AHC: WWI ends status quo ante bellum

That's close to what I was thinking.

Personally...

Settlement between Serbia and Austria-Hungary in July or August. There were offers to mediate, IIRC.
 

Perkeo

Banned
You misunderstand me. I meant (in response to an earlier message) that both sides would "collapse before they agreed to [a white peace]". The governments involved dared not come back without a victory.
I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.
Can you imagine this scenario:
The nations rulers say: "We all have seen that we've made a terible mistake and so we stop it before even more pepole suffer and die", and the soldiers in the trenches answer: "No, we want to continue starving, wading in the mud getting shot at by machine guns, bombarded by artillery and gassed until someone signs a Karthagenean peace! As for the possibility that this someone might be us, we either are totally convinced that won't happen or willing to take the chance", the relatives of the ones that were killed in action say: "No, we don't want our loved ones to have dies to proof that war is a bad idea in general, we want them to have dies for the concept that war is a good thing so long as we win and we have a good excuse to blame the others!"

It's a nice exercise for acting classes to say this into another persons face without either one laughing, rolling eyes etc. isn't it?

And last but not least: Either way the governments involved were not coming back from anywere since they weren't the ones going anywere. They were the ones sending other people to the battlefield.

Why does noone seriously question that attitude. It is unprecedented in history. Until the 19th century the nations' rulers were more pragmatic, after WWI there was plenty of fanaticism and even worse atrocities, but at least they needed some sort of ideological dispute to become fanatic.
 
I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.
Can you imagine this scenario:
The nations rulers say: "We all have seen that we've made a terible mistake and so we stop it before even more pepole suffer and die", and the soldiers in the trenches answer: "No, we want to continue starving, wading in the mud getting shot at by machine guns, bombarded by artillery and gassed until someone signs a Karthagenean peace! As for the possibility that this someone might be us, we either are totally convinced that won't happen or willing to take the chance", the relatives of the ones that were killed in action say: "No, we don't want our loved ones to have dies to proof that war is a bad idea in general, we want them to have dies for the concept that war is a good thing so long as we win and we have a good excuse to blame the others!"

It's a nice exercise for acting classes to say this into another persons face without either one laughing, rolling eyes etc. isn't it?

And last but not least: Either way the governments involved were not coming back from anywere since they weren't the ones going anywere. They were the ones sending other people to the battlefield.

Why does noone seriously question that attitude. It is unprecedented in history. Until the 19th century the nations' rulers were more pragmatic, after WWI there was plenty of fanaticism and even worse atrocities, but at least they needed some sort of ideological dispute to become fanatic.
I wouldn't call it unprecedented, the second Punic war saw some loose by nearly standard of the day but refuse to call it quits until it eventually came out on top.
 
I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.
Can you imagine this scenario:
The nations rulers say: "We all have seen that we've made a terible mistake and so we stop it before even more pepole suffer and die", and the soldiers in the trenches answer: "No, we want to continue starving, wading in the mud getting shot at by machine guns, bombarded by artillery and gassed until someone signs a Karthagenean peace! As for the possibility that this someone might be us, we either are totally convinced that won't happen or willing to take the chance", the relatives of the ones that were killed in action say: "No, we don't want our loved ones to have dies to proof that war is a bad idea in general, we want them to have dies for the concept that war is a good thing so long as we win and we have a good excuse to blame the others!"

It's a nice exercise for acting classes to say this into another persons face without either one laughing, rolling eyes etc. isn't it?

And last but not least: Either way the governments involved were not coming back from anywere since they weren't the ones going anywere. They were the ones sending other people to the battlefield.

Why does noone seriously question that attitude. It is unprecedented in history. Until the 19th century the nations' rulers were more pragmatic, after WWI there was plenty of fanaticism and even worse atrocities, but at least they needed some sort of ideological dispute to become fanatic.


Some people did question it, even at the time. All it got them was a lot of persecution, not just by their governments but by their neighbours.

Basically it was one of the side-effects of greater democracy. You had to keep the hoi polloi onside, and that could be done only by getting them whipped up into a frenzy of hate, seeing the other side as a bunch of monsters.

Problem was that once you'd instilled this attitude, you couldn't turn it off like a tap. Having convinced the mob that they are in a titanic struggle of good against evil, you can't then turn round and say "It's ok now, we've reached a deal", and have good and evil shake hands on it before they part. You are riding a tiger (of your own making) and have no way to dismount.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I wouldn't call it unprecedented, the second Punic war saw some loose by nearly standard of the day but refuse to call it quits until it eventually came out on top.
The difference is: The Romans didn't turn down the offer for status quo ante bellum, they turned down the offer to become a Carthaginian vassal state. When the outcome is all or nothing, it is perfectly reasonable to go for option "all" until the last man, but not when you have another choice.

Some people did question it, even at the time. All it got them was a lot of persecution, not just by their governments but by their neighbours.

Basically it was one of the side-effects of greater democracy. You had to keep the hoi polloi onside, and that could be done only by getting them whipped up into a frenzy of hate, seeing the other side as a bunch of monsters.

Problem was that once you'd instilled this attitude, you couldn't turn it off like a tap. Having convinced the mob that they are in a titanic struggle of good against evil, you can't then turn round and say "It's ok now, we've reached a deal", and have good and evil shake hands on it before they part. You are riding a tiger (of your own making) and have no way to dismount.
But why cant you just say "We have succeeded in getting the evil out and tought them a lession to never come back"???
 
But why cant you just say "We have succeeded in getting the evil out and tought them a lession to never come back"???

Because even illiterate peasants know enough history to realize that "never come back" is one of those phrases that never works out. They'd want a little more than that for their suffering.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Because even illiterate peasants know enough history to realize that "never come back" is one of those phrases that never works out.
And history tells that humiliating peace treaties don't change that. Prussia came back after 1806, France came back after 1815 and 1871.

They'd want a little more than that for their suffering.
But they wouldn't want their suffering to be prolonged for the doubtful perspective to make a lasting change in their favor, would they?

The reason that I am insisting is that I think this mindset is the true root cause of WWI. Anything that happened during the July crisis is just the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
 

Anderman

Donor
I don´t think that a peace status quo ante bellum is in possible in the east. The poles don´t want become under russian rule again.
It looks better in the west the german empire doesn´t have a comon boarder with russia that is strategic plus that can be sold to public.
The french politicians can point at the fact that Germany declared on France and that this attact was fruitless for the germans. The guys in
white hall can proclaim that the huns were stopped destroying France and that France is still a great power. The UK and France can grap some
german colonies.

And all three together blame tzarist russia forn anything that happened / went wron.g
 
Top