The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan

[Easy-Kill]

Yes, by democracy I mean exactly universal suffrage. A relatively small percentage of people in the British state had civil rights (think of all those in British India and British Africa), and an even smaller percentage could vote. In the French state the situation was similar. In the German and Austrian states, a larger percentage had civil rights and voted, but their votes had much less practical consequence, as the parliaments had little power. Russia was rather autocratic.

The main difference between Anglo-French and German thought of the period is not one of democracy vs. imperialism, but rather that the Anglo-French imagined a different set of rules for imperial expansion overseas and for the European territories, while for Germany (and Russia) the same set of rules applied to imperial expansion in both areas.

Just a quick point, but in the UK it was still a significant percentage of the UK population (i.e. not overseas territories) who were able to vote. I am going by memory, but I believe that the size of the UK electorate in 1910 was 7.7Million people, this is out of a population of 39M - this was about 20% of the population (today, about 72% of the population were eligible to vote). When you consider that the legal voting age was 21+ and life expectancy was about 52 years, this equates to about 3 in 4 men were eligible to vote (and not a few land owning toffs). Sure, there was improvement to be made (which was in the process of happening ... afterall, it was one of the main principles of the Liberal's 1910 manifesto).

As for the treatment of colonies, I do not buy that Germans treated Europeans as Europeans treated the rest of the world. Both the German ruling class and populace of this period seemed to have a superiority complex and took every question on their foreign policy as a personal insult to the Kaiser and Fatherland. The UK and France certainly exploited their colonies and the occasional incompetence led to tragedy. However, Germany was a 'juggernaut of military extremism', with the armed forces ruling supreme without oversight or control of any civilian authority. This led to the execution and even celebration of barbaric events such as the Herero and Namaqua genocides. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide) - a chilling precursor to German imperial expansion in Europe a few decades later and something which dwarfs most British imperial expansions.

 

[SorelusImperion]

Ah yes British benign colonialism...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

 

[Andrelvis]

Just a quick point, but in the UK it was still a significant percentage of the UK population (i.e. not overseas territories) who were able to vote. I am going by memory, but I believe that the size of the UK electorate in 1910 was 7.7Million people, this is out of a population of 39M - this was about 20% of the population (today, about 72% of the population were eligible to vote). When you consider that the legal voting age was 21+ and life expectancy was about 52 years, this equates to about 3 in 4 men were eligible to vote (and not a few land owning toffs). Sure, there was improvement to be made (which was in the process of happening ... afterall, it was one of the main principles of the Liberal's 1910 manifesto).

It is rather arbitrary to count only the portion of the British state's population which lived in Great Britain itself. Considering the British state encompassed around more than 400 millions of human beings at the time, that electorate of 7.7 million means only 1-2% of the population of the state was able to vote. This was no democracy.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Ah yes British benign colonialism...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

Ahh yes, retort German atrocities by pointing the finger at Britain's colonial failures by quoting an article written by a populist whose principal achievement was ineffectively trying to make a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair.

If that is your retort in comparison to the the state sponsored Herero and Namaqua Genocide, surely it couldn't have been all that bad

 

[SorelusImperion]

Ahh yes, retort German atrocities by pointing the finger at Britain's colonial failures by quoting an article written by a populist whose principal achievement was ineffectively trying to make a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair.

Or rather underlining that there was no qualitative difference between German atrocities and British atrocities only to read a response that consist of nothing but an ad hominem against the author of the article. Your whole argument rests on the position that Germany was exeptionaly brutal and I showed that the brutality wasn't exeptional at all.

One has to wonder why that militaristic juggernaut that was Germany didn't use the far better oportunity that offered itself merely nine years ago: The Russian revolution. Were the Junkers all asleep when European hegemony was up for picking as Russia and Britain almost went to war and Russia soon there after fell into chaos ? Why didn't Bülow the most agressive and arrogant chancellor by far didn't sieze the chance ? The answer is easy: Because Germany was not the "militarized juggernaut" you tell us it was.

Yes the military had undue influence on politics (so much that it proved to be fatal in 1914) but even with the kind of influence they had they couldn't simply dominate politics. A Chancellor that hadn't a solid majority of the Reichstag behind him to grant him the budget he needed and to pass the laws he wanted was just as much of a lame duck as Obama is today and would eventually be replaced by someone who was capable of convincing and cooperating with the parliament.

When they did go to war they did so because they thought it to be unavoidable in the long term and because they thought they had a good and plausible casus belli when the heir of the only "trustable" ally was murdered in cold blood by terrorists hired equipped and trained by the secret service of a rogue state. 6/28 never forget
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent crisis was for Germany what the invasion of Belgium was for the British Empire: A pretext for the hawks and a question of honor for the idealists and doves convincing both that military action was the only way.

 

[KaiserBeer]

In my opinion this was one of Russia's (and the Entente's) only major aggressive moves in this crisis. However, with Austria mobilising more forces than necessary to defeat Serbia, Serbia being a protectorate of Russia, the Austro-German strategy of clumsy expansion into the Balkans and Germany's well known war plans against Russia in the event of such a crisis, I find it difficult to apportion blame to Russia for acting defensively. Furthermore, leading figures in Germany were itching for a fight with Russia and they were the ones who took the step of declaring war.

But following this logic, Austria's mobilization against Serbia is infinitely less threatening to Russia than Russia's mobilization against Austria is to Germany, especially considering the fact that Russia mobilized completely too, even against the wishes of the Tsar. If you are a german minister and by chance you have the largest army in the world mobilizing in your very doorstep - somehow allied with your old rival at the other side of the Rhine - and they refuse to stop the process, then, basically, Germany is acting on perceived self defense too. Germany has far more reasons to feel threatened by the course of events following russian mobilization than Russia has regarding the austrian one.

Just a quick point, but in the UK it was still a significant percentage of the UK population (i.e. not overseas territories) who were able to vote. I am going by memory, but I believe that the size of the UK electorate in 1910 was 7.7Million people, this is out of a population of 39M - this was about 20% of the population (today, about 72% of the population were eligible to vote). When you consider that the legal voting age was 21+ and life expectancy was about 52 years, this equates to about 3 in 4 men were eligible to vote (and not a few land owning toffs). Sure, there was improvement to be made (which was in the process of happening ... afterall, it was one of the main principles of the Liberal's 1910 manifesto).

As for the treatment of colonies, I do not buy that Germans treated Europeans as Europeans treated the rest of the world. Both the German ruling class and populace of this period seemed to have a superiority complex and took every question on their foreign policy as a personal insult to the Kaiser and Fatherland. The UK and France certainly exploited their colonies and the occasional incompetence led to tragedy. However, Germany was a 'juggernaut of military extremism', with the armed forces ruling supreme without oversight or control of any civilian authority. This led to the execution and even celebration of barbaric events such as the Herero and Namaqua genocides. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide) - a chilling precursor to German imperial expansion in Europe a few decades later and something which dwarfs most British imperial expansions.

Did you know that the british threatened to bomb Rio de Janeiro with the Royal Navy when drunken british sailors were arrested in the then brazilian capital for causing trouble? Isn't this an example of "superiorty complex" or "take as an insult to the King and Country"?

 

[Herbert West]

If that is your retort in comparison to the the state sponsored Herero and Namaqua Genocide, surely it couldn't have been all that bad

If we bring up one of the hundreds of famines in India, will your retort be that that was not the british State, but merely the BEIC?

 

[Easy-Kill]

It is rather arbitrary to count only the portion of the British state's population which lived in Great Britain itself. Considering the British state encompassed around more than 400 millions of human beings at the time, that electorate of 7.7 million means only 1-2% of the population of the state was able to vote. This was no democracy.

Now you are just being pedantic and trying to benchmark democracy based on a concept which doesn't even exist today. For example, British Overseas Territories Citizen are not elligible to vote in UK elections unless they are resident in the UK.

Similarly, as a UK citizen resident in Austria, my voting rights were limited to local and not national elections (if I understood the rules correctly). British India was for example, not a part of the United Kingdom and its people were (generally) not resident in the UK. The colonies were just that ... colonies; they were not part of the state.

 

[Easy-Kill]

If we bring up one of the hundreds of famines in India, will your retort be that that was not the british State, but merely the BEIC?

Most of those famines were in general natural occurrences and not state sponsored as you may wish to believe. While it is certainly true that the Colonial administration enacted policies which allowed demographic and economic situations which exacerbated the famine, the famines themselves would have occurred anyway. If I understand the situation correctly, it was the demographic shift and the inability of the transport system to transport the food which led to the problems. In almost all cases the British administration took active measures to both address the crisis and prevent it happening in the future.

Again, they were certainly tragic, but were not the result of a government policy aiming to murder an entire race of people.

 

[Andrelvis]

Now you are just being pedantic and trying to benchmark democracy based on a concept which doesn't even exist today. For example, British Overseas Territories Citizen are not elligible to vote in UK elections unless they are resident in the UK.

Similarly, as a UK citizen resident in Austria, my voting rights were limited to local and not national elections (if I understood the rules correctly). British India was for example, not a part of the United Kingdom and its people were (generally) not resident in the UK. The colonies were just that ... colonies; they were not part of the state.

That is incorrect. According to international law, overseas territories are part of the British state, regardless of how the British state decides to organize itself internally. Meanwhile, Austria is part of another state altogether. When British statesmen were talking of "annexing" territories in Africa and Asia, what do you think they were talking about, if not incorporating them into the British state? That they wanted to place them in an inferior position than the European British territories is indeed ghastly, and demonstrate how undemocratic the whole state was. Just because a territory happens to be overseas does not erase the fact that it was part of the British state and yet its people had no voting rights.

And the concept certainly existed then, after all, the Thirteen Colonies had sought exactly that, to have voting rights, just as people in the European parts of Britain had - and only when that was vigorously denied did they seek independence. The 1812 Cádiz Constitution of Spain granted voting rights to people in the colonies, and in 1815 Brazil was granted equality to mainland Portugal within the Portuguese state, so that it could send deputies to the Cortes which were established in 1820/1821. And only when these rights were taken away did the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking peoples in the Americas seek independence, just like the English-speakers had done a few decades before. There is, thus, plenty of evidence that such a concept existed, Britain just refused to accept it.

 

[joak]

Most of those famines were in general natural occurrences and not state sponsored as you may wish to believe. While it is certainly true that the Colonial administration enacted policies which allowed demographic and economic situations which exacerbated the famine, the famines themselves would have occurred anyway.

Then why did famines stop after the British left?

Occasional poor harvests--sometimes disastrously bad--continued, but famines stopped. Famines are not purely natural, they are to a very large extent a choice about how to prioritize resources.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Or rather underlining that there was no qualitative difference between German atrocities and British atrocities only to read a response that consist of nothing but an ad hominem against the author of the article. Your whole argument rests on the position that Germany was exeptionaly brutal and I showed that the brutality wasn't exeptional at all.

You quoted a newspaper article written by a clown, of a quality so poor it couldn't even be published in an actual newspaper (but instead on its website). Yes, there were bullies, imbeciles and incompetents in Britain's colonial administration. However, it was in no way comparable to the state sponsored and state applauded genocide at Herero and Namaqua

One has to wonder why that militaristic juggernaut that was Germany didn't use the far better oportunity that offered itself merely nine years ago: The Russian revolution. Were the Junkers all asleep when European hegemony was up for picking as Russia and Britain almost went to war and Russia soon there after fell into chaos ? Why didn't Bülow the most agressive and arrogant chancellor by far didn't sieze the chance ? The answer is easy: Because Germany was not the "militarized juggernaut" you tell us it was.

Then why were the four most powerful figures in Germany intimately involved in the military? Why did Germany declare war on France and Russia, then subsequently break international treaties and invade France? Why did Germany have the most powerful land force in Europe and seek to have the most powerful navy? Why wasn't Germany content with the status quo?

Yes the military had undue influence on politics (so much that it proved to be fatal in 1914) but even with the kind of influence they had they couldn't simply dominate politics. A Chancellor that hadn't a solid majority of the Reichstag behind him to grant him the budget he needed and to pass the laws he wanted was just as much of a lame duck as Obama is today and would eventually be replaced by someone who was capable of convincing and cooperating with the parliament.

The two most important things to control in a nation are the military and taxation. Neither of these were controlled by the Reichstag in Imperial Germany.

When they did go to war they did so because they thought it to be unavoidable in the long term and because they thought they had a good and plausible casus belli when the heir of the only "trustable" ally was murdered in cold blood by terrorists hired equipped and trained by the secret service of a rogue state. 6/28 never forget
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent crisis was for Germany what the invasion of Belgium was for the British Empire: A pretext for the hawks and a question of honor for the idealists and doves convincing both that military action was the only way.

No it was not. Britain (and Germany) had signed a treaty promising to uphold and protect the territorial integrity and neutrality of Belgium. Germany had not signed a treaty to start a general European conflict on the murder of a foreign statesman by a private individual.

 

[Easy-Kill]

That is incorrect. According to international law, overseas territories are part of the British state, regardless of how the British state decides to organize itself internally. Meanwhile, Austria is part of another state altogether. When British statesmen were talking of "annexing" territories in Africa and Asia, what do you think they were talking about, if not incorporating them into the British state? That they wanted to place them in an inferior position than the European British territories is indeed ghastly, and demonstrate how undemocratic the whole state was. Just because a territory happens to be overseas does not erase the fact that it was part of the British state and yet its people had no voting rights.

They were not annexed. British Indian subjects did not have British passports, the same way that British Overseas Territory Citizens do not have British passports. They are not part of Britain. They do not have the right to vote.

The dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories of the British Empire were not part of the United Kingdom.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Then why did famines stop after the British left?

Occasional poor harvests--sometimes disastrously bad--continued, but famines stopped. Famines are not purely natural, they are to a very large extent a choice about how to prioritize resources.

Are you seriously suggesting that the famines were state sponsored? The impact of these national events was precipitated by two influential things. The first was the massive expansion of the Indian Rail network in the late 19th and early 20th century, reaching 61,000KM in 1909 (even today this number has less than doubled to 115,000km).

While there were other famines in this period ('43 Bengal famine), there were certainly exacerbating factors to this (one of which was the German's sinking lots of Merchant shipping).

 

[Andrelvis]

They were not annexed. British Indian subjects did not have British passports, the same way that British Overseas Territory Citizens do not have British passports. They are not part of Britain. They do not have the right to vote.

The dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories of the British Empire were not part of the United Kingdom.

You are confusing belonging to a state with being granted full rights within it. They were (according to international law), yes, a part of the British state, but in that state's internal organization they were denied full rights. A state's internal organization is, however, irrelevant for international law.

 

[Easy-Kill]

You are confusing belonging to a state to be granted full rights within it. They were (according to international law), yes, a part of the British state, but in that state's internal organization they were denied full rights. A state's internal organization is, however, irrelevant for international law.

Again, Dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories are a part of the British Empire as a 'state', but (were) not part of the United Kingdom. India as a dominion acquired its own responsible government in 1909 as we are talking about. I am not an expert on international law, however, to my understanding is that prior to 1909, India was recognised as a crown colony (and as a dominion thereafter). As a crown colony they have the same legal status as current 'British Overseas Territories' (which were still crown colonies until 2002).

Current international law states that 'British Overseas Territories Citizens' do not have a right to vote in the UK, unless they reside IN the UK. So, even under current law, British Indians were not entitled to vote the UK government

 

[Andrelvis]

Current international law states that 'British Overseas Territories Citizens' do not have a right to vote in the UK, unless they reside IN the UK. So, even under current law, British Indians were not entitled to vote the UK government

No, current UK domestic law states that (you are again confusing the two). International law says that they are a part of the British state.

 

[Easy-Kill]

No, current UK domestic law states that (you are again confusing the two). International law says that they are a part of the British state.

No. International Law recognises British Overseas Territories as dependent territories, in that they are not considered to be part of the integral territory of the governing State.

 

[KINGBEN]

No. International Law recognises British Overseas Territories as dependent territories, in that they are not considered to be part of the integral territory of the governing State.

Indeed. That is why many of them are on the UN de-colonisation list.

edit: Also the a large part of India consisted of princely states, and Africa and the Middle East of a dominion and mandates.

 

[Andrelvis]

No. International Law recognises British Overseas Territories as dependent territories, in that they are not considered to be part of the integral territory of the governing State.

Now that's a good argument. But even taking that into consideration, Great Britain was directly responsible for the lack of democracy in places such as India, and joining that to the fact that even within Great Britain itself only around 35% of the adult population could vote, it is still rather hard to consider early 20th century Britain as a "democratic power".