This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For not having an army big enough to 'really' conquer Europe, they sure did come pretty close more than once during WWI.
That was 1871. Wilhelmine Germany was not embarrassed about their ambition to dominate Europe, and they deliberately worked to that end.
And that's why the war started smack in the middle of Bava...................Kosovo.
1: Serbian-organized terrorists kill Austrian heir
2: Austrians demand massive concessions, on threat of invasion, which I think is understandable enough (in realpolitik terms). This is essentially what the US did with Afghanistan.
3: The Russians jump in with zero stake or justification other than Pan-slav ideology.
4: Germany tells Austria to go ahead, they got their back
5: France jumps in, although their treaty with Russia doesn't require it, as Russia is not defending itself.
6: Now facing a two-front war, Germany loses the game of chicken and starts fighting.
7: Britain looks at all that and goes with France and the Russians.
The result of the war will be a communist dictatorship in Russia, a fascist one in Germany, another world war, and a seventy-year cold war between the victors. Counterfactuals are impossible, but Nicky 2 is a strong contender for dumbest world power leader of all time.
Of course Germany wants to dominate Europe, so does France and everyone else. They do it with banks rather than armies now, which is better for everyone, but still resented.
Sure, it's understandable why the Austrians demanded those concessions - they anticipated that the Serbians would be unwilling to comply or unable to within the very small timeframe offered, which would justify a military invasion. As you say, it's very understandable realpolitik - which is to say, lies and disregard for the weak.
(I don't think this is really that similar to Afghanistan. The AH interest in Serbia and the Balkans was long-running, part of a grander expansionist policy. But Afghanistan did not fit all that well into American foreign policy. If anything, it has interfered with and muddled long-term State Department strategy.)
The Russians had just as much stake in the Balkans as the Austro-Hungarians did - it was there, and they wanted it for themselves.
I don't see how Germany having Austria's back is defensible and France having Russia's back is not. Fact is it's just moronic not to help your allies. Was France supposed to just twiddle their thumbs while the Germans defeated their ally, knowing that they would soon be next? This is always a problem with alliances and commitments - those that you commit yourself to alliance with might take advantage of your reliance on them to do what they wish. Of course, this was not a problem for Germany and Austria.
Germany wanted a general war in 1914. Germany's guarantee to Austria was intended to increase the likelihood of war. They were ready for war and confident of victory. France and Russia were not. In addition, many in Germany feared that Russia would become an unbeatable foe if their army was successfully modernized. German strategy sought to knock the French out of the war quickly in a repeat of 1870, and then settle in for a longer and more grueling conflict against the Russians.
All of which can be laid at the feet of the German militarists who sought in 1914 to dominate Europe through force of arms. The fact is that it was they who loosed Lenin on Russia. The fascists who arose in Germany were no aberration, for they were cut from the same cloth as the Prussian militarists who were the driving force in 1914. Had the Germans simply accepted the status quo in 1914, all these things and more could have been averted. Instead, they chose escalation. They chose to believe that war was inevitable, and made it thus. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
More options
Context Copy link
Id-Pol truly is the mind (and apparently everything else) killer.
It's a bit more complicated, of course, but was trying to be short.
Russia had sold the Balkan slavs out the last several rounds of great-power reorganization of the area. They were under a lot of pressure to make good that time. Bad time for Nicky to find his balls.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Germany’s army at the start was smaller than France or Russia’s, so sustaining occupation across Europe probably would have been a stretch. The original German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg seemingly tried to avoid escalation, held off initiating German mobilization until after Russia had started first, and tried to trade leaving France and Belgium’s borders unchanged if Britain stayed out.
Like I said though, I’m not really a fan of the argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link