Talk:Alois Lexa von Aehrenthal

Clean Up
This, and several related articles about the diplomatic procession toward WWI, are in dire need of clean up. And a uniformity through dates verification. I will endeavor to do so in coming weeks. Kirkesque (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag for neutrality
I am reading Chritopher Clark's 2012 study of the causes of thWW1 - the Sleepwalkers and have just read the section on the annexation of Bosnia-Herzogovina. he is very critical of the attitude taken br the Russian  izvolsky

" the evidence suggests that the crisis took the course it did because Izvolsky lied in the most extravagant fashion in order to save his job and reputation. The Russian foreign minister had made two serious errors of judgement [firstly] that London would support his demand for the opening of the Turkish Straits to Russian warships - [and] he grossly underestimated the impact of the annexation on Russian nationalist opinion - [when] - he got wind of the press response in St Petersburg, he realized his error, panicked, and began to construct himself as Aehrenthal's dupe." The years following the annexation crisis, in an atmosphere of increased 'chauvinist popular emotion', and with a sense of humiliation in a sphere of vital interest, now saw the Russians launch a programme of military investment 'so substantial that it triggered a European arms race.' -

The lead looks very biased against this Austrian  man  - maybe the historians views are changing -  I think the article maybe needs looking at and certainly the  'he engineered the Bosnian crisis' needs looking at - it was agreed between Russia and Austia by the sound of it - albeit in  hugger-mugger kinds of way which is unfortunate but those were the 'tools of old diplomacy' Sayerslle (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement "he (Arenthal) pressed ahead" is not only factually erroneous, but is decidedly slanted. First, Franz Joseph signed the declaration of the annexation. Arenthal simply negotiated it. Second, in English, "he pressed ahead" implies that he went forward with the plan in the face of opposition. You can hardly say that in the face of Izvolsky's signature on the Buchlau agreement of September 1908.

Also, it is extraordinary to assert that Arenthal "engineered" the crisis, since Izvolsky initiated the dialogue in a letter of 2 July 1908, proposing the quid pro quo offer of Russian support for Bosnian annexation in return for Austrian support for Russian naval access thru the Dardanelles.

There is also a not so subtle ethnic prejudice. This article tells us how Arenthal thought as a German and then how he thought as a Hungarian, without a single quotation. From this, one must presume that the author of the article personally knew Arenthal, and, from their many conversations, gained a deep understanding of Graf von Arenthal's mental processes.

Finally you have the completely pejorative and insulting phrase, "partner in crime", applied to Arenthal.

In short, this article is biased and lacks the detachment and fairness that Wikipedia is known for.
 * Wiki follows the reliable secondary sources--of which Clark's book is prominent. the rule is at WP:BIASED and reads  However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. what is not allowed is bias on the part of wiki editors.  Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)