Right. You can’t rule out Russia attacking Ukraine, or even the EU. Or even vice versa. I’m mostly irritated by people seeing 1939 everywhere and talking about how appeasement never works (if I’d be cruel I’d ask for three examples of appeasement not working). Or how Russians are apparently predisposed to dictatorship. People hear rhetorics and saber-rattling and as they don’t hear much else from those countries they imagine simple predictable societies.
Aceris
1740
I mean, what were France and Britain supposed to do? Be invaded? Watch the continent dissolve into war and be conquered by a aggressive, imperialistic Germany with plans for ethnic cleansing?
Whilte the claims of Griff nach der Weltmacht might not be justified in every particular, it paints a compelling picture - based on primary sources - of a Germany that sought chances to use its military might directly against the other “Great powers” in order to achieve preeminence.
The reason the last argument of kings is the last argument is that there is no way to directly oppose it other than in kind.
In the case of Ukraine a NATO counterinvasion would be lunacy, but at the same time making credible and unambiguous threats of serious sanctions would almost certainly avert any invasion that might be planned. But that can’t happen because it would cost German industry a small amount.
Or maybe Putin is just making a display and seeing what concessions he can shake loose.
The World War One situation was complex, and people still argue over who was “responsible” for the war, but I have always felt there was plenty of shared responsibility. Imperial Germany was hardly Nazi Germany, more like yet another autocratic semi-democratic industrial power with a hefty chip on its shoulder. France and the UK were mendacious imperialists with their own skeletons in the closet. Germany bears the lion’s share of blame for the specific way the origin of the war unfolded, perhaps, but by then the situation had been fouled up by everyone so much that it’s hard to see much of a way out. WWII, different story. But thinking about 1914, I doubt anyone today would think the carnage of the ensuing war was in proportion to the issues of its origin.
Aceris
1742
I mean, this boils down to “I don’t like them so they must have been to blame somehow”.
Right, but that isn’t really relevant to your commentary on Britain and France’s behaviour, because they didn’t give a damn about the “issues of origin” and didn’t go to war over the “issues of origin”.
Was it in proportion to the threat of German/Austrian control over vast swathes of Russia and ethnic cleansing across the baltics and poland? Because those were the stakes that France faced. Not that they had much of a chance to change course because Germany and Austria deliberately triggered an escalation while Poincare was in transit and then jammed his communication with his own government.
Was it in proportion to the threat of the above and the fall of a close ally and control of the continent by the central powers, and being threatened economically and militarily whenever Germany wanted colonial concessions - a failure of over two centuries of british foreign policy? Because those were the stakes Britain faced.
CraigM
1743
Meanwhile Austria is just sitting here hoping you don’t notice them. And Hungary sure as hell isn’t about to say anything either.
Honestly Austria’s mixed posture, aggressive response and ultimatums but slow follow up, ensured the break the way it did. It is plausible had Austria acted more decisively and immediately then no general war would have broken out as Russia in particularly had reason to support a fellow autocrat striking against those who would usurp them.
Honestly the Hungarian part of the dual monarchy not wanting to lose further influence and importance played a large role, on top of harvest season related mobilization delays.
Germany is responsible for writing the blank check to Vienna, and not caring that it would cause trouble. That, and for having a mobilization plan that couldn’t go to war with Russia without also going to war with France. Britain could have forestalled much of this had it committed to an alliance with France, but out of distrust and colonial rivalry it dithered. Neither France nor Britain gave one damn about the Balkans (and I think your charge of ethnic cleansing leveled against the Central Powers is a bit anachronistic and extreme; they weren’t choir boys but no one in the Balkans, including the Balkan peoples themselves, or the Russians, were either). No one is denying the Kaiser’s government was bellicose, arrogant, and bears a lot of responsibility for the war. My point is that ultimately the nations that ended up fighting that war had choices, and didn’t make the right ones. That includes all of them.
CraigM
1745
Right. All these things are true, but you go far too easy in leaving off Austria-Hungary. It was their choices and actions in the decade plus prior that instigated the ‘damn stupid thing in the Balkans’.
Austria, suffering from internal instability, nationalist separatist movements in places like the Czech lands, dwindling prestige, the spectre of 1848, and more had been actively creating wedges in the Balkans to justify chipping out portions of the Ottoman to turn into their own spheres of influence as A-H protectorates. The reality is the actions and choices Franz Joseph in particular have a lot to do with the specifics on why the conflict turned the way it did.
And, yes, the German blank check enabled the slow walked boldness of Joseph. The reality is that Austria responded about the dumbest way possible by choosing a course where war was the intended and always going to happen end state, but played a poorly run game of diplomacy that eroded any good will and justification with the other powers. Had they just declared war on Serbia immediately, it is quite possible Russia and France sit it out and Germany’s blank check provides the justification to do so.
But instead they did stupid things and essentially wasted the casus belli, leading to the conflict.
Basically my position is that it is largely Austrias fault, but everyone is to blame.
KevinC
1746
I just want to assure you all that there will be no blundering around with Austria once I get my hands on Vicky 3.
I would not disagree with that at all–AH was a disaster across the board. Except for food; they had some good food.
My main point was not that Germany or AH was without blame, far from it. Just that I definitely do not see the UK and France in particular as innocent victims in this whole shebang. In some ways their actions were IMO were made even more blame worthy because of the higher expectations one might have had for them.
JonRowe
1748
Guys, I don’t know what we are all worrying about.
These are just military exercises! C’mon.
Russia wouldn’t lie right?
CraigM
1749
We are in violent agreement then!
And fair to highlight the failings of the entente powers. There is, broadly speaking, general understanding that WWI causal failures by Germany (and to a lesser extend AH) from the English speaking world. Partly because history is written by the victors, partly because there is a subtle desire to feel like there was. some good reason for that tragic meat grinder.
And I will go hard on the failures of the Anglo-French diplomats regarding the terms of peace. Especially Sykes and Picot. Those rat bastards are responsible for a huge amount of the ills of the modern day middle east. I struggle to think of a more consequential set of decisions that caused as much harm without any ill intent in history. I don’t think their goal was as directly harmful (though it sure as shit wasn’t benevolent), but their old imperialist way of thinking and power brokering created lasting legacies of harm and evil that I doubt they would be happy with.
Frankly, the entire Great War era is one giant shitshow that highlights everything bad about the long 19th century.
ShivaX
1752
This whole idea Germany had to put themselves completely in the thrall of Russia seems like it’s not paying off for them.
Austrian plans for Serbia after winning the war were a bit too sketchy to actually be called “plans”, but the essential Austrian goal was destroying the Serbian state, while the essential Hungarian goal was no more Slav populations being added to the Empire. So the sort of solutions they discussed in 1914 involved breaking up Serbia and dividing it between Bulgaria, Greece and Albania. Ethnic cleansing would have been the inevitable result, had that happened.
Those three tanks are really going to give Putin pause.
Scotten
1755
That’s the best and most succinct summary I’ve ever heard.
Ok, that I’ll buy. It would have been bad, though how much worse than how the Balkans always seem to play out is unclear, but it falls well short of the deliberate mass murder agenda of the later Nazi regime. This would have been more along the lines of the typical imperialist disregard for life and rights leading to mass misery; still horrible, but pretty much par for the course for the imperial age. Belgium in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the Dutch in Indonesia, etc.
jpinard
1758
What is with the people in some parts of Germany being blind to Russia’s ambitions?
In it, the Vice-Admiral is heard as saying: “Is Russia really interested in … a small, tiny strip of Ukraine’s soil? No, this is nonsense.”
“What he really wants is respect. And my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost … so if I was asked, it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands, and probably also deserves,” he said, adding: “Russia is an old country. Russia is an important country. Even we, India, Germany, we need Russia, because we need Russia against China.”
Dude, if you hadn’t noticed, Russia keeps invading its neighbors and took Crimea from Ukraine.
