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.
