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 -
There's no guarantee that a German-dominated Europe would have been hostile to Britain. German relations with Britain were actually significantly improving prior to the outbreak of war in 1914 - Germany had conclusively lost the battleship race and stopped even trying to keep up with the British by 1910. The Chancellor even offered to gift the entire German High Seas Fleet to the Brits in order to secure neutrality.
The Liberal government was fairly unified in favor of staying out if it could be reasonably done...except that particular Teutophobes (e.g. Eyre Crowe) and Francophiles (e.g. Edward Grey) at the Foreign Ministry had been running a private French policy with minimal supervision, and during the July Crisis advised the PM and cabinet that they had already committed the honor of Britain to keeping the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel without bothering to consult the Royal Navy (or really anyone else).
Except balance of power politics had been British strategy for centuries at this point; they’re not going to suddenly support a continental hegemon that isn’t them.
Everyone always says this, but I'm not so sure. The Brits had no problem with a post-Napoleonic Europe dominated by Russia and Austria in the Holy Alliance; France was prostrate and Prussia was small and reforming. Sure, Britain pushed back against Russia when it started pushing up against British interests in the middle east and India (e.g. the Crimean War), but other than that the Brits held themselves aloof.
Austria was not entirely considered a Great Power by the middle of the 19th century (France, 'prostrate' or not, was viewed as the 1000 pound gorilla of the Continent until the unification of Germany) and, as you note, Britain balanced against the Russians when it seemed to be necessary.
However, when the British failed balance sufficiently, they got the two World Wars and an Arms Race or two so, to the extent they didn't balance, they were being actively taught by events why it was important to do so.
One can argue that the UK got WWI because they were too obsessed with trying to balance (or at least because Grey and French were). And after the horror that was WWI, it's completely understandable why the Brits would have a reflexive allergy against an assertive and powerful Germany, specifically. After all, what was the point of the millions and millions dead and maimed, including the best and brightest of a whole generation, if it only bought thirty years before the Boche came back, and this time in an even less couth guise than the Kaiser? It's the ultimate sunk cost.
The failure to prevent a unified Germany is pretty much what I mean when I say Britain 'failed [to] balance sufficiently'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link