The ongoing argument is not if the German Empire is respnsible - practically everyone here agrees that Germany and Austria were responsible for WWI. The argument is that some say only they were responsible while others argue that Russia and France did their fair share as welll to turn the conflict in to WWI. I understand how it can be confusing as some people continue to bring facts and evidence of Germany and Austria being at fault - which I personally think is pretty unecessery as nobody argues that they arent. The only reason I can think of is its a lot easier to do that and concentrate on that than looking at the french and the russians - i have yet to see any argument backed by sources instead of grand (and either unproven or proven to be factually wrong) statements of their innocence / good intentions while also repetedly ignoring the uncomfortable facts and sources the other side bring up to indicate / prove their co-responsibility. It's easier to switch the topic back to Germany (and get in to debates about minor details there) where they can bring facts and sources to ultimately prove what nobody disputes.
Agree in full here. I won't say that Germany and A-H were completely innocent.... but I will say that the subsequent historiography (most of which, that I have read anyway, has been from the "winning" side), sorely neglected the roles that Serbia (or at least elements within the Serb government and military), Russia, and France played in the lead-up to the Crisis. Frankly, I think much of it has been a snow job.
You're making some valid points that no one had clean hands in this matter. It's true rivalries existed, and each side distrusted the other. The world has always been driven by people, and nations competing for power, and influence. 1914 Europe was no exception. There is no doubt Serbian Nationalism, and terrorism was regarded as a threat to Austrian interests, and ambitions in the Balkans. The Serbian State had it foreign policy hijacked by radical elements that were forcing the country to take a very dangerous course, by provoking Austria.
Russia had ambitions in the Balkans that conflicted with Austria's. They wanted Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia to ally with them, and not Austria. They also had designs on the Ottoman Empire, and the Turkish Straits. That had been true for 200 years. Russia also kept a warry eye on Germany, ever since it had dropped it assurance treaty in 1890. Dropping that treaty had driven Russia into the arms of Republican France and created the Alliance System that made WWI possible. For its part to have any chance to resist German power France needed to standby her Russian allies and wished to cultivate a defensive agreement with Great Britain.
...
uffff .... Now the quartion of guilt is (
once again - I hope) settled to :
No none was without guilt
we might be able to return to the topic og this thread :
- What might be reasons and/or causes for the british goverment of the time (2nd Asquith) to participate or not participate or participate at a later point of time in the Great European War that begun in August 1914
Preferably with providing some discussed/from several sides viwed evidences (
not only one source from one side, not only one or a couple of pieces of highly partisan Northcliffe press like the Times on whichs take-over he once stated he doesn't want only to report on politics but to make them).
IMHO british politics - govermental liberal party as well as opposition conservatives - were almost equaliy split :
one group leaning more for non-intervention at all
another leaning more for intervention esp. with military means
(
not to forget : Labour was almost completly against war at all - though in a manner similar to SPD ingermany ... and after war had come quickly joining the govermental side).
The british public at that time was concerned by rather non-continental topics like
Home-Rule, Suffragette, lurking workers strikes and conflicts about conditions and wages, the prewar stockmarkets downturns, lurking (once again) land taxes reform,
etc..
The continental follies were a topic rather low on the attention chart (
aside with some distinctly interested members of upper classes maybe).
As I tried to make clear
earlier on :
Belgium was a reason as well as a cause to enter the war against Germany as ot touched a VERY britsh interest :
controll of the channel coast.
Every other ... 'reason' though worded and aired before the war were compared to rather academic.
Therefore :
without the attack/occupation of Belgium there simply is no reason strong enough for Chruchill, Grey - the only real 'hawks' within cabinet - and in the latters wake Asquith though not by his own reasoning IOTL to push through with the cabinet at first the hesitant acceptance of a possible reason for a possible even also military (
naval only at first) intervention in the continental conflict and later the not less hesitantly by cabinet members as well as the rest of the liberal party accepted decision to actually then intervene on behalf of Belgium.
All the other reasons named even if combined would have not had the political weight to push through a military intervention neither in the cabinet, nor parliament and not with the british public.
Even if Chruchill together with Northcliffe would fabricate a Tonkin- or naval Gleiwitz-incident alike would not be enough to push goverment, politics and public to war (
pls don't forget : without war there is no ... press-control even if selfimposed as IOTL and terefore there would be at least as many papers calling it a fake or downplaying much if any importance of it).
Aside ... the Kaiser and Tirpitz were well prepared to respect any british ... sensitivities and demands on naval matters regarding the channel and did so IOTL. So the more they would act accordingly ITTL.
The seemingly often here around taken attitude that the overwhealming or at least pronounced mayority of the british people was longing for going to war against the germans and esp. a continental land war prior to the 'decision' of the goverment ... a myth IMHO.
Literature (and the there used sources) that lead to this my opinion :
aside the once and again occasional short article on the www.
However, I could imagine that in case the french armies suffers too much of a defeat , being repelled from their own border too far with the russians either asking for terms or due to revolution don't play much of a role anymore so that the german Armies could be turned to the west the/a british goverment - if somehow avoided a Home-Rule caused civil war in Ireland - after an 1915 election with a LOT of domestic topics on the agenda (see above) might turn to the continent demanding the role of an 'honest madiator' from esp. the german politicians to negotiate some kinda peace
If ... the germans do not comply - then perhaps together with some 'unwise' Zimmermann telegrams about Ireland or similar - and turn down this offer ... the OTL 'reason' of a german controlled channelcoast would reappear and/or the 'reason' of 'keeping a counterweight' on the continent and therefore France alive. This might lead to a late active military participation (i
ts form still to be discussed) against the then CP.