site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 2024

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From the british perspective WWI starts with the invasion of Belgium.

Well, it actually started with the Franco-British staff talks, the 1904 Franco-British agreement on naval responsibilities in the Mediterranean and North Sea vis. the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the fear of the Liberal cabinet in 1914 that failing to take a hard line on Germany would result in the fall of the cabinet (the PM and FM were both implicated in secret back-channel negotiations with the French which, had the UK not supported France against Germany, would have been immensely personally and politically damaging to them and probably required resignation) and the likely installation of the Tories, who would be bellicose anyway and (in the view of the liberals) also likely spark civil war over the Irish question. The Belgium question was just the tripwire.

Germany went full "might makes right" and "no laws but man's"

No, they bungled what should have been a decent and defensible position in support of an ally who had been the subject of an organized assassination plot from a rogue state sponsor of terrorism. Frankly, the Russians and Austrians both bear at least as much guilt for the onset of general war as the Germans, and probably more.

thus they rendered their destruction necessary for the survival of the wider west.

Ironic, because at the time Germany was arguably the leading light of the west, at least in scientific and cultural matters.

If Belgium was a tripwire, it was a pretty substantial one. There was real doubt all the way through the process. Zero reason for England to back Serbia. Almost none to back Russia. More to defend France, but abstaining was seriously on the table. It was only preemptively occupying Belgium that said, hey, one of these pieces of paper has to mean something!

I've heard historians argue that the british government's legal counsel had advised that the 1839 treaty could be worked around. And in any event the UK went in before the invasion of Belgium - Grey's famous speech to parliament is all based upon assumptions and diplomatic insinuations, not any concrete actions by the Germans. Once the Brits were in, there was no incentive for the Germans not to go through Belgium.

The German war plans offered limited flexibility - not NO flexibility as the General Staff pretended - but once the decision was made to go in against France, Belgium was done for regardless. As units on the Belgian frontier were activated they were already moving across the border to secure the way for those coming behind them. The German deployment schedules which were so rigorously developed in the pre-war period required either a conquered Belgium or a pliant one. There were no alternatives.

No, they bungled what should have been a decent and defensible position in support of an ally...

Are you trying to argue that the invasion and occupation of Belgium in 1914 was somehow accidental?

Ironic, because at the time Germany was arguably the leading light of the west, at least in scientific and cultural matters.

Debatable but even so, ironic does not mean untrue.

Are you trying to argue that the invasion and occupation of Belgium in 1914 was somehow accidental?

I'm trying to argue that it shouldn't have come to a general war in the first place.

It probably wouldn't have if Germany hadn't violated Belgium's neutrality.

Germany wanted a general war and they got it.

I disagree; the diplomatic and political maneuvering in the weeks and months leading up to the initial declarations of war - let alone the actual first acts of armed hostility - are much more complex. I recommend Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers and Sean McMeekin's July 1914: Countdown to War. They reach different conclusions, but are both magisterial overviews of the subject.