3 ms·

I agree with most of that, except for: > it's hard to see how war could have been averted by that point when you read the day-by-day activity leading up to th

I agree with most of that, except for: > it's hard to see how war could have been averted by that point when you read the day-by-day activity leading up to the war, you see plenty of missed opportunities. Czar Nicholas, especially, could have NOT mobilized. Wilhelm could have told Austria NOT to declare on Serbia. And Wilhelm could have said to his generals, "You know what? We're not attacking Belgium" in which case England stays out. At least for a while. Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices. What is the basis for saying it's weakness? The point is, it might have been politically impossible for them to do otherwise. As an extreme example, after Pearl Harbor could FDR have said, 'we're going to let Japan get away with it'? No, he'd be impeached and removed from office, and someone else would have taken the US into the war. Politics is the ultimate power, not Nicholas, not Wilhelm. Political power is often intangible, so it's easy to deny it from the sideline, but there's no doubt about its force.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Yes, j guess that's my point. Certainly individuals "could" have said or done anything. But politically, either personally or nationally, the outcomes were going in one direction. Russia has an alliance with Serbia. Not mobilising would have had significant international repercussions. Perhaps Germany could have removed the blank-cheque support for Austria. That may have de-escalated things, but may have left Germany unaligned, and thus vulnerable. Occasionally a domino doesn't fall, but all too often, if you set them up right, they do what they do best.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Russia has an alliance with Serbia. Not mobilising would have had significant international repercussions Russia was in no state to fight a war. They lost a war to a second tier global power and not so long and barely survived a major revolution (which was hardly over). Negotiating with Austria/Germany and forcing Serbia to give up the people responsible for the assassination would’ve been the only reasonable choice. Instead the tsar being the incompetent idiot (understatement that man was truly special…) that he was decided to sacrifice his entire family and million of Russians (not that he cared) and destroy the Russian state itself. Same might be said about the kaiser Wilhelm, but: 1. Germany actually stood a chance 2. Wasn’t on the brink of a complete political/social collapse like Russia at the time
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Except nobody attacked or even threatened Russia and Germany so it’s not really comparable to Pearl Harbor at all. There was really nothing or almost nothing to gain and everything to lose for all the aides involved in WW1. So I’d say it was stupidity rather than weakness. Relatively to its scale it was probably the most pointless war in human history. The things it achieved, end of monarchy in Central/Eastern Europe and the eventual collapse of global European empires are not something the people who started it ever wanted.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I think it's very easy to sit at a computer in 2023 and type that, dismissing all the forces involved as 'stupidity' (including and especially, the politics). We learn nothing about the reality of such things and doom ourselves to ignorance and then actual stupidity.

wolverine876 3y ago

> Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices. What is the basis for saying it's weakness? The point is, it might have been politically impossible for them to do otherwise. As an extreme example, after Pearl Harbor could FDR have said, 'we're going to let Japan get away with it'? No, he'd be impeached and removed from office, and someone else would have taken the US into the war. Politics is the ultimate power, not Nicholas, not Wilhelm. Political power is often intangible, so it's easy to deny it from the sideline, but there's no doubt about its force.

bruce511 3y ago
Yes, j guess that's my point. Certainly individuals "could" have said or done anything. But politically, either personally or nationally, the outcomes were going in one direction. Russia has an alliance with Serbia. Not mobilising would have had significant international repercussions. Perhaps Germany could have removed the blank-cheque support for Austria. That may have de-escalated things, but may have left Germany unaligned, and thus vulnerable. Occasionally a domino doesn't fall, but all too often, if you set them up right, they do what they do best.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Russia has an alliance with Serbia. Not mobilising would have had significant international repercussions Russia was in no state to fight a war. They lost a war to a second tier global power and not so long and barely survived a major revolution (which was hardly over). Negotiating with Austria/Germany and forcing Serbia to give up the people responsible for the assassination would’ve been the only reasonable choice. Instead the tsar being the incompetent idiot (understatement that man was truly special…) that he was decided to sacrifice his entire family and million of Russians (not that he cared) and destroy the Russian state itself. Same might be said about the kaiser Wilhelm, but: 1. Germany actually stood a chance 2. Wasn’t on the brink of a complete political/social collapse like Russia at the time
ffgjgf1 3y ago
Except nobody attacked or even threatened Russia and Germany so it’s not really comparable to Pearl Harbor at all. There was really nothing or almost nothing to gain and everything to lose for all the aides involved in WW1. So I’d say it was stupidity rather than weakness. Relatively to its scale it was probably the most pointless war in human history. The things it achieved, end of monarchy in Central/Eastern Europe and the eventual collapse of global European empires are not something the people who started it ever wanted.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think it's very easy to sit at a computer in 2023 and type that, dismissing all the forces involved as 'stupidity' (including and especially, the politics). We learn nothing about the reality of such things and doom ourselves to ignorance and then actual stupidity.