Languish.org

I'm voting Austria, Serbia more or less rolled-over on Austria's absurd ultimatum, Bosnia was a waste of Austrian resources, and the ceaseless provocation of Serbia by Austria (the Pig War) was just silly.  A dying Emperor presiding over a dying Empire who didn't know what the fuck to do other than pretend it was still 1550.

If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

Another one of these. Austria is mostly to blame for being unreasonable and starting it. Russia is to blame for escalating too quickly and the Germans are to blame for protecting their unreasonable friends from Russia. The French are also somehow to blame because they really wanted a war.

IMO, Russia is the most to blame. They supported the Serbs when the Serbs were at fault; they decided to risk a world into war over something that did not directly affect their national security; their mobilization triggered the war (once Russia began mobilizing, the Germans had to go to war or be crushed - though this was also a fault of the rigidity of German war planning); and Russian acted with premeditation - the Russians had worked hard to make the French agree (pre-assassination) that a war in the Balkans would trigger the alliance, and thus (in effect) a World War.  Austria is probably among the least blameworthy. The Serbs claimed Austrian land, constantly sponsored terrorism/nationalist movements, and, oh yeah, was complicit in the assassination of the Austrian heir. Realistically, Austria-Hungary did not have a lot of options but to respond as they did.

Austria, for waffling about a month before kicking (or attempting to kick) Serbia in the balls. Also, to slightly lesser degree Germany for giving Austria the blank check.

Russia, obviously.

Of course all Languish lawyers will vote Germany since it was legally decided that they were guilty.

France.
Short term with the Serbian situation then yes, Russia or Austria. But they're just the ones who set the bonfire alight, it was France who built it.

Quote from: Syt on October 09, 2013, 01:16:47 AM
Austria, for waffling about a month before kicking (or attempting to kick) Serbia in the balls. Also, to slightly lesser degree Germany for giving Austria the blank check.

If I had to choose it would be Germany, because of the blank check.

Russia.

IDK. What choice did they have? Let their Balkan influence bullied away by Austria-Hungary?

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 04:35:02 AM
IDK. What choice did they have? Let their Balkan influence bullied away by Austria-Hungary?

Serbia had gotten out of control.  The assassination of the Arch Duke was terrorist act committed by members of am organization with ties to the highest levels of government.  Such an an act should be seen as an act of war.

Russia did have a choice.  The could have stepped back, let Austria kick Serbia's teeth in and then work to prevent total annexation of Serbia in the resulting peace conference.  Or just let Serbia hang.  In fact, pretty much any choice made would have been better then the actions undertaken by the Czar's government in 1914.

Germany. Austria-Hungary would not have acted alone and would not have escalated the situation if Germany had told them to stop.

I find it a tad ironic that by choosing to support a regime that had in the recent past slaughtered their own Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Overthrow) and in the present had sponsored the assassination of the heir to another throne Tsar Nicholas II lost his throne and saw his own family butchered.

Personally I'd blame Austria and Russia equally (Austria for dithering and delaying their punishment of the indefensible until the situation had already begun to snowball diplomatically, and Russia for supporting the indefensible anyway) but since I can't vote that way I'll vote for Russia as being the most culpable.

I think it is hard to blame Russia for backing Serbia here (much I as I detest both nations today). Russia backed Serbia when the Austrian demands amounted to turning Serbia into an Austrian Vassal; ending it's independence.

Austria's unreasonable demands on Serbia started the war and Germany's system of alliances caused the war to be a Great War.

Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2013, 05:46:45 AM
Germany. Austria-Hungary would not have acted alone and would not have escalated the situation if Germany had told them to stop.

Yes.

Although it is interesting. One could argue that IF they wanted a war eventually (and let`s face it, they did) Germany had to launch it ASAP. Foreign investment in Russia and such made them losing superiority.
And A-H leaders could sense the foundation of their empire crumbling, so they felt like they had to gamble.

They probably should had started the whole mess in 1910 when they had some issues with Italy, or during the Balkan Wars.
Point is, I am quite convinced the Great War was inevitable, because everybody wanted a good rumble, and nobody (apart from a tiny minority I guess) had the faintest idea of how it would look like.

I don't think the Russian government had any choice at that point but to support a Serbian government that even they detested.  The legitimacy of the Tsar was too closely tied to pan-Slavism (especially after the events of 1905 had removed the claim of legitimacy based on the national will) to allow more "German" bullying of more Slavs.  It is true that this was an internal issue, but every government in Europe understood it and its implications.

Austria got what they needed in the Serbian response to the Austrian ultimatum.  It was Austria's determination not to take "yes" for an answer that triggered the war.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 06:18:36 AM
Yes.

Although it is interesting. One could argue that IF they wanted a war eventually (and let`s face it, they did) Germany had to launch it ASAP. Foreign investment in Russia and such made them losing superiority.
And A-H leaders could sense the foundation of their empire crumbling, so they felt like they had to gamble.

They probably should had started the whole mess in 1910 when they had some issues with Italy, or during the Balkan Wars.
Point is, I am quite convinced the Great War was inevitable, because everybody wanted a good rumble, and nobody (apart from a tiny minority I guess) had the faintest idea of how it would look like.

All of the Great powers had reasons to want war, and war sooner rather than later, bar, perhaps, Britain.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 06:18:36 AM


They probably should had started the whole mess in 1910 when they had some issues with Italy, or during the Balkan Wars.
Point is, I am quite convinced the Great War was inevitable, because everybody wanted a good rumble, and nobody (apart from a tiny minority I guess) had the faintest idea of how it would look like.

Wasn't Germany unable to supply it's army with ammunition for a long war until the development of the Haber process in 1913. If they end up in a war with Britain before that and their access to South American markets is cut off then they're fucked.

Voted Germany;  there was going to be a war, and Germany was the one whose actions would determine how big it was going to get.  Turns out it included the rest of the continent, not just the east.

It's Russia's fault but they were not a great power. Only 1 country was Great Power, so I voted for Great Britain.

Germany.  I used to be pretty vehemently in favor of Austria being responsible but it sure looks like Germany, fearing the bogeyman of a growing Russia, really wanted it sooner rather than later.  I mean they could have stopped it at various times, the Kaiser even wanted to, but plowed right on ahead.  And of course you have to consider the foundational role of Admiral Tirpitz.

Quote from: Tyr on October 09, 2013, 03:55:07 AM
France.
Short term with the Serbian situation then yes, Russia or Austria. But they're just the ones who set the bonfire alight, it was France who built it.

Presuming you are not trolling me here :P I can sort of see were you are coming from.  While their opposition to Germany was sort of a central theme they spent most of the period beforehand diplomatically isolated making itself feel better conquering vast tracks of African desert.  They were just sort of there as Germany began to make enemies and were sort of like 'oh an anti-German alliance is forming?  Cool count us in.'  However in the actual event France just sat there knowing whether or not the war was fought was pretty much out of their hands (but if they did fight it they wanted to make sure Britain was going to fight with them).  Also their bravado and elan and all that was masking a pretty big insecurity about their small population and economy and were pretty engaged in building up Russia to compensate.  While they might have wanted war eventually I doubt they thought 1914 was an ideal time.

But ultimately without Germany creating enemies in Russia and Britain France would have been completely harmless.

Germany.

Quote from: Kleves on October 09, 2013, 12:51:26 AM
Austria is probably among the least blameworthy. The Serbs claimed Austrian land, constantly sponsored terrorism/nationalist movements, and, oh yeah, was complicit in the assassination of the Austrian heir. Realistically, Austria-Hungary did not have a lot of options but to respond as they did.

Well wait a second what about the provocative annexation of Bosnia?  What about the extreme language of the Serb Ultimatum?  They could have easily punished Serbia and saved face without actually declaring war.

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 08:13:34 AM
But ultimately without Germany creating enemies in Russia and Britain France would have been completely harmless.

Germany didn't create an "enemy" in Russia, it simply didn't renew an important non-aggression treaty.  It was France that made Russia into an enemy of Germany, as the price Russia had to pay for a great power alliance and French investment.  Without the Dual Alliance, Russia would have been completely harmless.

France's great fear was that the Tsar would be overthrown before the Dual Alliance had a chance to defeat Germany between them (since a post-Tsarist Russia would presumably not be all that friendly towards a France that had bankrolled their oppressor).  So, France had  reason to want an early war, just like Russia, Austria, and Germany.  And, for that matter, she had a war plan which was as aggressive and "seize the moment" as the Schlieffen Plan (though it didn't involve invading neutrals).

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 08:15:28 AM
Well wait a second what about the provocative annexation of Bosnia?  What about the extreme language of the Serb Ultimatum?  They could have easily punished Serbia and saved face without actually declaring war.

Yeah, the " Austria-Hungary did not have a lot of options but to respond as they did" line seems pretty revisionist to me, as well.  Austria got what she nominally wanted from the ultimatum (which wasn't at all what they expected and hoped for, and which pissed them off no end), but, since what she wanted was a war and nothing but a war, war she would have.  That's pretty much exactly the opposite of having no choice.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 08:21:49 AM
Germany didn't create an "enemy" in Russia, it simply didn't renew an important non-aggression treaty.  It was France that made Russia into an enemy of Germany, as the price Russia had to pay for a great power alliance and French investment.  Without the Dual Alliance, Russia would have been completely harmless.

Completely disagree.  Germany completely undermined Russia in the Balkans in favor of Austria and not renewing the alliance was simply a signal they would continue to back Austria.  Russia had to look around for friends to help her defend her interests and hey there was France.  But conflict in the Balkans was pretty likely even without France.

In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

It was probably that Italy guy.  He kept buying Russia and Austria drinks.

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Yeah. I mean look, they are counting the countless reasons each GP had to look for war. Totally pointless question who set it ablaze.

The Italian kept trying to bop the Austrian on the head but to his chagrin, his truncheon was made of rubber.

And for Squeelus, a ED ANGER BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Sardinian Brigade

http://www.amazon.com/Sardinian-Brigade-Treasures-Emilio-Lussu/dp/1853753602

Best buck I ever spent.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 08:36:04 AM

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Yeah. I mean look, they are counting the countless reasons each GP had to look for war. Totally pointless question who set it ablaze.

Yet we cannot seem to stop doing it.  Most modern historians seem pretty certain Germany started it these days, seems we have come full circle.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 08:36:04 AM
Totally pointless question who set it ablaze.

:hmm:

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 08:25:31 AM
Completely disagree.  Germany completely undermined Russia in the Balkans in favor of Austria and not renewing the alliance was simply a signal they would continue to back Austria.  Russia had to look around for friends to help her defend her interests and hey there was France.  But conflict in the Balkans was pretty likely even without France.

Completely disagree.  Germany generally supported a balance in the Balkans between Russia and Austria-Hungary, and restrained AH in the Serbo-Bulgarian War.  Not renewing the Reinsurance Treaty was a German signal to Great Britain that Germany wouldn't take sides in the Russian dispute with the UK (aka "the Great Game"), which was just then heating up again.  The Germans didn't think they needed a formal treaty with a power so traditionally aligned with them as Russia.  That was a blunder, of course, but not a deliberate one.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 08:36:04 AM

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Yeah. I mean look, they are counting the countless reasons each GP had to look for war. Totally pointless question who set it ablaze.

It is as totally pointless as any other historical question, and as totally pointed.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 08:45:23 AM

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 08:36:04 AM

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Yeah. I mean look, they are counting the countless reasons each GP had to look for war. Totally pointless question who set it ablaze.

It is as totally pointless as any other historical question, and as totally pointed.

I disagree.

Quote from: Tamas on October 09, 2013, 08:46:01 AM
I disagree.

Thanks.  I worried that I might be wrong, until you disagreed.  :P

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 08:31:07 AM
In some ways isn't this a bit like asking who started the bar-room brawl ?

Well, yeah.  Pretty much all the major powers could of have stopped the war, but either blundered into it or failed to prevent it.  For instance Britain was in the best position to be arbitrator of Europe but the government didn't do much to stop it, and there was ambiguity to whether they would come to the aid of France in the first place.  Ambiguity that helped fuel German aggression.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

My thoughts, as well.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 09:23:21 AMFor instance Britain was in the best position to be arbitrator of Europe but the government didn't do much to stop it, and there was ambiguity to whether they would come to the aid of France in the first place.  Ambiguity that helped fuel German aggression.

I find this odd.  What exactly could the British have done to arbitrate?  What leverage did they have?  And how did the ambiguity help encourage the Germans to do something that might get Britain in the war?

Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2013, 09:26:10 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

My thoughts, as well.

That strikes me as asking alot from Russia, just to stand by and watch their allies get steamrolled.  I mean they had sort of done that in 1908 already.

Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2013, 09:26:10 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

My thoughts, as well.

Yes, but that's the argument that the bullying would just have involved two students if the anti-bully hadn't stepped in.

Had Austria accepted the Serb response to the ultimatum, it would have stayed an even more local affair.  Austria pressed war so that "the empire can die decently;" Russia because its government was trying not to die.

Had Austria heeded the Russian threat and backed down (yet another Austrian opportunity lost), it would have remained a very local affair.

Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 06:08:21 AM
I think it is hard to blame Russia for backing Serbia here (much I as I detest both nations today). Russia backed Serbia when the Austrian demands amounted to turning Serbia into an Austrian Vassal; ending it's independence.

Austria's unreasonable demands on Serbia started the war and Germany's system of alliances caused the war to be a Great War.

I think the US wasn't unreasonable when they took out the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 09:37:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 09:23:21 AMFor instance Britain was in the best position to be arbitrator of Europe but the government didn't do much to stop it, and there was ambiguity to whether they would come to the aid of France in the first place.  Ambiguity that helped fuel German aggression.

I find this odd.  What exactly could the British have done to arbitrate?  What leverage did they have?  And how did the ambiguity help encourage the Germans to do something that might get Britain in the war?

Britain was sort of outside the rivalries in Europe, had it's fingers in pies all over Europe, and this enormous navy as leverage.  Makes them fairly good arbitragers ( I spelled arbitrate incorrectly and got this word which I never heard of.  I decided to keep it in even though it has something to do with stocks).  The Germans are much more likely to act if they think Britain might join rather then if think Britain will join the war.  If someone might, do something there is a chance they might not as well.  That's how ambiguity helped fueled the war.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2013, 09:26:10 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

My thoughts, as well.

Yes, but that's the argument that the bullying would just have involved two students if the anti-bully hadn't stepped in.

Had Austria accepted the Serb response to the ultimatum, it would have stayed an even more local affair.  Austria pressed war so that "the empire can die decently;" Russia because its government was trying not to die.

Had Austria heeded the Russian threat and backed down (yet another Austrian opportunity lost), it would have remained a very local affair.

Yeah, but the anti-bully didn't step in.  Instead he joined the student who smacked the other student in the back of the head when he wasn't looking.

Slavpologists make me sick btw.

That ignores the fact that there was a significant body of opinion around the Kaiser that wanted a war.

My uber-redneck high school history professor used to claim that the correct pronunciation for Gavrilo Princep's last name was "Prin-keps".

We used to ask him how you can get that out of "Princip", and his reply was that that's just how people talk over there :lol:

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

QuoteThe 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 ( :showoff: )

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

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

US should have stayed neutral.  To hell with Woodrow Wilson and his anti-Kraut bigotry!

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
US should have stayed neutral.  To hell with Woodrow Wilson and his anti-Kraut bigotry!

I don't see any other way we could have stopped the rampaging and barbarous Hun and saved Democracy.

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 11:08:52 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
US should have stayed neutral.  To hell with Woodrow Wilson and his anti-Kraut bigotry!

I don't see any other way we could have stopped the rampaging and barbarous Hun and saved Democracy.

Also need to put those German-Americans in their place & take their beer away  <_<

Having said that, based on some reading I did recently it appears that the local Germans around here may have gotten a slight bit full of themselves early in the war.  They'd have been treated shitty either way once the US declared war though, I guess.

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 11:17:27 AM
Also need to put those German-Americans in their place & take their beer away  <_<

Yeah that was a dark time for Central Texas let me tell you.  For 70 years the Rhinelanders had lived here in their own German speaking towns living in their own little American-German world.  Later German immigrants would find them bizarre since the Germany of Central Texas seemed perpetually stuck in 1849 when they had all moved here en masse.  All the saloons in this part of Texas were either German only or had German speaking sections.  The whorehouses all had German speaking whores.  Central Texas had more beerhouses per capita than anywhere in the country...and then BOOM in just a few short years from 1917-1920 all that was swept away dramatically.  There are scarcely any living speakers of the Central Texas German dialect left. 

QuoteHaving said that, based on some reading I did recently it appears that the local Germans around here may have gotten a slight bit full of themselves early in the war.  They'd have been treated shitty either way once the US declared war though, I guess.

Yeah alot of them were enthusiastically on the Central Powers side right up to the moment the US declared war (well they and some of the more sympathetic ethnic groups from the Austro-Hungarian Empire).  When you consider the considerable wealth and power the German-Americans enjoyed by that point it did not go unnoticed by the generally pro-Ally nativists.

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

QuoteThe 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 ( :showoff: )

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?"

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 11:29:12 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 11:17:27 AM
Also need to put those German-Americans in their place & take their beer away  <_<

Yeah that was a dark time for Central Texas let me tell you.  For 70 years the Rhinelanders had lived here in their own German speaking towns living in their own little American-German world.  Later German immigrants would find them bizarre since the Germany of Central Texas seemed perpetually stuck in 1849 when they had all moved here en masse.  All the saloons in this part of Texas were either German only or had German speaking sections.  The whorehouses all had German speaking whores.  Central Texas had more beerhouses per capita than anywhere in the country...and then BOOM in just a few short years from 1917-1920 all that was swept away dramatically.  There are scarcely any living speakers of the Central Texas German dialect left. 

That's exactly what happened here, specifically in the Over the Rhine enclave.  It was basically like a German version of the New Orleans French Quarter.  Lots of nice beer gardens & saloons, several breweries, and I think the city as a whole had 4 German newspapers at most times.  The US entry into the war and Prohibition were like a one-two knockout punch.  The Krauts in OTR quietly dispersed throughout the city and largely Anglicized, some going as far as changing their surnames.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
If Russia had not intervened and partially mobilized it would have stayed a local matter.

Nicholas II thought like you, except that it wasn't logistically possible; it was either full mobilization or no mobilization. The Russian timetable for mobilization was extremely strict, because of the massive amount of both soldiers to mobilize and ordnance to displace, on such a vast territorial scale as Russia. Plus partially mobilizing would have meant immediately starting at a disadvantage against a retaliating Germany plus Austria-Hungary, who would certainly both immediately order a full mobilization in consequence.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 09:49:41 AM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 09:38:52 AM
That strikes me as asking alot from Russia, just to stand by and watch their allies get steamrolled.  I mean they had sort of done that in 1908 already.

I don't get what you mean by steamrolled.  Are you talking about Austrian oversight of the investigation into the assasination plot, or the invasion that would follow when Serbia refused?

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 11:30:30 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

QuoteThe 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 ( :showoff: )

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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 11:30:30 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

QuoteThe 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 ( :showoff: )

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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 11:30:30 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
Since no one wanted to discuss the legal angle I'll do it anyway.

QuoteThe 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 ( :showoff: )

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?

Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2013, 12:09:49 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 09:49:41 AM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
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?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 01:35:49 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2013, 12:09:49 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2013, 09:49:41 AM
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.

Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 01:55:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2013, 01:55:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
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.

A war book written by a chick? 

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
A war book written by a chick?

She also wrote Paris 1919. 

You need to get out more. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 02:18:37 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
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?

Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 01:21:59 PM
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.

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2013, 02:18:37 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:23:29 PMCoerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

Tell that to King John :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2013, 02:32:07 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:23:29 PMCoerced agreements are not part of the rule of law.

Tell that to King John :P

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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 01:21:59 PM
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.

Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

If one wishes to look to the treaties to determine a "legal" answer to who is responsible for the war then one encounters an issue regarding certainty.  It turns out that each of the treaties found a different nation responsible.

We have already discussed the Treaty of Versailles.  But what about

QuoteArticle 117 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: "... Austria accepts the responsibility of Austria and her Allies for causing 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 Austria-Hungary and her Allies".[2] Article 161 of the Treaty of Trianon: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Hungary accepts the responsibility of Hungary and her allies for causing 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 Austria-Hungary and her allies."[3] Article 121 of the Treaty Areas of Neuilly-sur-Seine: "Bulgaria recognises that, by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied and Associated Powers, she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds, for which she ought to make complete reparation".[4] Article 231 of the Treaty of Sevres: "Turkey recognises that by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria-Hungary waged against the Allied Powers she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds for which she ought to make complete reparation."[5]

The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

Finally the discussion is about law stuff instead of the interesting issue.

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 03:19:32 PM
Finally the discussion is about law stuff instead of the interesting issue.

:yeah:

Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2013, 03:08:48 PM
The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

After listing all the territory they wanted ceded the Germans ran out of ink.

Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2013, 03:08:48 PM
The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

Yeah, well, both sides still had to deal with the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk. That concentrates the mind.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 03:09:39 PM
The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

How does this undersstanding influence your view on the Nuremberg trials and subsequent developments in international humanitarian law?

The Nuremberg trials were great. The victors were masters of the show trial.

The Nuremberg trials were an effort by the victors to subject their own actions towards the defeated to limitations.  No one can seriously argue that punishing high ranking Nazis by diktat would have been a preferable outcome.

Too bad Hitler was innocent.

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 03:53:21 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 03:09:39 PM
The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

How does this undersstanding influence your view on the Nuremberg trials and subsequent developments in international humanitarian law?

Doesn't directly deal with the law of peace and war. Those "laws" deal with matters on the national level - treaties, alliances and the like.

There are plenty of aspects of "international law" which the major nations are happy to have work more or less like the "rule of law", because it suits them - except for when it doesn't.

The Nuremberg trials were an example of that. I'm not fussed about any alleged "injustice" done to the Nazis, because they obviously had it comming, and the trials themselves worked like real trials, with evidence and stuff. However, just as obviously, some of the victors were just as guilty - such as the Soviets - and they were there as judges, not as defendants. So the trials worked like real trials, only the only actual defendants were those who had lost, and the trials only occurred because it suited the winners. 

International humanitarian law has continued this tradition. It is a threat to the powerless, and a sometimes-pawn to be used for propaganda - which doesn't mean for a second that some of the defendants are not guilty and deserving of punishment, or that the trials themselves are rigged. Only it doesn't have the effect desired by the "rule of law" - namely, to restrain the powerful. 

Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 02:46:29 PM
Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

No, of course it doesn't.  Treaties can be imposed as a result of an unconditional surrender, for instance, and can be agreed to by the parties.  When one side agrees to peace under one set of conditions, complies with their obligations, and then is forced to sign a completely different treaty than they agreed to or face the opponents' threat of perfidy, then a treaty isn't binding on the compelled party.

Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2013, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2013, 02:46:29 PM
Yeah, cause, y'know, history. That argument renders every single peace agreement illegal.

No, of course it doesn't.  Treaties can be imposed as a result of an unconditional surrender, for instance, and can be agreed to by the parties.  When one side agrees to peace under one set of conditions, complies with their obligations, and then is forced to sign a completely different treaty than they agreed to or face the opponents' threat of perfidy, then a treaty isn't binding on the compelled party.

What does "not binding" mean in this context?

Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2013, 03:53:21 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 03:09:39 PM
The real problem here is treating "international law" in matters of war and peace as if it was anything like "law" as is understood in a Western domestic context - as part of something known as "the rule of law".

"International law" has none of the characteristics associated with "the rule of law". The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the law is itself a source of authority that prevents (or at least attempts to prevent) the arbitrary, self-serving abuse of power.

"International law" is, at best, "rule by law" (as opposed to rule of law), meaning that it is the device by which those who have power express and enforce it. The Treaty of Versailles making Germany accept 'the blame' is a perfect example of this. Germany accepted 'the blame' because Germany lost the battles, not because some impartial legal process objectively judged Germany to be guilty, like a court. If Germany had won the battles, it would be the Allies accepting 'the blame'.

How does this undersstanding influence your view on the Nuremberg trials and subsequent developments in international humanitarian law?

Doesn't directly deal with the law of peace and war. Those "laws" deal with matters on the national level - treaties, alliances and the like.

There are plenty of aspects of "international law" which the major nations are happy to have work more or less like the "rule of law", because it suits them - except for when it doesn't.

The Nuremberg trials were an example of that. I'm not fussed about any alleged "injustice" done to the Nazis, because they obviously had it comming, and the trials themselves worked like real trials, with evidence and stuff. However, just as obviously, some of the victors were just as guilty - such as the Soviets - and they were there as judges, not as defendants. So the trials worked like real trials, only the only actual defendants were those who had lost, and the trials only occurred because it suited the winners. 

International humanitarian law has continued this tradition. It is a threat to the powerless, and a sometimes-pawn to be used for propaganda - which doesn't mean for a second that some of the defendants are not guilty and deserving of punishment, or that the trials themselves are rigged. Only it doesn't have the effect desired by the "rule of law" - namely, to restrain the powerful.

Thanks for that. 

I try and avoid making the emboldened argument, but it does have a certain forceful, ring of 'truth' about it.

Russia.  Then Austria.  Then France and Germany equally.

Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2013, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: Zanza on October 09, 2013, 03:08:48 PM
The much shorter treaty of Brest-Litovsk has no similar clause.

After listing all the territory they wanted ceded the Germans ran out of ink.

Naval blockade's a bitch.

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
A war book written by a chick?

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.    :mellow:

Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2013, 04:05:52 PMDoesn't directly deal with the law of peace and war. Those "laws" deal with matters on the national level - treaties, alliances and the like.

There are plenty of aspects of "international law" which the major nations are happy to have work more or less like the "rule of law", because it suits them - except for when it doesn't.

The Nuremberg trials were an example of that. I'm not fussed about any alleged "injustice" done to the Nazis, because they obviously had it comming, and the trials themselves worked like real trials, with evidence and stuff. However, just as obviously, some of the victors were just as guilty - such as the Soviets - and they were there as judges, not as defendants. So the trials worked like real trials, only the only actual defendants were those who had lost, and the trials only occurred because it suited the winners. 

International humanitarian law has continued this tradition. It is a threat to the powerless, and a sometimes-pawn to be used for propaganda - which doesn't mean for a second that some of the defendants are not guilty and deserving of punishment, or that the trials themselves are rigged. Only it doesn't have the effect desired by the "rule of law" - namely, to restrain the powerful.

Very well put Malthus.

Quote from: Habbaku on October 09, 2013, 06:49:40 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
A war book written by a chick?

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.    :mellow:

Thanks, smart guy.

Trolling aside, I was just noting it was rare.

Quote from: Habbaku on October 09, 2013, 06:49:40 PM

C. V. Wedgwood is one of the best historians of a couple wars.    :mellow:

A great writer.

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 09:52:21 AM
Slavpologists make me sick btw.

Is this because Charles XII provoked the Russians into kicking Sweden's ass? :shifty:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2013, 07:28:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2013, 09:52:21 AM
Slavpologists make me sick btw.

Is this because Charles XII provoked the Russians into kicking Sweden's ass? :shifty:

Elaborate.

That would require looking up more Swedish history.  :yuk:

Well played, sir.

I am pleased and annoyed.

Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins.  :P

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2013, 01:35:15 AM
Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins.  :P

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

Austria and Russia also did a bad job of building dreadnoughts.

Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2013, 09:32:38 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2013, 01:35:15 AM
Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins.  :P

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

I don't think we should judge entire ethnicities by fact that their ancestors were raped by Vikings. Most of western, central and eastern Europe was.

Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2013, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2013, 09:32:38 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2013, 01:35:15 AM
Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins.  :P

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

I don't think we should judge entire ethnicities by fact that their ancestors were raped by Vikings. Most of western, central and eastern Europe was.

:showoff:

I'm 6'4, blonde and thin shouldered, always imagined that most of my appyearence comes from Denmark and Scleiswig-Holstein.

Anyone have any grudges against Guns of August? 50 year old popular history may have some problems.

Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Anyone have any grudges against Guns of August? 50 year old popular history may have some problems.

Is that about Strindberg?

Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Anyone have any grudges against Guns of August? 50 year old popular history may have some problems.

Nope.  No stash of documents has been declassified concerning the opening stages of WWI.

Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2013, 12:18:53 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2013, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2013, 09:32:38 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2013, 01:35:15 AM
Oh, one thing I just remembered- the original Rus were from Sweden. So you're kinda bad-mouthing your cousins.  :P

Rape-children of my cousins, maybe.

I don't think we should judge entire ethnicities by fact that their ancestors were raped by Vikings. Most of western, central and eastern Europe was.

:showoff:

Judging by Viking desendants, much of their livestock was, too.  :hmm:

Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
I'm 6'4, blonde and thin shouldered, always imagined that most of my appyearence comes from Denmark and Scleiswig-Holstein.

:nelson:

Anybody blame America yet?