Conservative revisionism of WW1
- Thread starter sherbz
- Start date
EnglishEdward
Deity
England Foreign Secretary Lord Grey wanted an international peace conference not a war.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
*English. Also, *British.
British balance of power policy was primarily a pre-19th century concept; by 1914 it had long been abandoned. It was based on the idea that no power should be strong enough in Europe to threaten Britain's supremacy. Seeing as 1815 left Russia as the primary landpower in Europe that was no longer feasible. (Also, of course, the 1813-15 congress's prime interest was in preventing France from becoming the dominant European landpower again.)
That is a bit of an odd view of Britain's policy to prevent the Russians from gaining influence in Ottoman territory.
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,677
In the time period we're discussing, the words were used pretty much interchangeably....
More like he had a weird idea of a conference that had no chance of success. The whole idea that Austria-Hungary would let this be dealt with by a conference that quite obviously had an anti-Austrian majority is stupid to begin with.
Grey wasn't a fan of starting a war over the Balkans, but he definately wasn't hell-bend on finding a peaceful solution. He was also the one that convinced the cabinett that Britain had to side with France and Russia should it come to a war, regardless of how it came into existance.
In the end, the British point of view was that being at odds with Germany was the better option than being at odds with Russia. Germany was no real threat to the Empire, it was surrounded in central Europe and no match for the British fleet. Russia meanwhile, had been a problem for quite some time, especially regarding Persia and India. That's how the 'alliance' came into existance in the first place, gain hold of Russia so that they weren't a risk to those areas anymore. For Britain, this alliance with France and Russia was never really about containing Germany, it was about protecting the Empire by coming to an understanding with those who could threaten it.
In short, the British couldn't let down the French, as the French had entrusted them with the defense of their northern coastline, and they couldn't risk being at odds with those who could actually threaten their colonies.
The French couldn't afford to let down the Russians, because the Russians were vital for their attempt to get back at the Germans.
The Russians couldn't afford to lose the French alliance on the shortterm, because they could have faced Austria and Germany at the same time if things went down. Over a longer time, they probably could have come to an understanding with Germany again, though the problems between Austria and Russia would have been a stumbling block.
Germany, on the other hand, simply had to back the Austrians. Italy had pretty much been lost as an ally, leaving Austria as the last real ally in the fold. Facing France and Russia from two sides was already a grave danger, there was no way they could have afforded to lose Austria as well.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
This thread seems to demonstrate that UK conservatives are lagging behind their American collaborators. World war one was a hundred years ago. The history American conservatives are trying to revise is only ten years old. Catch up, old country!
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
Or maybe it is the American conservatives who have yet to catch up. Their British counterparts have successfully rehabilitated Britain's role in all wars for the past century and now they've moved on to World War 1. American conservatives are still desperately trying to rehabilitate America's role in the second war with Iraq, but failing miserably.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not in any official context. You may as well describe the German government as "Prussian".
In fairness, America has a number of Good Wars it can fall back on, so complacency is to be expected. British history is notably short on justifiable wars, so the apologists have to work a lot harder just to break even.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Rehabilitate? They really only seem interested in placing blame. According to recent Faux News we clearly WON the second Iraq war, and the current debacle is the third Iraq war, which Obama started. As far as trying to recover our reputation from having unilaterally invaded a smaller country that posed no threat to us; that horse has long since left the barn.
They're the same thing. Wales, Scotland, and that other place are nothing but colonial possessions of the House of Windsor and the English nation.
I think Grey wanted to avoid war and thought he could pressure a conference into forcing Serbia to abide by some strict terms. He doesn't seem to have realised, as the Austrians did, that a good portion of the Serbian government and military apparatus was directly involved in the assassination, and that the Austrians would stop at nothing to punish them. They, for their part, were too busy being terrorists to consider accepting punishment for their actions. And so the conference idea, and any sort of peaceful solution that didn't leave Serbia crippled, was off the table.
I don't see the problem.
Were. Maybe. But not probably. There is very little evidence of English settler/colonists moving to Scotland, for instance. Wales and Ireland are another matter - especially Ireland.
Really? The Serbian govenrment wasn't involved at all. The lone gunsman who happened to shoot the archduke and his wife belonged to a rather obscure nationalist organization. There's no evidence of any direct involvement by the Serbian government. The reason Grey's proposal was pointless was rather that Germany backed Austria to 'stand firm', which then went and presented Serbia with an ultimatum they couldn't possibly indulge in full - even though they went to great lengths to actually fulfill even a large part of it. Austria - or rather its unchecked foreign minster - had already decided on war, however. And so Austria-Hungary embarked on the war that would end its empire.
(The version you are giving is simply the official Austrian version of what happened.)
The head of Serbian military intelligence was the head of the terrorist group behind the assassination. The idea that Serbia behaved in any way reasonably in response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum is simply the official Serbian version of what happened. Certain portions of the Srbian government were spoiling for a war as a way to unite the Southern Slavs under their own rule. They succeeded through terrorism. Not a pleasant start to a decidely unpleasant nation-state.
Not eaxactly. You seem to assume that the head of the Serbian military intelligence was doing so with the full knowledge and consent of the Serbian government - and in his offical capacity.
I don't know if 'certain portions of the Srbian government were spoiling for war', but they weren't the deciding portion. I'm aware that there were groups in Serbia active to provoke a war with Austria-Hungary with the intent of breakung up that state into its national components (and they in fact succeeded). But that's not what was at issue in August 1914, when the Serbian government was going to great lengths to try and prevent that war by accomodating the Austrian ultimatum demands as best they could.
(And that most certainly is not 'the official Serbian version' of events, but the version that takes into account all sides and actions. As any good historian should do.)
The head of Serbian military intelligence, Dragutin Dimitrijevic, was the leader of the Black Hand. I don't think it can be more clear-cut than that. It would be the equivalent of Bin Laden being Afghanistan's Defence Minister.
The Crown Prince may also have been a member, though that has never been proven. He certainly profited from the organisation; He became the first true King of Yugoslavia - he was regent for his father when the Kingdom was formed - and Dimitrijevic helped remove his older brother from the line of descent, making way for Alexander. Many other government and military officials were members; how many has never been adequately ascertained, since it operated under a cell structure and, once its goals had been achieved, it effectively ceased to exist. Many of its low-level operatives were doubtless killed fighting WWI.
Many people make hay of the fact that the Serbs "only refused one of the conditions of the ultimatum." What most people don't mention, however, is that it was the only point on the ultimatum that Austria-Hungary could not negotiate on, as it was the point about being able to extradite members of the Black Hand, regardless of what positions they held in the Serbian establishment. The Austrians were well aware of Dimitrijevic's position in the organisation.
That doesn't negate the point, however. (By the way, you forgot to mention that one of the ultimatum demands was to give Austrian investigators full access and authority inside Serbia.) The ultimatum wasn't drawn up in the expectation that it would be met - even partially. It was intended to give the assassinators exactly what they wanted: war. Because of the stupidity of the then Austrian foreign minister, this is what they got.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Yeah, that's the weird thing about this "United Kingdom of England" stuff, it's like something you'd expect from a Sinn Feiner, only it comes with blue ribbons and pictures of the Queen.
I don't know much about the general state of WWI historiography, but Christopher Clark gives a lot of credence to this "Austrian version", and I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of his work.
So, you know someone who knows something. And he is getting praise for knowing someting. That's... informative.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Clark is a historian who wrote a highly-acclaimed book of the outbreak of the First World War. (It's been mentioned quite a lot on CFC, I assumed that the reference would be understood.)
Similar threads
