Max Payload wrote: ↑09 Oct 2018, 10:57
MarkN wrote: ↑09 Oct 2018, 10:11
.. if a poster has become confused or unable to discern the credible from the uncredible by reading differing opinions in different books, getting yet more differing opinions fromm anonymous online posters is only going to worsen the situation. What makes one opinion more reliable than another? Confirmation bias? I suggest the way forward would be to form one's own opinion by taking the time to read the prime documentation oneself.
Perhaps you disagree.
No I don’t. And I guess it’s also incumbent on the poster to formulate a query succinctly and in a way that doesn’t require a dissertation on early twentieth century history by means of reply. But there is a lot of primary source material out there and much of it is not readily accessible. Some time ago I came across an on-line listing of much of the diplomatic telegraphic communication in late July ‘14; now I can’t find it. I would not consider it inappropriate or laziness on my part to ask on this forum for a specific piece of information or for a clarification on something that could be extremely time consuming to resolve by sourcing the prime documentation. And from the source material we get explanation, interpretation or opinion, and even conflicting opinion is not without value, it forces further critical examination of the ‘facts’.
Quite agree. I have no issue with somebody seeking help with a bit of confusion or in search of a bit of information that cannot be readily accessed. Unfortunately, what I have discerned here is quite different. What the original poster seems to be asking for appears disconnected with the words actually written.
First, the request is not for a bit of help with some info, but a request to debunk a complete theory. As you point out that would require a dissertation level effort. Hence my earlier comments about getting others to do the work.
Second, the way the requests are formulated are biased and indicate to me a predisposed position - despite the denials to the contrary. The original poster is presenting a series of single events and asking for explanation. What he's looking for is somebody to explain how that event ties to a decision taken at that time - to debunk the longterm policy theory. That approach implies a predisposition towards that theory; it is not for posters to 'prove' that events and decisions were concurrent, it is for those behind the theory to prove they were part of a grander scheme. It seems to me that the original poster has in his head an idea that unless all the events he throws up for question can be adequately explained to his satisfaction, his default position (that it was a grand longterm strategy) must be valid.
Third, following from the second, the determination to get others to accept the bizarre understanding and logic that an event today is 'proof' that it was decided upon earlier indicates the very same bias and predisposition.
It is generally accepted that from the very end of July onwards, Berlin was, collectively, moving to war and playing deliberate diplomatic games with allies and foes alike to gain military advantage. Finding evidence of that is simple. It is numerous. However, NOTHING will be learned by going through those days AGAIN - even at the nitty gritty level - to evidence a longstanding policy of using military effort to dominate Europe. To evidence that, one needs to go through - at the nitty gritty level - all of the events prior to July and especially the entire period 1905-1914. In otherwords, the original poster is looking at the WRONG timeframe. Why? Why is he just parotting the illogical reasoning of those claiming events at the end of July prove earlier policy decisionmaking? I am sure Copeland et al have turned archives upside down looking for the earlier evidence - and what have they come up with?