Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?

[CalBear]

@CalBear, you're our only hope! Please close down this salt mine!

Not going to do that.

May give a few folks some time on the bench to cool off.

 

[jessicajsscjs]

@CalBear, you're our only hope! Please close down this salt mine!

Why would you want a threat closed?

If you don't want to debate just exist the conversation. No one is forcing you to read comments.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The Serbs weren't exactly saints ,u know ?

Vs the Terroristic Serbia expanding, from two previous Wars in the area?

You know what the Serbs had been doing to the Albanians, yes?
And that's in addition to the 1903 coup, and later with FF.
They had been behaving badly for a long time.

Not really sure what this is supposed to establish?

Some Serbs do bad things so it's ok for A-H to send an ultimatum that would effectively turn them into a puppet state and trigger a global war if they refused? The UK would love to have stayed out of a Balkan conflict but this time the Germans chose not to seek a diplomatic solution to supposed Serbian transgressions (in1912 it was having the temerity to win a war) which triggered the whole WW1 mess

 

[Deleted member 160141]

Why would you want a threat closed?

I came here for interesting information, the flow of which stopped around page 10, to be replaced with screaming and quibbling.
Thus, I'm at least mildly interesting in cutting down the flow of feces back to manageable levels, or perhaps close this thread down so that another may be started with maybe some of the full-on screaming retards removed. I haven't given up hope quite yet.

If you don't want to debate just exist the conversation. No one is forcing you to read comments.

Well that's the point: this isn't a debate. It used to be informative, but now it's devolved into a shit-flinging match, because nobody is listening to anyone else and it's all about how much shit you can fling at the opponent while avoiding having to admit that maybe you were wrong on something.

Maybe a few people should get their feefees in order, dry their tears and apply some powder to their assholes, and then maybe get back to playing in a civilized manner.
As it is, the amount of butthurt on display here is easily enough to get a few people kicked.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I came here for interesting information, the flow of which stopped around page 10, to be replaced with screaming and quibbling.
Thus, I'm at least mildly interesting in cutting down the flow of feces back to manageable levels, or perhaps close this thread down so that another may be started with maybe some of the full-on screaming retards removed. I haven't given up hope quite yet.

Well that's the point: this isn't a debate. It used to be informative, but now it's devolved into a shit-flinging match, because nobody is listening to anyone else and it's all about how much shit you can fling at the opponent while avoiding having to admit that maybe you were wrong on something.

Maybe a few people should get their feefees in order, dry their tears and apply some powder to their assholes, because this actually has some potential.
As it is, the amount of butthurt on display here is easily enough to get a few people kicked.

Are you the same person who posted

That's either a bad-faith argument or an indication you've mistaken WW1 for WW2.

Yes, and you alone paid for it. How does it feel to be arseplowed by your own colony? I imagine it must feel quite wonderful.

That was all Churchill's doing. He goaded the Indians, he broke them up in such a way that they'd be guaranteed to fight once they left British rule, same as every other colony (Cyprus, Palestine, etc).
He could have kept the Indians as late as 1939 if he'd just given them home rule and Dominion status; after the war, though, nobody was going to want any of that after the Bengal Starvation 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Well, what can you expect of Muslims and Hindus, amirite? Again, Churchill knew what he was working with, and he played it expertly.

Please turn that into a coherent sentence I cannot bear to read it it's so godawful!

You're fucked, and you don't even have the benefit of a big home country like America's. Also, for more info, see these videos.
Honestly, Britain and America can both go to hell; god knows, their collective efforts turned ~3/4 of the world to shit (and the rest is covered by France and Germany).

Because you don't really seem to be following your own guidance?

 

[Deleted member 160141]

Are you the same person who posted

Because you don't really seem to be following your own guidance?

Okay, fair enough.
Still better than 90% of posters here after the Great Shitstorm started, though, most of whom are actually dedicated followers of the thread and have contributed several dozen posts of such low caliber, except they're even less informative.

 

[CalBear]

I am not going to individually call you out, but there are at least three members postin in this thread who would be well advised back off and stop the catfighting and overly argumentative posts right bloody now.

No one in this thread want's me to be called back into it.

This is a general warning. Next action, if any, will start with Kick(s).

Play nice or don't play.

 

[VVD0D95]

Bit late to the thread. But I think morally? Yes, Britain had to enter World War One when Belgium was invaded. They had to honour their commitment in the treaty thay led to Belgium creation. In thr long term? I don’t think so. The world would’ve been very different, and in my view perhaps a bit better had they not entered and rhe mess that followed never happened.

 

[Aghasverov]

Damn, feel like I've missed out on something by skipping this one over for the past couple days... I need to get caught up

 

[Aghasverov]

I am not sure how this is an argument. The 1st Balkan war started due to the 1912 Albanian rebellion which saw hundreds of thousands of Serbs killed. The 2nd started due to a Bulgarian preemptive attack. Would Germany sit idly whilst Russia killed all of its Volga and Baltic German population? Would Germany sit down feebly and do nothing if one of its neighbors attacked?

2nd Balkan War began b/c the Serbs welched on an agreement that they had made with the Bulgarians for a more "equitable" division of Vardar Macedonia... the Macedonians themselves felt more akin to the Bulgarians than they did to the Serbs... Serbia wound up taking it ALL. They would've taken northern Albania as well if the great powers hadn't stepped in - despite the inhabitants being uhhh... not Serbs. I'm sure perfect amity between the various ethnic groups and religions would've reigned
There was one eminently territorially aggressive entity in the Balkans from, oh, 1817 to 1914 - and that was Serbia....
(Image is of the agreed-to partition of Macedonia between Serbia and Bulgaria in the 1st BW)

 

[Aghasverov]

I don't think I have seen such a heated discussion that didn't devolve into a fist fight (figuratively)

Oh, there was another one a few months back on the origins/outcome of WWI that turned into a (figurative) blood-bath... so bad the original poster asked for it to be locked IIRC... some of the same players involved as in this one, myself included

 

[TRH]

Well, at least it's not a Game of Thrones thread.

 

[Hawabin]

Well, at least it's not a Game of Thrones thread.

they dissolve into personal accusations too fast.

 

[TDM]

2nd Balkan War began b/c the Serbs welched on an agreement that they had made with the Bulgarians for a more "equitable" division of Vardar Macedonia... the Macedonians themselves felt more akin to the Bulgarians than they did to the Serbs... Serbia wound up taking it ALL. They would've taken northern Albania as well if the great powers hadn't stepped in - despite the inhabitants being uhhh... not Serbs. I'm sure perfect amity between the various ethnic groups and religions would've reigned
There was one eminently territorially aggressive entity in the Balkans from, oh, 1817 to 1914 - and that was Serbia....
(Image is of the agreed-to partition of Macedonia between Serbia and Bulgaria in the 1st BW)
View attachment 630251

Bosnian Crisis 1908 tells us Serbia had some competition for that claim

TBH I hadn't been thinking of going back as far as 1817 (which is almost 60 years prior to the Serbian war of independence against the Ottomans?), but there's also 1878

Or put it this way while its certain the Serbian Black hand and Serbian nationalists were pulling some strings and enabling this and most definitely looking to promote their agenda with the death of an AH Arch Duke, it's not random chance that happened in Sarajevo and by a Bosnian Group

 

[NthBelisarius]

I find it hilarious that none of the pro-CP posters have responded to Sarthaka providing evidence Germany committed itself to war days before Russia decided to mobilise. I wonder why...?

Regarding OP, I think Britain had to intervene both morally and geopolitically. Morally, treaties need to mean something, otherwise the international community becomes more of an anarchy where you can never trust your fellow state's word.

Geopolitically, it depends on whether Germany actually knocks France out quickly. In the event it did, then Germany would be European hegemon. More importantly, they would be hegemon whilst having had their aggressive militarism vindicated by success, they'd hardly become less militaristic following a short successful war. In that scenario, Britain would suddenly find itself facing a hegemon that wants to subjugate it.

 

[Erzherzog_Karl]

That is why the parties all agree to subject themselves to the outcome. that how this stuff works. You are right the parties could have not accepted the outcome of course, but there's always the option to have a war later. The primary goal of this was to prevent war then and there, on the general underlying principle that any day where there's not at war between the great powers of Europe, is a good day. Even if it would also hoped that reasonable people would find a long term solution that works for all.

Not among Great Powers. We have a history of many of them not signing such charters after conflicts or such mediation. Furthermore, after the general mobilization of Russia and with Germany entering the State of Imminent Danger of War this would also no longer be possible. Before Germany enters such a state, diplomatic ventures were continued but with the mobilization it was a foregone conclusion. Like was acknowledged by every high ranking politician from France to Russia to Germany. You take face-saving measures and propaganda actions at face value instead of going deep into the material and look at the motivations and thoughts behind the actions.

Case in point Poincare: "When Renoult asked him in the train from Dunkirk to the capital whether a political settlement among the great powers was still possible, Poincaré replied: ‘No, there can be no settlement. There can be no arrangement.’ " Train from Dunkirk 28 July

Similar comments can be found from German, Russian and British side. The moment mobilization had been decided, the dice had fallen. Russia could not let Srebia fall without losing face on a massive scale and felt compelled to intervene. Germany would not forgoe their last Great Power ally. France would never let Russia face Austria and Germany alone. Everyone felt compelled to act through outside forces.

You are right but to be frank that's Germany's problem, and the requirements of Germany's chosen solution to their specific dilemma are not a compelling reasons for anyone else.

...okay so let's ignore the reason for one side and only account for the interests of the other. That seems reasonable. Accordingly, the interests of each side can be discarded on your say so. Making the argument about motivations etc. moot. Do you get the double standard you apply here?

And of course AH has no history in the region of provoking or being disparaging etc, and those actions you quote are the only ones that took place in this time period.

Of course, it has, and I have never stated otherwise. This is like Israel vs Palastina or any other state with horrible history against another vs that nemesis. But just because it is reciprocated does not mean these acts are not true or did not poison the relations further. These were just acts in response to the assassination of Ferdinand. A relatively short time period, but the important one, because it was what led directly to WW1.

A-H was understandably upset about the murder of the heir of the Empire. At that moment you do not agitate them further but should try to accommodate them if you don't want to escalate the situation. Even just doing nothing would have been better. Trying to portray a nation mocking their nemesis after such a loss as peaceful or exhibiting such behavior is just plain wrong.

And here's were we really get to it, AH might makes right, right? So OK AH can also suffer the repercussions for acting against Great powers right?

Let me first say this, spaghetti posting is bad faith arguing and picking out sentences from arguments to then make a case against is not arguing in good faith.

No, we don't. It boils down that you can only push another nation so far till they react. We can see similar actions done by nearly every nation in history. Israels Yong Kipur War and Seven Days War, America's Invasion of Afghanistan, Japan against Russia, US vs Mexico and the Balkan States vs Ottoman Empire.
Military actions(war) was still deemed a just measure for great powers to resolve their issues and we many examples out of this era that showcase that.

That is up to Germany to decide. But by the time mediation results would have been approved, all sides would have been mobilized adequately. Germany decided to invade the day it mobilized. Russia decided to send peace offers on the day it mobilized. There is a fundamental difference to those reactions. Germany could accept russian mobilization in 1912 against German allies in the Ottoman Empire and pointed at the Hague Tribunal themselves in 1912 , but could not accept it in 1914. Hypocritical no?

First it has to be mentioned that Germany was from the Great Powers involved the one at the calmest state at that moment, it had not even reached the State of Imminent Danger of War, which equivalent the Russians were beyond and the same went for France. Next, to compare a state of danger for an 'ally' and for themselves is different for every state on the planet. That is hypocritical, you are right there. But I want to see the nation that puts an ally on the same level of interest as their own.

Another point on the day of Russian Partial Mobilization 29 July, the Kaiser got a telegram from the Tsar threatening ‘extreme [Russian] measures that would lead to war’. But hey it is always easier to go for one document among many that supports your view, right?

"Late in the night of 29–30 July, a telegram from Sazonov arrived at the Russian embassy in Paris informing Izvolsky of the German warning. Since Russia could not back down, Sazonov wrote, it was the Russian government’s intention to ‘accelerate our defence measures and to assume the likely inevitability of a war’. Izvolsky was instructed to thank the French government, on Sazonov’s behalf, for its generous assurance ‘that we can count absolutely on the support of France as an ally’.53 Since the Russians had already advised France of the earlier decision to launch a partial mobilization (against Austria only), it can be inferred that Sazonov’s ‘acceleration’ referred to an imminent Russian general mobilization, a measure that would indeed make a continental war virtually inevitable." - Sleepwalkers​

​

It is just plain wrong to suggest Russia and France did not want war with their actions. When Russia commenced their full mobilization with the outright support from France, they did see it leading to war and did it anyway. To then just shift blame away from this act is just pathetic.

And? Britain made a plan to invade the USA in Spanish American War. The USA made a plan to invade Canada in the interwar years. Nepal made a plan to partition Tibet with the PRC in the 1950s, the French planned to intervene in Spain in the 1930s, etc etc. Plan =/= actual situation on the ground when it breaks open. Germany and France both stayed rigid with their 'attacking neutrals like there's no tommorow' and 'offensive doctrine with such a low manpower background' plans respectively and were unwilling to change. The blame for that lies solely with Germany and France themselves.

This is whataboutism. In the next post you state me doing that and here you are doing it. How can these be compared to what I state? Germany faced an existential threat and had, on which historians nowadays agree all-around, only the ability to sustain and win a short war. If your point is an aggressive war is never justified, that is fine your opinion not mine, but else this is not relevant to what I stated. It completely disregards Germany's strategic position, the established and accepted opinions of the politicians and military leaders as well as the threat they faced. Any comparison not taking these things in account falls short.
Ironically one of the best examples is Israel for an astute comparison is Israel.

This is whataboutism. Germany was considered a guarantor of Belgian neutrality as it was considered the successor state to Prussia who signed the treaty of 1839. Mediation would have anulled any reason for Belgium to prepare as Albert I decided on July 31st otl and would have allowed Germany to invade without much resistance at all unlike otl, stretching the French even more thin.

Nonetheless, your analogy is not a useful one. It was Austria-Hungary's ultimatum which broke Serbian constitutional rights, and Austria-Hungary was holding a gun to Serbia's head for following its own constitution. Germany was more than willing to give A-H bullets with their blank check. Russia was an ally of Serbia and decided to raise a gun at Austria-Hungary to step back. Germany seeing that their ally may have been asking a little wee too much decided to raise its own guns as well whilst France did the same whilst Britain looked at its own gun wondering whether or not to raise it. That is a more apt description of what happened otl.

If your analogy is to be used then Bethmann-Hollwegg and Falkenhayn should have agreed with the Kaiser along with Jagow and Moltke on the 27th that war was averted instead of declaring preliminary wartime laws on the 27th. The gun pointing at Germany's face if your analogy is to be used was a making of their own.

No, it is not whataboutism. I established the reason for the actions of Germany and why they pursued a certain cause. You may call this cause wrong, deceitful or whatever else, but these statements are not whataboutism. You cannot on the one hand disregard these circumstances and then uphold the constitution of Serbia as the one irrefutable standard in the world.
Your point about changing the goal post once more is as obvious as unnecessary. But Liege the key fortress was already reinforced before Germany even mobilized making it doubtful that they would somehow change their agenda just because of something like that. Furthermore, I am utterly doubtful of this mediation going forward. Austria had already declared war on Serbia and was on the move. Russia would not have let that stand. It was an obvious political move to portray one side as the aggressor, like stated France moved brilliantly in this area, but it was not genuine. France had given Russia carte blanche to start an European War through actions on the Balkan years before and given full support for them mobilizing. They wanted war, not peace.

I dispute that the constitution of Serbia was broken through the ultimatum. It was just the justification they put forward and rings as false as their proclamation regarding criminal law.

"6. The Royal Government considers it its duty as a matter of course to begin an investigation against all those persons who have participated in the outrage of June 28th and who are in its territory. As far as the cooperation in this investigation of specially delegated officials of the I. and R. Government is concerned, this cannot be accepted, as this is a violation of the constitution and of criminal procedure. Yet in some cases the result of the investigation might be communicated to the Austro-Hungarian officials."

I call bullshit on the constitution and on the criminal procedure. It is an obvious falsehood to reject the ultimatum. The rejection was carefully crafted but looking at it in response to their actions after the assassination, like their appalling investigation, disregard of Austrian feelings and contempt to their questions regarding assistance it rings mocking and not sincere.

Your analogy ingores that Russia was given a carte blanche by France to start a general war through the Balkan long before this crisis. It ignores the act of assassination, ignores that Russia mobilized against Germany before Germany even declared the State of Imminent Danger of War whichs equivalent was already in place in France and Russia, but whatever. You are clearly stuck on a certain story line and bend things your way whatever the case.

And? What of it?
Britain's plan otl in ww1 hinged on sending 200,000 men to France and let them deal with it.
Did that happen? No, of course not. But Britain adapted.
France's plan hinged on an invasion of the Ruhr. Did that happen? No, but France adapted to a more defensive strategy that allowed them to defend Verdun.
Germany on the other hand was still trying a proto-Schlieffen plan in 1916 as per Falkenhayn and von Bulow's own writings. It is categorically a shame to call the German military prestigious if they were that rigid and unwilling to adapt per the situation. Willingness for peace implies that they would have accepted negotiations. Jagow didn't even hear the Tribunal's offer for mediation and sent the ambassador back to Holland without even hearing him, on the orders of not the military, but Bethmann-Hollwegg, ie the civilian government which had no say in the military workings of the empire. That is not the actions, civilian or military government, of a state wanting peace, or a peaceful non-hegemonic europe at all.

This is whataboutism. You take out one singular instance and extrapolate everything from there. From this one instance you recategorize everything. I disagree with you, on the importance on this instance. I find it wrong to uphold this instance as the defining one. Why is the last bad attempt at peace the deciding one and not the major actions of escalation done by Russia? The first state to go forward with a general mobilization, sends out threats to other countries and ignores the call for peace by the other side. You use a remarkable double-standard. One thing is declared to matter above all and the rest is disregarded.

This is an utterly simplistic view with no basis in history. Britain's ultimatum to America in 1861 over the Trent Affair was negotiated, the Anglo-French ultimatum to Russia was negotiated, even though negotiations soon fell which led to the Crimean War, the Russian ultimatum to the Ottoman Empire in 1830 was negotiated and war was averted, etc etc. Going by simple definitions only, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or North Korea, and the German People's Democratic Republic or East Germany were paragons of democracy, but they aren't.

If an ultimatum is given, there is no guarantee you can negotiate. Exceptions to the rule do not disprove this. You ignore the earlier attempts by A-H to get Serbia to play nice. They asked for assistance and were essentially laughed out of the office. They asked for the Serbian government to please put a lid on their demagogue press, nationalistic circles, secret organizations etc. In this period Serbia disregarded all of these requests and displayed an abnormal sense of hostility. If this ultimatum was uttered a mere moment after the assassination, there would be some case for A-H going overboard, but they did try and got the middle finger in response.

They were gearing for war and an acceptance of this was the last chance for Serbia to prevent war. Considering how you so easily put the ball in Germany's camp regarding peace, it is surprising that here you go the opposite way, but wait not surprising. Bias just comes through.

I have agreed that the Serbians themselves reacted badly, but i seem to be unable to find an answer as to why Serbia is going to break its own constitution to answer an Austrian ultimatum? That is something that has never been done since the concept of constitution was laid down.

I dispute that the constitution and criminal law really stood in the way of this. And to use the notion of someone else it kind of sounds like a Serbian problem and not an Austrian one... okay really bad jokes aside, I find the notion of the Austrian being allowed to be overseeing the investigation to break their constitution a highly doubtful statement. International observers and Haag, which did not precede the Serbian constitution are okay but Austrian ones are not. Consider me not convinced. Like stated it was a carefully worded letter meant to portray them as reasonable, while being an outright rejection in truth. They had assurances form Russia and Russia had them from France that they could go for it and therefore did.

Even Hollwegg after the assassination told the German Reichstagg that the assassination was not pretext for war enough to go to war with Serbia, before the military pressured him to give the blank check. Italy stated the same thing, so did France, so did the Three Pashas in the Ottoman Empire, so did the Russians, so did the Hague. It was grounds for an international and Austrian led investigation yes, and purging of the Serbian military involved in the organizations, but pretext for war was not considered by any other great power other than Austria in June.

And? To repeat something you obviously like to do. It does not matter if all the world thought something at some particular moment. I can cite peopel for the opposing view. There a quotes from Russians condemning this act to hell and state if it happened to their Czar they would crush the puny state. They were troubled over on the one hand condemning all such vile assassinations of nobles and on the other hand to not give up their support for Serbia.
In your whole line of reasoning you ginore the subtext and interests of the person you quote to support your point. A Russina, France etc. statement support a Serbian view is worthless. A statement from Hollwegg shortly after the assassination and not after or in correlation to the ultimatum and the acts of Serbia after this are not applicable. The situation was not static and changed sometimes from day to day and other times form hour to hour. Hardly any one statement was absolute representation of their opinion, because guess what the opinion of these people changed during this crisis.

This is funny considering the Ottoman regicide of Serbs during the Balkan Wars as well, and the Austrian expulsion of Mujahirs from Bosnia. This is what we call bad faith diplomacy on part from Austria, you realize?

It is an example of Serbia really not handling the diplomatic channels to Austria that well. How is this bad faith? We assume that comment was not badly intentioned but considering the bad blood between the two sides and with the recent regicide in Serbia that put the current king into power still in Austrian minds the comment could have been easily be miscontrued. A classical case of something sounding right in the mind but spoke out loud it sounds really bad.

This was before the ultimatum. The Serbians replied to the ultimatum that they would conduct investigation with representatives with all members of the Hague Tribunal present to supervise their investigation as a part of their response. Something that even the Kaiser and Reichstagg found completely reasonable.

And? You like to do that so what? Does this change what they did there? If you piss someone off, things do not change just because you promise to do better. This is not how things work and like stated A-H had more than reasonable cause to be disbelieving regarding these measures. Serbia already did an ivestigation and came up with nothing and now they would have had even more time to hide any kind of evidence. Such obstructiveness is not a good sign and not something an innocent party would do. It portrays a bad picture and that picture is not gone with one promise.

Till date no investigation modern or from the 20th century has implicated the entire Serbian state or government with the assassination and Black Hand. So yes, the Austrian recrimination was quite unprovoked to invade an entire country and kill 40% of its male population in response to 2 killings.

Just their leader and Avis, but hey your standards are not mine. You shift the goal post again and agian. There is a difference between the murder of a common soldier and the assassination of the heir of a monarchy where the monarch retains substantial power. But hey, you ignore such things again and again. So whatever.

 

[Belisarius II]

Really so what you would have us sit it out and let Germany take control of Europe. Yes millions died on all sides and treasure was spent but freedom is more important. Should we have kept out of WW2 most no and it’s a big no how many of Europe’s Citizens would have been murdered in cold blood if we did not stop Hitler. Did the UK lose its Empire yes were we broke yes we were did we depend on America for hand outs yes to some extent but America wanted an end to our Empire no matter what. The loan that we were given at the end of Lend Lease was very restrictive it mostly had to be spent on American goods. If you look at the TiZara mission that went to the states you will see that what we gave freely was worth its weight in gold. As to the empire well you will find that we planned to give it up any way it’s just a crying shame it was rushed especially in Indian that idiot Mountbatten should have been shot on the spot he rushed it and what happened hundreds and thousands died for no reason. Mind you the Indian political leaders were also to blame in a big way tragic very tragic. However we have the common wealth so in one way it’s still there. Look at the state America is in now in debt to China for trillions hardly any medical cover for most of its population thousands living in trailer parks whole towns with hardly any jobs but still trying to dominate the world which it does but at the expense of its citizens for gods sake you have nut jobs walking in to shops buying guns and just killing people for no sane reason. So who will have the last laugh the UK or America I’d say the UK we have free universal health care citizens in real houses etc etc why simple we do not have to fork out billions on a empire.

A few facts if you please. In WWII the United States didn't want to end the British Empire "no matter what." They wanted to end Imperial preference, so she could trade in those markets. Mountbatten didn't pick the date for the British to leave. He was given a free hand in dealing with partition, but the date of British departure was a drop date set in London. China owns about $1.07 trillion of U.S. Debt, less then the $1.26 trillion held by Japan. People buying your Debt instruments is a sigh of strength, not weakness. They think your country is a safe place to invest in. Most Americans do have heath insurance, though we have 30 million uninsured, and the system needs a lot of work.

Health insurance coverage in the United States is provided by several public and private sources. During 2019, the U.S. population overall was approximately 330 million, with 59 million people 65 years of age and over covered by the federal Medicare program. The 273 million non-institutionalized persons under age 65 either obtained their coverage from employer-based (159 million) or non-employer based (84 million) sources, or were uninsured (30 million). During the year 2019, 89% of the non-institutionalized population had health insurance coverage.[1] Separately, approximately 12 million military personnel (considered part of the "institutional" population) received coverage through the Veteran's Administration and Military Health System.[2]

The U.S. has several rust belts, but so does the UK, and it health care system is a source of many complaints, and it's hardly free, you pay taxes out of you butts for it. Violence yes you got us there, though that varies widely from state to state, and 60% of gun deaths are suicides. In 2019 The USA spent 3.41% of GDP on National Defense, which makes it a very low price for global security.

 

[Riain]

@NthBelisarius ..........I find it hilarious that none of the pro-CP posters have responded to Sarthaka providing evidence Germany committed itself to war days before Russia decided to mobilise. I wonder why...?........

This thread is too long and filled full of cherry-picked details used to back up the already entrenched positions people have. However I'd like to know what is 'Pro CP'? Is this someone who place blame on the Entente directly, or rather someone who thinks the blame can be spread evenly?

Th e problem with threads like this, and the reason I said my piece early on and then bailed for a few days rather than engaged is because these sorts of moralistic threads always go the same way: they dive deeper down rabbit holes looking for the 'Gotcha!' moment like these historical events are internet trolls needing to be cancelled.

Trying to pin blame on who's trains arrived first is ludicrous, it is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of Political-Military relations in the years prior to WW1. I think people would be better served not looking at the events of July 1914 but those across the entirety of 1912 for reasons why things played out as they did. In any case searching for blame using 2021 standards of behaviour, and more importantly assumptions that people knew or even could know what we know now is pointless.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Not among Great Powers. We have a history of many of them not signing such charters after conflicts or such mediation. Furthermore, after the general mobilization of Russia and with Germany entering the State of Imminent Danger of War this would also no longer be possible. Before Germany enters such a state, diplomatic ventures were continued but with the mobilization it was a foregone conclusion. Like was acknowledged by every high ranking politician from France to Russia to Germany. You take face-saving measures and propaganda actions at face value instead of going deep into the material and look at the motivations and thoughts behind the actions.

Case in point Poincare: "When Renoult asked him in the train from Dunkirk to the capital whether a political settlement among the great powers was still possible, Poincaré replied: ‘No, there can be no settlement. There can be no arrangement.’ " Train from Dunkirk 28 July

Similar comments can be found from German, Russian and British side. The moment mobilization had been decided, the dice had fallen. Russia could not let Srebia fall without losing face on a massive scale and felt compelled to intervene. Germany would not forgoe their last Great Power ally. France would never let Russia face Austria and Germany alone. Everyone felt compelled to act through outside forces.

...okay so let's ignore the reason for one side and only account for the interests of the other. That seems reasonable. Accordingly, the interests of each side can be discarded on your say so. Making the argument about motivations etc. moot. Do you get the double standard you apply here?

Of course, it has, and I have never stated otherwise. This is like Israel vs Palastina or any other state with horrible history against another vs that nemesis. But just because it is reciprocated does not mean these acts are not true or did not poison the relations further. These were just acts in response to the assassination of Ferdinand. A relatively short time period, but the important one, because it was what led directly to WW1.

A-H was understandably upset about the murder of the heir of the Empire. At that moment you do not agitate them further but should try to accommodate them if you don't want to escalate the situation. Even just doing nothing would have been better. Trying to portray a nation mocking their nemesis after such a loss as peaceful or exhibiting such behavior is just plain wrong.

Let me first say this, spaghetti posting is bad faith arguing and picking out sentences from arguments to then make a case against is not arguing in good faith.

No, we don't. It boils down that you can only push another nation so far till they react. We can see similar actions done by nearly every nation in history. Israels Yong Kipur War and Seven Days War, America's Invasion of Afghanistan, Japan against Russia, US vs Mexico and the Balkan States vs Ottoman Empire.
Military actions(war) was still deemed a just measure for great powers to resolve their issues and we many examples out of this era that showcase that.

First it has to be mentioned that Germany was from the Great Powers involved the one at the calmest state at that moment, it had not even reached the State of Imminent Danger of War, which equivalent the Russians were beyond and the same went for France. Next, to compare a state of danger for an 'ally' and for themselves is different for every state on the planet. That is hypocritical, you are right there. But I want to see the nation that puts an ally on the same level of interest as their own.

Another point on the day of Russian Partial Mobilization 29 July, the Kaiser got a telegram from the Tsar threatening ‘extreme [Russian] measures that would lead to war’. But hey it is always easier to go for one document among many that supports your view, right?

"Late in the night of 29–30 July, a telegram from Sazonov arrived at the Russian embassy in Paris informing Izvolsky of the German warning. Since Russia could not back down, Sazonov wrote, it was the Russian government’s intention to ‘accelerate our defence measures and to assume the likely inevitability of a war’. Izvolsky was instructed to thank the French government, on Sazonov’s behalf, for its generous assurance ‘that we can count absolutely on the support of France as an ally’.53 Since the Russians had already advised France of the earlier decision to launch a partial mobilization (against Austria only), it can be inferred that Sazonov’s ‘acceleration’ referred to an imminent Russian general mobilization, a measure that would indeed make a continental war virtually inevitable." - Sleepwalkers​

​

It is just plain wrong to suggest Russia and France did not want war with their actions. When Russia commenced their full mobilization with the outright support from France, they did see it leading to war and did it anyway. To then just shift blame away from this act is just pathetic.

This is whataboutism. In the next post you state me doing that and here you are doing it. How can these be compared to what I state? Germany faced an existential threat and had, on which historians nowadays agree all-around, only the ability to sustain and win a short war. If your point is an aggressive war is never justified, that is fine your opinion not mine, but else this is not relevant to what I stated. It completely disregards Germany's strategic position, the established and accepted opinions of the politicians and military leaders as well as the threat they faced. Any comparison not taking these things in account falls short.
Ironically one of the best examples is Israel for an astute comparison is Israel.

No, it is not whataboutism. I established the reason for the actions of Germany and why they pursued a certain cause. You may call this cause wrong, deceitful or whatever else, but these statements are not whataboutism. You cannot on the one hand disregard these circumstances and then uphold the constitution of Serbia as the one irrefutable standard in the world.
Your point about changing the goal post once more is as obvious as unnecessary. But Liege the key fortress was already reinforced before Germany even mobilized making it doubtful that they would somehow change their agenda just because of something like that. Furthermore, I am utterly doubtful of this mediation going forward. Austria had already declared war on Serbia and was on the move. Russia would not have let that stand. It was an obvious political move to portray one side as the aggressor, like stated France moved brilliantly in this area, but it was not genuine. France had given Russia carte blanche to start an European War through actions on the Balkan years before and given full support for them mobilizing. They wanted war, not peace.

I dispute that the constitution of Serbia was broken through the ultimatum. It was just the justification they put forward and rings as false as their proclamation regarding criminal law.

"6. The Royal Government considers it its duty as a matter of course to begin an investigation against all those persons who have participated in the outrage of June 28th and who are in its territory. As far as the cooperation in this investigation of specially delegated officials of the I. and R. Government is concerned, this cannot be accepted, as this is a violation of the constitution and of criminal procedure. Yet in some cases the result of the investigation might be communicated to the Austro-Hungarian officials."

I call bullshit on the constitution and on the criminal procedure. It is an obvious falsehood to reject the ultimatum. The rejection was carefully crafted but looking at it in response to their actions after the assassination, like their appalling investigation, disregard of Austrian feelings and contempt to their questions regarding assistance it rings mocking and not sincere.

Your analogy ingores that Russia was given a carte blanche by France to start a general war through the Balkan long before this crisis. It ignores the act of assassination, ignores that Russia mobilized against Germany before Germany even declared the State of Imminent Danger of War whichs equivalent was already in place in France and Russia, but whatever. You are clearly stuck on a certain story line and bend things your way whatever the case.

This is whataboutism. You take out one singular instance and extrapolate everything from there. From this one instance you recategorize everything. I disagree with you, on the importance on this instance. I find it wrong to uphold this instance as the defining one. Why is the last bad attempt at peace the deciding one and not the major actions of escalation done by Russia? The first state to go forward with a general mobilization, sends out threats to other countries and ignores the call for peace by the other side. You use a remarkable double-standard. One thing is declared to matter above all and the rest is disregarded.

If an ultimatum is given, there is no guarantee you can negotiate. Exceptions to the rule do not disprove this. You ignore the earlier attempts by A-H to get Serbia to play nice. They asked for assistance and were essentially laughed out of the office. They asked for the Serbian government to please put a lid on their demagogue press, nationalistic circles, secret organizations etc. In this period Serbia disregarded all of these requests and displayed an abnormal sense of hostility. If this ultimatum was uttered a mere moment after the assassination, there would be some case for A-H going overboard, but they did try and got the middle finger in response.

They were gearing for war and an acceptance of this was the last chance for Serbia to prevent war. Considering how you so easily put the ball in Germany's camp regarding peace, it is surprising that here you go the opposite way, but wait not surprising. Bias just comes through.

I dispute that the constitution and criminal law really stood in the way of this. And to use the notion of someone else it kind of sounds like a Serbian problem and not an Austrian one... okay really bad jokes aside, I find the notion of the Austrian being allowed to be overseeing the investigation to break their constitution a highly doubtful statement. International observers and Haag, which did not precede the Serbian constitution are okay but Austrian ones are not. Consider me not convinced. Like stated it was a carefully worded letter meant to portray them as reasonable, while being an outright rejection in truth. They had assurances form Russia and Russia had them from France that they could go for it and therefore did.

And? To repeat something you obviously like to do. It does not matter if all the world thought something at some particular moment. I can cite peopel for the opposing view. There a quotes from Russians condemning this act to hell and state if it happened to their Czar they would crush the puny state. They were troubled over on the one hand condemning all such vile assassinations of nobles and on the other hand to not give up their support for Serbia.
In your whole line of reasoning you ginore the subtext and interests of the person you quote to support your point. A Russina, France etc. statement support a Serbian view is worthless. A statement from Hollwegg shortly after the assassination and not after or in correlation to the ultimatum and the acts of Serbia after this are not applicable. The situation was not static and changed sometimes from day to day and other times form hour to hour. Hardly any one statement was absolute representation of their opinion, because guess what the opinion of these people changed during this crisis.

It is an example of Serbia really not handling the diplomatic channels to Austria that well. How is this bad faith? We assume that comment was not badly intentioned but considering the bad blood between the two sides and with the recent regicide in Serbia that put the current king into power still in Austrian minds the comment could have been easily be miscontrued. A classical case of something sounding right in the mind but spoke out loud it sounds really bad.

And? You like to do that so what? Does this change what they did there? If you piss someone off, things do not change just because you promise to do better. This is not how things work and like stated A-H had more than reasonable cause to be disbelieving regarding these measures. Serbia already did an ivestigation and came up with nothing and now they would have had even more time to hide any kind of evidence. Such obstructiveness is not a good sign and not something an innocent party would do. It portrays a bad picture and that picture is not gone with one promise.

Just their leader and Avis, but hey your standards are not mine. You shift the goal post again and agian. There is a difference between the murder of a common soldier and the assassination of the heir of a monarchy where the monarch retains substantial power. But hey, you ignore such things again and again. So whatever.

If we drag it back to why the UK should or should not have joined WW1 then preventing a single nation decide what another sovereign state should do within its own borders is probably a strong enough reason.

And before you accuse me, a Brit, of hypocrisy I will plead guilty on my country's historical record. But that doesn't mean that we were right to interfere in other states or that those states weren't right to resist (Boer Wars would be the most recent example in this WW1 timeframe). But it's difficult to see how the First World could have been avoided once Germany decided to back Austria Hungary to the hilt. They did have a choice, they could have gone to a treaty like in 1912 but they decided not to. They had no idea that the war would wreck their nation (and other nations) but they were prepared to start a war that would have had to have had as a minimum hundreds of thousands of casualties to enforce the right of their allies to dominate their neighbouring states.

Given that scenario, Britain would probably have reasonably asked itself how long it would be before they would be facing Germany and allies, made stronger by a successful war against France and Russia, by themselves. And perhaps they convinced themselves that if they didn't join in August 1914 that they would be in an impossible position a decade later.

 

[Belisarius II]

Not among Great Powers. We have a history of many of them not signing such charters after conflicts or such mediation. Furthermore, after the general mobilization of Russia and with Germany entering the State of Imminent Danger of War this would also no longer be possible. Before Germany enters such a state, diplomatic ventures were continued but with the mobilization it was a foregone conclusion. Like was acknowledged by every high ranking politician from France to Russia to Germany. You take face-saving measures and propaganda actions at face value instead of going deep into the material and look at the motivations and thoughts behind the actions.

Case in point Poincare: "When Renoult asked him in the train from Dunkirk to the capital whether a political settlement among the great powers was still possible, Poincaré replied: ‘No, there can be no settlement. There can be no arrangement.’ " Train from Dunkirk 28 July

Similar comments can be found from German, Russian and British side. The moment mobilization had been decided, the dice had fallen. Russia could not let Srebia fall without losing face on a massive scale and felt compelled to intervene. Germany would not forgoe their last Great Power ally. France would never let Russia face Austria and Germany alone. Everyone felt compelled to act through outside forces.

...okay so let's ignore the reason for one side and only account for the interests of the other. That seems reasonable. Accordingly, the interests of each side can be discarded on your say so. Making the argument about motivations etc. moot. Do you get the double standard you apply here?

Of course, it has, and I have never stated otherwise. This is like Israel vs Palastina or any other state with horrible history against another vs that nemesis. But just because it is reciprocated does not mean these acts are not true or did not poison the relations further. These were just acts in response to the assassination of Ferdinand. A relatively short time period, but the important one, because it was what led directly to WW1.

A-H was understandably upset about the murder of the heir of the Empire. At that moment you do not agitate them further but should try to accommodate them if you don't want to escalate the situation. Even just doing nothing would have been better. Trying to portray a nation mocking their nemesis after such a loss as peaceful or exhibiting such behavior is just plain wrong.

Let me first say this, spaghetti posting is bad faith arguing and picking out sentences from arguments to then make a case against is not arguing in good faith.

No, we don't. It boils down that you can only push another nation so far till they react. We can see similar actions done by nearly every nation in history. Israels Yong Kipur War and Seven Days War, America's Invasion of Afghanistan, Japan against Russia, US vs Mexico and the Balkan States vs Ottoman Empire.
Military actions(war) was still deemed a just measure for great powers to resolve their issues and we many examples out of this era that showcase that.

First it has to be mentioned that Germany was from the Great Powers involved the one at the calmest state at that moment, it had not even reached the State of Imminent Danger of War, which equivalent the Russians were beyond and the same went for France. Next, to compare a state of danger for an 'ally' and for themselves is different for every state on the planet. That is hypocritical, you are right there. But I want to see the nation that puts an ally on the same level of interest as their own.

Another point on the day of Russian Partial Mobilization 29 July, the Kaiser got a telegram from the Tsar threatening ‘extreme [Russian] measures that would lead to war’. But hey it is always easier to go for one document among many that supports your view, right?

"Late in the night of 29–30 July, a telegram from Sazonov arrived at the Russian embassy in Paris informing Izvolsky of the German warning. Since Russia could not back down, Sazonov wrote, it was the Russian government’s intention to ‘accelerate our defence measures and to assume the likely inevitability of a war’. Izvolsky was instructed to thank the French government, on Sazonov’s behalf, for its generous assurance ‘that we can count absolutely on the support of France as an ally’.53 Since the Russians had already advised France of the earlier decision to launch a partial mobilization (against Austria only), it can be inferred that Sazonov’s ‘acceleration’ referred to an imminent Russian general mobilization, a measure that would indeed make a continental war virtually inevitable." - Sleepwalkers​

​

It is just plain wrong to suggest Russia and France did not want war with their actions. When Russia commenced their full mobilization with the outright support from France, they did see it leading to war and did it anyway. To then just shift blame away from this act is just pathetic.

This is whataboutism. In the next post you state me doing that and here you are doing it. How can these be compared to what I state? Germany faced an existential threat and had, on which historians nowadays agree all-around, only the ability to sustain and win a short war. If your point is an aggressive war is never justified, that is fine your opinion not mine, but else this is not relevant to what I stated. It completely disregards Germany's strategic position, the established and accepted opinions of the politicians and military leaders as well as the threat they faced. Any comparison not taking these things in account falls short.
Ironically one of the best examples is Israel for an astute comparison is Israel.

No, it is not whataboutism. I established the reason for the actions of Germany and why they pursued a certain cause. You may call this cause wrong, deceitful or whatever else, but these statements are not whataboutism. You cannot on the one hand disregard these circumstances and then uphold the constitution of Serbia as the one irrefutable standard in the world.
Your point about changing the goal post once more is as obvious as unnecessary. But Liege the key fortress was already reinforced before Germany even mobilized making it doubtful that they would somehow change their agenda just because of something like that. Furthermore, I am utterly doubtful of this mediation going forward. Austria had already declared war on Serbia and was on the move. Russia would not have let that stand. It was an obvious political move to portray one side as the aggressor, like stated France moved brilliantly in this area, but it was not genuine. France had given Russia carte blanche to start an European War through actions on the Balkan years before and given full support for them mobilizing. They wanted war, not peace.

I dispute that the constitution of Serbia was broken through the ultimatum. It was just the justification they put forward and rings as false as their proclamation regarding criminal law.

"6. The Royal Government considers it its duty as a matter of course to begin an investigation against all those persons who have participated in the outrage of June 28th and who are in its territory. As far as the cooperation in this investigation of specially delegated officials of the I. and R. Government is concerned, this cannot be accepted, as this is a violation of the constitution and of criminal procedure. Yet in some cases the result of the investigation might be communicated to the Austro-Hungarian officials."

I call bullshit on the constitution and on the criminal procedure. It is an obvious falsehood to reject the ultimatum. The rejection was carefully crafted but looking at it in response to their actions after the assassination, like their appalling investigation, disregard of Austrian feelings and contempt to their questions regarding assistance it rings mocking and not sincere.

Your analogy ingores that Russia was given a carte blanche by France to start a general war through the Balkan long before this crisis. It ignores the act of assassination, ignores that Russia mobilized against Germany before Germany even declared the State of Imminent Danger of War whichs equivalent was already in place in France and Russia, but whatever. You are clearly stuck on a certain story line and bend things your way whatever the case.

This is whataboutism. You take out one singular instance and extrapolate everything from there. From this one instance you recategorize everything. I disagree with you, on the importance on this instance. I find it wrong to uphold this instance as the defining one. Why is the last bad attempt at peace the deciding one and not the major actions of escalation done by Russia? The first state to go forward with a general mobilization, sends out threats to other countries and ignores the call for peace by the other side. You use a remarkable double-standard. One thing is declared to matter above all and the rest is disregarded.

If an ultimatum is given, there is no guarantee you can negotiate. Exceptions to the rule do not disprove this. You ignore the earlier attempts by A-H to get Serbia to play nice. They asked for assistance and were essentially laughed out of the office. They asked for the Serbian government to please put a lid on their demagogue press, nationalistic circles, secret organizations etc. In this period Serbia disregarded all of these requests and displayed an abnormal sense of hostility. If this ultimatum was uttered a mere moment after the assassination, there would be some case for A-H going overboard, but they did try and got the middle finger in response.

They were gearing for war and an acceptance of this was the last chance for Serbia to prevent war. Considering how you so easily put the ball in Germany's camp regarding peace, it is surprising that here you go the opposite way, but wait not surprising. Bias just comes through.

I dispute that the constitution and criminal law really stood in the way of this. And to use the notion of someone else it kind of sounds like a Serbian problem and not an Austrian one... okay really bad jokes aside, I find the notion of the Austrian being allowed to be overseeing the investigation to break their constitution a highly doubtful statement. International observers and Haag, which did not precede the Serbian constitution are okay but Austrian ones are not. Consider me not convinced. Like stated it was a carefully worded letter meant to portray them as reasonable, while being an outright rejection in truth. They had assurances form Russia and Russia had them from France that they could go for it and therefore did.

And? To repeat something you obviously like to do. It does not matter if all the world thought something at some particular moment. I can cite peopel for the opposing view. There a quotes from Russians condemning this act to hell and state if it happened to their Czar they would crush the puny state. They were troubled over on the one hand condemning all such vile assassinations of nobles and on the other hand to not give up their support for Serbia.
In your whole line of reasoning you ginore the subtext and interests of the person you quote to support your point. A Russina, France etc. statement support a Serbian view is worthless. A statement from Hollwegg shortly after the assassination and not after or in correlation to the ultimatum and the acts of Serbia after this are not applicable. The situation was not static and changed sometimes from day to day and other times form hour to hour. Hardly any one statement was absolute representation of their opinion, because guess what the opinion of these people changed during this crisis.

It is an example of Serbia really not handling the diplomatic channels to Austria that well. How is this bad faith? We assume that comment was not badly intentioned but considering the bad blood between the two sides and with the recent regicide in Serbia that put the current king into power still in Austrian minds the comment could have been easily be miscontrued. A classical case of something sounding right in the mind but spoke out loud it sounds really bad.

And? You like to do that so what? Does this change what they did there? If you piss someone off, things do not change just because you promise to do better. This is not how things work and like stated A-H had more than reasonable cause to be disbelieving regarding these measures. Serbia already did an ivestigation and came up with nothing and now they would have had even more time to hide any kind of evidence. Such obstructiveness is not a good sign and not something an innocent party would do. It portrays a bad picture and that picture is not gone with one promise.

Just their leader and Avis, but hey your standards are not mine. You shift the goal post again and agian. There is a difference between the murder of a common soldier and the assassination of the heir of a monarchy where the monarch retains substantial power. But hey, you ignore such things again and again. So whatever.

You are so immersed into what people said, while reacting to the crisis, that you forgot what the crisis was about. What were the objectives of Germany & AH in the Summer of 1914? AH wanted to invade, and annex Serbia. AH know Russia wouldn't allow that, so they held off till they got a blank check from Germany. What did the German Generals want? A preemptive war with Russia. To achieve their goal they pushed AH to attack Serbia. Did AH want a war with Russia? No, they thought the Germans would prevent Russian intervention. Why did they think that? Because the German Generals misled them. Do you think AH would attack Serbia with only 4 armies facing Russia, if they knew 7 of 8 German armies would be invading France, so they would be pretty much on their own for 2 months? Of course not, so why did they do it? Because the Germans didn't tell their allies their plans, and just let them assume they would take action against Russia.

So what can we gather from these facts? First that AH wanted war with Serbia, and Germany wanted war with Russia. Second that the German General Staff manipulated their allies into taking an action they never would have done, if they knew the facts. Third that the GGS manipulated the Kaiser, and his Government with psychological blackmail into initiating a General European War they didn't want. Now if you have evidence that in June 1914 France & Russia wanted a war with Germany please share it with us. In over 100 years no such evidence has surfaced. Saying you have no choice but to stand with your allies isn't the same thing as showing aggressive intent. Declaring war, and invading other countries is proof of aggressive intent.