Great Power Most Responsible for WW1?

[The Brain]

Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Source: Wiki ( )

Seems fairly clear to me. If we accept the rule of law Germany was responsible.

The US rejected this treaty, and Sweden didn't sign it.  How is that treaty a part of the "rule of law?"

Wow. That was stupid even for you.

[Agelastus]

Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Source: Wiki ( )

Seems fairly clear to me. If we accept the rule of law Germany was responsible.

The US rejected this treaty, and Sweden didn't sign it.  How is that treaty a part of the "rule of law?"

The section in question is however listed in the 1921 US-German peace Treaty -

"That the rights and advantages stipulated in that Treaty for the benefit of the United States, which it is intended the United States shall have and enjoy, are those defined in Section I, of Part IV, and Parts V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIV and XV."

I can't find anywhere a text where the USA specifically disavows Article 231 of Section VIII, although I'd be interested if you were aware of one; if you're claiming the "rights and advantages" awarded you in that section then surely you are recognising the validity of that section as a whole, including the "War Guilt" clause? After all, the reparations section starts off with the "War Guilt" clause for good reason.

There are sections (and parts of sections) of the Versailles Treaty that the 1921 Treaty specifically list as being non-binding on the USA, after all.

[Viking]

Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Source: Wiki ( )

Seems fairly clear to me. If we accept the rule of law Germany was responsible.

The US rejected this treaty, and Sweden didn't sign it.  How is that treaty a part of the "rule of law?"

Cause Germany did?

[Razgovory]

Britain was sort of outside the rivalries in Europe, had it's fingers in pies all over Europe, and this enormous navy as leverage.

That "enormous navy" provided exactly zero leverage inside Europe in an era when the question was "how many million soldiers could be delivered to the front in x days/weeks". For a crisis outside Europe, yes, we had significant leverage, but not for one inside Europe.

And the events of 1914 were clearly "inside" Europe.

Leverage enough to be invited to the Congress of Berlin a few decades earlier.  Anyway, what you said was nonsense as the European states were capable of seeing situations between total war and tranquil peace.

[garbon]

This thread is a reminder that MacMillian's book on the of the war is coming out at the end of the month.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/the-war-that-ended-peace/9780670064045-item.html?ikwid=war%2520that%2520ended%2520peace&ikwsec=Home

What kind of janky site is that?

[Agelastus]

Britain was sort of outside the rivalries in Europe, had it's fingers in pies all over Europe, and this enormous navy as leverage.

That "enormous navy" provided exactly zero leverage inside Europe in an era when the question was "how many million soldiers could be delivered to the front in x days/weeks". For a crisis outside Europe, yes, we had significant leverage, but not for one inside Europe.

And the events of 1914 were clearly "inside" Europe.

Leverage enough to be invited to the Congress of Berlin a few decades earlier.  Anyway, what you said was nonsense as the European states were capable of seeing situations between total war and tranquil peace.

You really need to read up on the Franco-British military talks pre-WWI before claiming that the Royal Navy granted Britain alone significant leverage, especially within the Europe of 1914 and the mass armies. Having a Seat by virtue of being a Great Power is not the same as having leverage; Britain always depended on having European Powers supporting its' position to get its way within Europe (at Berlin, for example, Austria and Germany.)

So if Britain preached peace and restraint (to a greater extent than it did in real life) in 1914 when all the other continental powers wanted to fight, relying on the "leverage of the Royal Navy", what do you think would have happened? The Germans joked that the British Army could be arrested by the local police if it landed on the North Coast, the French thought the initial 6 division commitment of the BEF to be solely useful for morale purposes. The Royal Navy was a complete afterthought in their thinking about Britain's ability to affect a European War.

And as for your second comment, concerning 1914? Go look up even the "minimal" mobilisation plans and then write it again with a straight face. Europe spent the 40 odd years from 1871 to WWI drifting away from the concept of Limited War within Europe; French generals spoke in terms of "each day's delay in mobilising costing x miles of French territory" precisely because they'd adopted the "all or nothing" mentality of Total War - even if their rhetoric did not match the reality of their plans.

Outside Europe was, as I stated, a different kettle of fish. Outside Europe, by being large enough to seal a European Nation off from its' Colonies or overseas Allies, then the Royal Navy did indeed figure in people's minds and provide Leverage.

[crazy canuck]

This thread is a reminder that MacMillian's book on the of the war is coming out at the end of the month.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/the-war-that-ended-peace/9780670064045-item.html?ikwid=war%2520that%2520ended%2520peace&ikwsec=Home

One that doesnt appeal to older men living in NY I guess.

What kind of janky site is that?

[garbon]

This thread is a reminder that MacMillian's book on the of the war is coming out at the end of the month.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/the-war-that-ended-peace/9780670064045-item.html?ikwid=war%2520that%2520ended%2520peace&ikwsec=Home

One that doesnt appeal to older men living in NY I guess.

What kind of janky site is that?

I'm not sure a Canadian site would appeal to anyone. I'm surprised it appeals to Canadians.

[derspiess]

A war book written by a chick? 

[crazy canuck]

A war book written by a chick?

She also wrote Paris 1919. 

You need to get out more. 

[derspiess]

A war book written by a chick?

She also wrote Paris 1919. 

You need to get out more. 

Oh, about the war that took place there?

[grumbler]

Cause Germany did?

They did when the gun was to their head, and then they didn't when allowed to make a free choice.  Coerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

[crazy canuck]

A war book written by a chick?

She also wrote Paris 1919. 

You need to get out more. 

Oh, about the war that took place there?

Yes she wrote extensively about the "battles" fought at the peace conference.

She is now writing about the events that led up to the war.

You should read her work.  You might even learn something.

[Sheilbh]

Coerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

Tell that to King John

[crazy canuck]

Coerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

Tell that to King John

Thats a good one liner.  But it actually proves Grumbler's point.  A lot of blood was spilled to try to enforce the provisions of the Magna Carta both during and well after John's reign.  We like to trace the Rule of Law to things like the Magna Carta but that is more myth building than anything.