The end of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy
We were very happy with the results of our long term study of political argumentation: Four types of argumentation rules fit 219 of the total of 231 political arguments of Dutch politicians and these rules were in general obvious to a sample of the Dutch ordinary citizens. However did politicians from other countries argue similarly when making choices? If they did, we could show that at least in Western societies these argumentation rules are commonly used.
So Irmtraud searched for available documents and found minutes of meetings of crucial decisions like the initiation of World War I and II and the prevention of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. In the following she would like to present a short story about the initiation of World War I based on the argumentation of the Austrian-Hungarian Council of Ministers in July, 1914.
So Irmtraud searched for available documents and found minutes of meetings of crucial decisions like the initiation of World War I and II and the prevention of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. In the following she would like to present a short story about the initiation of World War I based on the argumentation of the Austrian-Hungarian Council of Ministers in July, 1914.
Background of this crucial decision of the Dual Monarchy, Austria-Hungary
Since centuries Austria-Hungary dominated large parts of the Balkans because of its wars against the Ottoman Empire. Croatia-Slavonia, for instance, belonged to Hungary while Dalmatia was possessed by Austria. In the second half of the nineteenth century Balkan nationalism and Russian-inspired Pan-Slavism spread over this region. Austria-Hungary tried to protect its territories from these ideas. In 1878, the Great Powers had agreed that Austria-Hungary administrated Bosnia-Herzegovina which was released from the Ottoman Empire. Also neighbouring Serbia had achieved its independence and became a kingdom. Till 1903 Serbia had good relations with Austria-Hungary but thereafter it changed its policy. Serbia then aimed at constructing a southern Slavonic state under its leadership with the consent of Russia. However, it had no agreement of Russian military assistance in the event of war with Austria-Hungary. In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to protect its territories from attacks by Serbs.
Since centuries Austria-Hungary dominated large parts of the Balkans because of its wars against the Ottoman Empire. Croatia-Slavonia, for instance, belonged to Hungary while Dalmatia was possessed by Austria. In the second half of the nineteenth century Balkan nationalism and Russian-inspired Pan-Slavism spread over this region. Austria-Hungary tried to protect its territories from these ideas. In 1878, the Great Powers had agreed that Austria-Hungary administrated Bosnia-Herzegovina which was released from the Ottoman Empire. Also neighbouring Serbia had achieved its independence and became a kingdom. Till 1903 Serbia had good relations with Austria-Hungary but thereafter it changed its policy. Serbia then aimed at constructing a southern Slavonic state under its leadership with the consent of Russia. However, it had no agreement of Russian military assistance in the event of war with Austria-Hungary. In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to protect its territories from attacks by Serbs.
The assasination of the Archduke and his wife
When the Austrian heir to the throne and his wife visited Sarajevo in June, 1914 this region was as powder keg. Although the archduke and his wife were not well-liked by emperor Franz Joseph I. and his subjects, their assassination in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 by Bosnian students who apparently had been supported by Serbia, was felt as a threat to the Great Power status of the monarchy in the Balkans and to its future prestige. Since neither the finances nor the army were in a condition to wage a prolonged war with Serbia, the government first discussed the matter with its German ally. Germany readily offered its military support and encouraged Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Nevertheless, the responsible decision makers were still hesitating, and a month elapsed between the assassination and the declaration of war.
When the Austrian heir to the throne and his wife visited Sarajevo in June, 1914 this region was as powder keg. Although the archduke and his wife were not well-liked by emperor Franz Joseph I. and his subjects, their assassination in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 by Bosnian students who apparently had been supported by Serbia, was felt as a threat to the Great Power status of the monarchy in the Balkans and to its future prestige. Since neither the finances nor the army were in a condition to wage a prolonged war with Serbia, the government first discussed the matter with its German ally. Germany readily offered its military support and encouraged Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Nevertheless, the responsible decision makers were still hesitating, and a month elapsed between the assassination and the declaration of war.
The meetings of the Council of Ministers , July 7-19, 1914
In this crucial situation the common council of ministers had to make the decision. It consisted of five ministers and had to make a unanimous choice. The members of this decision making body were the common minister of foreign affairs, the common minister of finance, the common minister of war and the Austrian and Hungarian prime ministers.
The common minister of foreign affairs considered two strategies, doing nothing or declaring immediately war on Serbia. Doing nothing would only lead to a negative outcome: The Balkan states would consider it as a sign of weakness and join with Russia against them. He rejected this strategy since it led only to negative results.
When they would immediately declare war on Serbia they had the unconditional support of Germany and would reverse the development in the Balkans. But it was possible to get in war with Russia. The minister recommended to declare immediately the war because it was also possible that they could restore order in the Balkans without war with Russia. His choice can be described by searching a strategy were also a positive result was possible. We called this rule the Reversed Simon rule. Except for the Hungarian prime minister, all other ministers agreed with this choice.
In this crucial situation the common council of ministers had to make the decision. It consisted of five ministers and had to make a unanimous choice. The members of this decision making body were the common minister of foreign affairs, the common minister of finance, the common minister of war and the Austrian and Hungarian prime ministers.
The common minister of foreign affairs considered two strategies, doing nothing or declaring immediately war on Serbia. Doing nothing would only lead to a negative outcome: The Balkan states would consider it as a sign of weakness and join with Russia against them. He rejected this strategy since it led only to negative results.
When they would immediately declare war on Serbia they had the unconditional support of Germany and would reverse the development in the Balkans. But it was possible to get in war with Russia. The minister recommended to declare immediately the war because it was also possible that they could restore order in the Balkans without war with Russia. His choice can be described by searching a strategy were also a positive result was possible. We called this rule the Reversed Simon rule. Except for the Hungarian prime minister, all other ministers agreed with this choice.
The Hungarian priminister opposed
The Hungarian prime minister, in contrary, argued that when they would immediately declare war on Serbia it was highly probable that the Balkan states would become their enemies and they would wage a deadly war with Russia. So he preferred to deliver an ultimatum to Serbia with heavy but feasible demands and if it did not accept it to initiate war. In his opinion it was highly probable that Serbia would accept their demands, which would restore the prestige of the monarchy in the Balkans. It is clear that he chose the option where the probability of a positive result was higher, what we called the Risk-avoiding rule.
The Hungarian prime minister, in contrary, argued that when they would immediately declare war on Serbia it was highly probable that the Balkan states would become their enemies and they would wage a deadly war with Russia. So he preferred to deliver an ultimatum to Serbia with heavy but feasible demands and if it did not accept it to initiate war. In his opinion it was highly probable that Serbia would accept their demands, which would restore the prestige of the monarchy in the Balkans. It is clear that he chose the option where the probability of a positive result was higher, what we called the Risk-avoiding rule.
Emperor Franz Joseph accepted the view of the majority
Then the Austrian prime minister argued that the ultimatum with feasible demands might also lead to no improvement of their position in the Balkans. He therefore proposed, in order to make a compromise, to deliver an ultimatum with infeasible demands and to initiate the war which they certainly would win with the aid of Germany so that their position in the Balkans would be restored. The minister chose the alternative which certainly leads to a positive outcome which Simon´s rule describes.
Although the Hungarian prime minister had a different view the common minister of foreign affairs went do the emperor to communicate the majority choice. The emperor also received in a letter the opinion of the Hungarian prime minister. The latter warned him that an immediate declaration of war enhanced the probability to a world war with the fall of the monarchy, while an ultimatum with feasible demands would avoid this devastating outcome and might also lead to a satisfactory answer (Reversed Simon rule). But Franz Joseph I. accepted the view of the majority. Finally also the Hungarian prime minister abided and an ultimatum with unfeasible demands was delivered to the Serbs. The war started and the local conflict widened to a Great Power conflict.
Then the Austrian prime minister argued that the ultimatum with feasible demands might also lead to no improvement of their position in the Balkans. He therefore proposed, in order to make a compromise, to deliver an ultimatum with infeasible demands and to initiate the war which they certainly would win with the aid of Germany so that their position in the Balkans would be restored. The minister chose the alternative which certainly leads to a positive outcome which Simon´s rule describes.
Although the Hungarian prime minister had a different view the common minister of foreign affairs went do the emperor to communicate the majority choice. The emperor also received in a letter the opinion of the Hungarian prime minister. The latter warned him that an immediate declaration of war enhanced the probability to a world war with the fall of the monarchy, while an ultimatum with feasible demands would avoid this devastating outcome and might also lead to a satisfactory answer (Reversed Simon rule). But Franz Joseph I. accepted the view of the majority. Finally also the Hungarian prime minister abided and an ultimatum with unfeasible demands was delivered to the Serbs. The war started and the local conflict widened to a Great Power conflict.
The quality of the argumentation
On the one hand we saw that the same argumentations and rules were used, we had earlier detected, which was very satisfactory. But on the other hand, we were astonished that the responsible Austrian decision makers simplified this crucial decision, considering only aspects of prestige of the monarchy and restoration of the order at the Balkans. No further consequences like the enlargement of the war, the amount of deaths and the intentions of the Germans were discussed. Only the Hungarian prime minister was worried about a larger war and the ruin of the monarchy. But finally his colleagues forced him to consent with the majority.
When World War I. ended in 1918 the Austrian and German empires ceased to exist. Millions of people had died and large parts of Europe were destroyed. The severe conditions of the peace treaty were a reason for Germany to start World War II.
On the one hand we saw that the same argumentations and rules were used, we had earlier detected, which was very satisfactory. But on the other hand, we were astonished that the responsible Austrian decision makers simplified this crucial decision, considering only aspects of prestige of the monarchy and restoration of the order at the Balkans. No further consequences like the enlargement of the war, the amount of deaths and the intentions of the Germans were discussed. Only the Hungarian prime minister was worried about a larger war and the ruin of the monarchy. But finally his colleagues forced him to consent with the majority.
When World War I. ended in 1918 the Austrian and German empires ceased to exist. Millions of people had died and large parts of Europe were destroyed. The severe conditions of the peace treaty were a reason for Germany to start World War II.