is doomed.
Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.
Posted on 02/04/2011 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When then-Sen. Barack Obama made a short video for the "peace caucus" delegates to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, he captured the enthusiastic support of his party's pacifist wing. It was enough to propel him to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton's ad -- showing a red telephone ringing at 3 a.m. -- only emphasized to party pacifists that Obama was their man.
And, of course, leading antiwar figures like George Soros heavily bankrolled MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets -- all echoing the same pacifist line. Pacifism -- as the name implies -- ought to lead to peace. But it too often doesn't.
In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.
On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.
Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon "all parties" to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as "mere scraps of paper" and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that "the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve." That would be the English Channel.
Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?
G.K. Chesterton, the famed English writer, tells us why in his memoirs. Chesterton was well-connected in Liberal Party circles. He wrote the Liberals were indebted to Manchester millionaires for their party's campaign financing. Those Manchester millionaires were religious pacifists. They would not have tolerated any blunt, direct warning to Kaiser Wilhelm from Sir Edward Grey or from the Liberals' prime minister, H.H. Asquith.
To close this loop, however, it is necessary to show that the headstrong Kaiser would have been deterred by such an unambiguous warning. Fortunately, such evidence exists.
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett is the greatest of diplomatic historians of the interwar period of 1919-1939. In the summer of 1939, Sir John visited the ex-Kaiser at his exile home in Holland. There, on the eve of a second horrific conflagration, the deposed German emperor confirmed to this young British scholar that if he had only known that Britain would declare war, he would never have allowed his generals to invade Belgium!
Thus, we see how the entire world was dragged into the cataclysm of World War I -- with its 20 million dead. Out of what Winston Churchill called the world crisis was born Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Arab nationalism. We can trace to World War I some of what we are seeing on the streets of Tripoli, Cairo, and Amman even today.
I was fortunate to have Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as my professor of diplomatic history at the University of Virginia. I have not forgotten his worldly wisdom. It was thus with the deepest misgivings that I watched as our unprepared president advanced from one dangerously naïve statement to another as he sought and won the presidency.
Mr. Obama's bowing to desert despots, his fawning speech in Cairo, his signing of an appeasing treaty with Russia -- within days of the exposure of a Russian spy ring! -- all of these communicate U.S. weakness and increase the danger to steadfast American allies -- like Israel and the newly free states of Eastern Europe.
Let us hope that President Obama pulls back from his party's pacifist majority in time.
There was never a real prospect that Britain would not fight if Germany violated its treaty on Belgium. But a clear, strong "shot across the bow" might have prevented the horror of the trenches.
Ronald Reagan said that "no war in my lifetime has taken place because America was too strong." He set about rebuilding our "hollowed-out" military and repairing the damage done by four years of the invertebrate Jimmy Carter.
President Obama is gutting our defenses and broadcasting his belief that America has been the obstacle to world peace -- until, that is, the Obama administration, bedecked with olive leaves and holding doves in its extended hands, was installed. No more hazardous mindset can be imagined. Peace through strength has ever been the safest of policies for this Great Republic.
By declaration, I mean the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia.
By declaration, I mean the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia.
By declaration, I mean the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia.
That and the fact that Lundendorff (whom Hitler admired), set the Kaiser up for the fall. He admits as much in his memoirs, and Hitler picked this up.
The theory is simply insane. After the Battle of the Marne, they were stuck.
“One was an expansion of the other”
Wrong. Nothing about the Austro-Serbian War by itself would lead to Germany invading Belgium. That required Germany deciding they wanted to start a wider war, which was based on calculations having nothing at all to do with Serbia.
“It started as a localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia on July 28, 1914.”
“It” was not WWI. “It” was the Austro-Serbian War. WWI did not start until Germany invaded Belgium the next month.
“Prior to this, Germany had given a guarantee that it would back Austria-Hungary. In response to that declaration, Russia (Serbia’s Slavic ally) and France (Russia’s ally) mobilized. Germany declared war on both when they refused to stand down.”
This is how the textbooks describe it. But that’s not what it was like. You have the Serbian crisis on one hand and Germany’s decision to start a war on the other. They were interrelated, obviously. But one did not cause the other, nor was one an expansion of the other, strictly speaking.
That was their ONLY chance of success and a slim one at that. Why would I fight a war on those odds? Makes no sense to me.
What does make sense is that Russia exploited the incident of the Archduke to expand further into the balkans. They believed that combined with France, they could easily defeat Germany, and in the end, that Serbia would remain independent, and that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be destroyed.
Who accomplished their expansionist war aims? Germany or Russia? I think it’s pretty clear who succeeded. What did American lives accomplish? More land for Russia? So it seems.
Of course, one could mention the other startling violations of international law that undermine claims that the allies had clean hands such as the British minining of the North Sea and the starvation blockade but that's another issue.
Fun fact: Wilhelmshaven is not on the Baltic
“most of the literature does not treat the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary as a separate conflict”
If their wording is different than mine, the main idea isn’t. Even if they maintain the wider war was an outgrowth of the local one, they still maintain Germany’s guilt for the wider one. They nominally place the start of WWI at Sarajevo, but the real fighting (i.e. the fighting without which no one would care what happened) doesn’t begin until August, 1914.
“As a result, the culpability of Russia becomes apparent to the broadening of the scope of the war.”
No it doesn’t. No matter how you view the Serbian problem in relation to the wider conflict, Russia’s actions were not a cause for war.
“Of course, if you don’t see the two as linked, then you won’t see Russia as responsible for the war”
I see them as linked, no doubt. Just not causally linked. And even if I did, I probably wouldn’t blame Russia.
“as you’ve essentially turned them into a bit player”
Yes, they were, along with Serbia, Austria, France, Britain, Belgium, Italy, etc.
“Russia’s decision to back Serbia and to go to war against the Central Powers is the crucial decision in World war I to escalate the assassination of the Archduke into the second bloodiest war yet seen.”
Russia did not go to war with the Central Powers until after Germany declared war and invaded Belgium.
“I’m really not sure why you are here if you are arguing that you don’t believe that Bush had the best interests of Americans in 9-11”
It’s called sarcasm.
“I also don’t appreciate you labelling me a conspiracy theorist, when I’ve made no such allegations.”
I didn’t label you anything. Just implied your line of reasoning regarding Wilson and FDR happens to coincide with the sort of thinking offered by 9/11 truthers. If you don’t appreciate it, stop making outlandish claims.
At this point it is just pure stupidity as they know for a fact where this will end up.
But then again these are Progressives and they probably don’t mind a good culling right about now...
“Russia exploited the incident of the Archduke to expand further into the balkans. They believed that combined with France, they could easily defeat Germany, and in the end, that Serbia would remain independent, and that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be destroyed.”
Fine, but who declared war first? Germany. Who launched operations against their enemy first? Germany. We can speculate all day on Russia’s evil plans, but Germany’s the one who actually carried theirs out.
“Who accomplished their expansionist war aims? Germany or Russia? I think it’s pretty clear who succeeded.”
What are you on about? Russia didn’t start expanding, except to recoup what was lost to Germany in the war, until long after WWI. They had problems on their hands (civil war, rapid industrialization, general evil). Germany rose from its grave quicker, under Hitler’s Morning in Germany program.
“What did American lives accomplish? More land for Russia? So it seems.”
America won land for Russia in WWI? What, by preventing Germany from completely destroying them? I thought it was already inevitable that Germany would lose to the allies.
is doomed.
“You made the claim that Germany set out to ‘conquer’ Europe in 1914. Provide the evidence that this was in any way a German war aim”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know it was a German war aim to conquer the European continent because they actually tried to conquer the European continent. That was the result of starting the war.
“because it ‘went to war’ is not proof.”
Yes it is. It is absolute, incontrovertible, undeniable proof. That is, given the dimensions of the war and the fact that they started it.
“BTW, your rationization for the violation of Greek neutrality does not hold water. If two parties are having a war, that doesn’t justify the violation of the rights of a third party.”
I didn’t say it did. All I said is that Germany’s violation is ever moreso notable than your Greek example because it started the war. If ever you wonder why the Greek incident is less famous, and why it is hardly ever brought up, just remember that little fact.
“Of course, one could mention the other startling violations of international law that undermine claims that the allies had clean hands such as the British minining of the North Sea and the starvation blockade but that’s another issue.”
None of those violations STARTED THE WAR! It boggles my mind how you fail to understand the significance of that.
Inevitable with Russia in the war, yes.
They did completely destroy Austria Hungary, and injured Germany, both of Russia’s rivals in the region.
Fun fact, how do you think they got all of their navy over to Wilhelmshaven in the first place?
“That was their ONLY chance of success and a slim one at that.”
Their only chance at what? Conquering the continent? Well, yes, but why would they need to do that? Because France and Russia could possibly conquer them first? Okay, but couldn’t France and Russia have used the exact same rationalization? “We better conquer Germany before it gets too strong and comes after us.”
Since when has that sort of thinking been respectable?
“Inevitable with Russia in the war, yes.”
What “war”? Russia wasn’t in a war. Despite all your logical and historical acrobatics, mobilization is not an act of war. Never was, never will be.
“They did completely destroy Austria Hungary, and injured Germany, both of Russia’s rivals in the region.”
They didn’t injure Germany until after Germany started it.
I was unaware that labelling Wilson and FDR as ‘communist sympathi\ers’ was considered to be an outlandish claim.
I was unaware that labelling Wilson and FDR as ‘communist sympathizers’ was considered to be an outlandish claim.
“I was unaware that labelling Wilson and FDR as ‘communist sympathizers’ was considered to be an outlandish claim.”
Yes, it is. But that’s not what’s truly outlandish. The claim that we entered the two world wars to protect Russia is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.