well have been there) include: 

• the Austro-Hungarian Empire had decided to go to war on the 24^th June - before the Archduke was assassinated; 
• the Austro-Hungarian Empire intended to "destroy" Serbia, and Russia was planning to form an alliance to destroy the Austro-Hungarian Empire; 
• the critical delay in the Austro-Hungarian Empire presenting an ultimatum to Serbia was, in addition to soldiers having to help with the harvest,  also connected to the travel plans of France's President and Premier - by ship to and from Russia to discuss the crisis, with Germany blocking radio transmissions during the return trip; 
• Russia's move from partial to general mobilisation is now described by one historian as "critical"; and 
• several of the nations / people involved expected (German Chancellor  Bethmann  Hollweg, General Helmuth von Moltke) or warned (Hungarian Prime Minister  István  Tisza, the UK's Foreign Secretary  Edward  Grey) that events would escalate quickly to a general European or even a world war.
  

I was already aware that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was, unlike the portrayal in the BBC series, and active participant in the lead up to its invasion of Serbia, but that is better outlined in the current version of the Wikipedia article, in my opinion. 

Also, in my opinion: 

• Rasputin being in hospital meant he could not exert a restraining influence on the Russian Tsar, as he had allegedly done previously; 
• if the invasion of Serbia had happened quickly (within a week or two), it is quite possible that World War One would not have broken out then, but ... 
• so many nations / Empires / people were determined to have a war, terrible though that would likely have been (although the Austro-Hungarian Empire did not do so well it invaded Serbia ... ), it would almost certainly have occurred eventually ... 
• the list of coincidences (especially around the assassination itself), the poor, bad and non communication - and the blatant lies, the deliberate undermining (including not passing on the German leader's change of mind at a late stage in the crisis, with hints that the military would stage a coup d'état), the appalling decision making (including in the militaries, most of whom [not all] were blind to the effects of technology - and Russian War Minister General Vladimir  Sukhomlinov had no provision for partial mobilisation), the confluence of personal flaws, and the widespread ineptness of "leadership" (including the failure of German socialists, and delivering multiple versions of declarations of war) required to turn the assassination into World War One makes the occurrence of that war farcical - a terrible, terrible, terrible tragedy, but one that happened out of a complete and utter farce, in my opinion;
  
• IF World War One hadn't occurred, the book "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!: A World without World War I" by Richard  Ned  Lebow has some interesting thoughts on the good and bad options that could have eventuated (things might not necessarily have all been good). Of course, that war did occur, and the world would never be the same again ... As Sir Edward Grey said: "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time".
  

I suspect the revised article reflects recent research / work by historians, including Professor  Christopher  Clark, which shows the ongoing value of the study of history - although the dangers of historical  revisionism must also be kept in mind.