The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant.
And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908:
"For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]"
Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!)
It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war.
Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."
Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary.
I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal.
But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars.
The Balkan wars you mention are exactly the reason why Austria prepared and wanted the war against Serbia: they estimated it would be a fast win, as Serbia's resources must have been drained in these wars.
They somewhat miscalculated how the other countries would react and the World War ensued:
No, Germany's actions actually make pretty good sense.
Remember that the Archduke was shot in June. A month before Austria-Hungary declared war. In this hesitation, France tried to heavily influence the United Kingdom to participate.
The Entente alliance between France and Russia was what the Germans had feared in a war with either power. That if they attacked Russia, France would join, and vice versa. This led to the creation of the Schlieffen Plan. The idea was simple: First subdue France by a huge force and then take Russia.
The thinking was that Russia would take too long to mobilise its troops to be ready, and in the meantime, the Germans could (in 4 weeks according to the plans) force France to surrender. Then the armies could be moved across the continent and be ready for Russia.
Beyond the fact that generals have made changed to the plans since its initial creation in 1905 (such as lessening the imbalance in troop deployment between East and West), the plan also made certain inaccurate implication; particularly regarding Russian mobilisation. Or rather, they did not anticipate the success of the French ambassador to Moscow in convincing the Russians to attack before they were ready (which cost them an entire army), but still forced the Germans to redraw two entire corps from the Western front to the Eastern front.
Germany tried to telegram France and Russia whether they would participate. Russia's mobilisation was a confirmation of the fact, while France simply replied 'France will do what is in her best interests'. Germany took that as France will come to Russia's aid. Which also makes sense, because France was really hoping to undo the damage of 1870 and win back Alsace-Lorraine.
The United Kingdom was at first incredibly reluctant to get involved in a war on the continent. But France insisted that if Germany violates Belgian neutrality (which they did on 3 August), it would be a direct violation of the 1830 London Conference regarding Belgian neutrality.
Germany thought the British would not be foolish enough to go to war over 'a piece of paper' as the German Foreign Minister told the British ambassador when he delivered the declaration of war.
And all because Germany had promised Austria-Hungary they would come to their aid in the event of war.
It is not without reasoning that Otto von Bismarck himself was opposed to the annexation of Elsaß-Lothringen, because it would create an unneeded rivalry between Germany and France. Had France not had that interest, France would probably have been far less inclined to participate.
Not a month, it was only 3 days between: 28 July, 1 August. And the war of Austria was against Serbia. But Germany was fully ready to both declare the war on Russia and attack France, in 4 and 5 days (first Luxembourg). No country is so prepared and ready by accident. Germans were obviously waiting for that too.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28 June. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. That's a month.
And it's the period between 28 June and 28 July that real negotiations and build up happened.
And yes, Germany was ready. After the second Balkans War, Austria was interested in a war with Serbia. But while Germany supported Austria, Germany insisted that it would not be ready for such a war (anticipating a Russian response) until mid-1914, and responded to Austria (in 1911) to that effect.
> Germany insisted that it would not be ready for such a war (anticipating a Russian response) until mid-1914 and responded to Austria (in 1911) to that effect.
And mid-1914 it was.
> it's the period between 28 June and 28 July that real negotiations and build up happened
And obviously all that buildup on German side was not only that month, but planned and executed for years, per your 1911 reference.
The month was used by the French to convince the British to participate. My point is; had Austria-Hungary acted faster, Britain might have entered the war too late to help the French.
> Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state
This is not correct, after all the countries that were created after WW1 and then again after WW2 were "Yugoslavia", not "Serbia".
In both of these countries ethnic nationalism (be it Serb, Croat or Bosnian) was suppressed by the authorities, even using violence or by putting such opposition behind prison bars.
In the second version of Yugoslavia after WW2 not even ethnic nationalism but even religion has been viciously oppressed as it was the only thing remaining that separated Croats from Serbs and so on.
Also Young Bosnia (the organisation that planned and executed the assassination) did not have a Pan-Serbian state as the goal, but instead a Pan-Slavic state.
Creating a Pan-Serbian state would also have never made any sense, as there is no way to successfully integrate Croats and Bosnians in such an experiment.
The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant.
And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-...
Even that presence since 1878 was the result of Empire's goals to keep the Slavic people separated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877
"For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]"
Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war.
Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."