Republican problems can be fixed. There are many Republicans coming up with an agenda now. Bit by bit, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, John McCain and a couple more are starting to toss out ideas that do appeal to the public. With only a couple notable exceptions, Senate Republicans are getting behind these ideas and tossing off the cranks. In the House, the leadership wants to follow suit and may yet, they just need to see the Wizard and get some ccccourage. Keep in mind too that in 2016, the Republicans get another chance to select a leader who can basically reshape the party and impose an agenda. Not to mention, at the state level, there are several Republicans who are getting solid reputations for education and economic reform.
Things aren’t as bleak as they seem. Our biggest problem is tossing off the cranks, as we discussed yesterday.
Now consider the Democrats. Their problems can’t be fixed because they’re structural.
In the 2000s, the progressive left spent a ton of money and manpower to take over the Democratic Party. Their goal was to permanently shift the party, which had flirted with conservatism under Clinton, to the far left permanently. They did and they won election because of the intense unpopularity of Bush. Things looked bright.
That’s when things started to go wrong.
First, the Democrats had the power for two years under Obama-Pelosi-Reid to grant their own wildest wishes. Each of their various supporters expected big things. They got jack. For two years, the Democrats did nothing. They gave nothing to any member of their base. Instead, they focused on healthcare, the one thing that none of their base was agitating for. Even worse, when they focused on that, they came up with a plan that could have come straight from the Heritage Foundation circa 1992 or the insurance lobby today. Good grief. And this act alone was too much for the public and they suffered the worst defeat since the 1930s because the public simply won't accept liberal policy. Heck, the only way their Senators keep getting elected is to run against the things they believe.
So here are the lessons: (1) the party won’t give its members what they want, because it can’t. (2) Even trying to do something moderately liberal will result in a massive backlash. In essence, the Democratic base learned that the party can have power, it just can’t use it... talk about a tease! And talk about disheartening.
Then you had the big gun control push, which resulted in nothing. The stimulus push which resulted in the Great (And Continuing) Recession. The collapse of affirmative action. The collapse of the Voting Rights Act. The non-granting of gay marriage. The refusal of Obama to regulate carbon despite the courts saying he could. OWS wanted to see everyone on Wall Street go to jail, but Obama not only didn’t do that, he gave Wall Street more power. The unions wanted Obama to put his boot up China’s rear end, but Democratic spending made that impossible. Now he’s probably killed them with Obamacare. The peaceniks are beside themselves with non-violent rage that they need to keep their mouths shut on drones, landmines, Obama bombing the crap out of multiple Middle Eastern countries, and NSA surveillance. College students wanted their loans forgiven, as did homeowners, and none of that happened.
But it gets worse because the party is a collection of tribes with interests that actually conflict, meaning they cannot all get what they want. Blacks and women compete for the same jobs, as do blacks and Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics are anti-gay, yet the party is pro-gay. Hispanics are anti-abortion, yet feminists want abortion on demand. The party is dominated by atheists, yet it’s now flirting with spiritualism. The party is the home of Jews, but strangely is becoming anti-Semitic. The party is dominated by unions, and they get the only spoils the party gives, but unions are dying.
There are no heirs in the Democratic Party either. Look at who will run in 2016. You’ve got Hillary, who looks like Exhausty the Muppet. You’ve got Cuomo, who comes from the land of the sex scandal. Then the well runs dry. The only star they have right now, apart from Obama and his 40% approval, is Elizabeth Warren and she’s barely known.
And keep in mind, the Democrats didn’t win the 2012 election, they simply didn’t lose as badly as the Republicans. Nine million fewer people voted for them in 2012 than voted for them in 2008. If the Republicans hadn’t lost more than that, the Democrats would have been blown away. They are bleeding voters just as fast as the Republicans. And nothing they are proposing will turn that around. They have no plan to help the middle class. They have no plan to make life better for anyone. They just have a couple grudge issues their base wants... grudge issues they can’t actually pass or else their base no longer has a reason to stick around at the party.
Be thankful you’re not a Democrat. Our problems stink, but our problems can be fixed. The Democrats... they’re fundamentally flawed. They are a party without a purpose. They are an ideology without ideas. They are a cult of personality without charisma. They are a collection of angry, conflicted trolls who are all competing to take the same piece of pie.
Be thankful you’re not one of them.
Hug a Democrat. They need it.
Angry, conflicted trolls...that nails it.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Yep. That should be their new mascot. A creepy, angry internet troll painted like a rainbow.
ReplyDeleteObama will use his new 'nudge' squad and persuade us all that he is the best choice for Pres for life. In 20 years it will still be Bush's fault, Reps will still be blamed for all of our problems(even though the Dems cleared the house and senate of them over a decade before). All of those rich people are a problem too(even though they took all of their wealth 15 years before that). The environment is worse then ever(despite oil now being over $100/gal, nobody is doing anything anymore). Most of us will have starved to death because of the success of Obama care(all foods except rice cakes have been banned).
ReplyDeleteI agree Andrew, Reps can be fixed. But I don't think it's going to happen. The current leadership wants to go left and have a big government as well. Rush's point of these people loving the "process" of government, will be our undoing. I can't think of a better time to contrast Reps to Dems. It's on a silver platter just walk up and take it. It's real obvious the Rep leadership doesn't want it, they must want to go back to being the minority and look forward to golfing all day.
I agree that the Democrats have no realistic plant to fix anything the public cares about, but I think you are severely overestimating the tensions.
ReplyDeleteNewton didn't really change the dynamics of gun control. 1994 taught the Democrats that gun control was a loser on a national level and post-Newton they learned that nothing had changed. Still, for anti-gun types, the Democrats are their only option because while the Democrats won't risk their necks going against the consensus, they also aren't pushing to roll back the controls that are there.
The Supreme Court boasts a simple majority opposed to affirmative action, so there's really nothing the Democrats could have/can do about it in the present/near future. Its also worth noting that blacks seem to be more worked up about voting rights (IIRC only Section 4 was stuck down) and Zimmerman skating after murdering Martin then they are about affirmative action.
Also, while blacks are anti-gay, that hasn't meant much and will mean less as time goes on. Blacks haven't punished their leadership (the CBC is more adamant in its support for gay rights than the Democratic party at large) for supporting gay rights (politicians in black districts get taken down from their left, not their right).
As for abortion and Hispanics, given that Latin America has the second highest abortion rate in the world (behind Eastern Europe) and the Hispanics in the US rank behind only blacks in the number of abortions I don't think they are going to challenge the pro-abortion line that Democrats have adopted.
It will be interesting to see what happens with anti-war activists. If Rand Paul (whom I think is a flake, but he's an interesting flake) gets the nomination they might support him over Hillary. If any other Republican gets it they would probably seek to get to Hillary's right on the War on Terror. In that case I think the anti-war types would stay home or vote for some fringe party (same difference).
Obama has accelerated the dying of unions, but union death is inevitable. Vi a vi highly mobile capital, the bargaining position of relatively immobile labour is steadily worsening and there is no bottom in sight. There's no fighting it, one just has to accept it. Better to be Houston than Detroit.
Last but not least, I doubt there will be a parting of ways between Jews and the Democratic party. Most Jewish Americans seem to be liberal and have been for at least a century. There has been a lull in Jewish support under Obama (the same way there was under Carter) but a Democratic presidential candidate who managed the economy and relations with Israel better would reverse that (nods towards Bill Clinton).
In summary, the economy and Obamacare are millstones around the Democrats' necks but I don't see the coalition fracturing unless the Democrats get much more incompetent and the Republicans get much more competent. America's two party system has always made for strange bedfellows.
coupled with yesterday's article on the R's, this represents one of the most depressing posts ever. Kind of makes one lose interest in politics in this country.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, if I may, I think you've misread Andrew a tad. Certainly, the Democrats are expert at maintaining an unlikely coalition, and I don't think they'll lose that. But the very thing that holds the coalition together is what immobilizes the Democrat Party.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if they give anything to anyone, they lose someone else. Some groups would simply drop out, but others might retaliate and join the Republicans (as I contend many white-racist Democrats have done). It's too risky a calculus to tinker with when their last victory was only by losing less.
"Hug a Democrat."
ReplyDeleteEr, no.
Jed, Yeah, our political situation is deeply depressing. On the other hand, it's good to know that the other side is just as bad off as we are... probably worse.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on T-Rav... you know you want to.
ReplyDeleteMax, Actually, the only way that happens is if we listen to Rush. The Republicans are starting to get it. The House leadership just needs the courage that the Senators are showing.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I'm not predicting a break up. I'm explaining the dysfunction and why they are living in the land of frustration just as we are.
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic Party is a coalition of people who:
1. Cannot get what they want because the public will crush them and undo it immediately.
2. Their leaders cannot give them what they want or they walk away. Wait till gay marriage passes, you'll see gays vanish from the Democratic Party.
3. Has a problem in that each group wants things the others oppose. So no matter what they do, they are angering as many supporters as they please.
That's my point. The Republicans are a mess because the idiots are calling the tune right now, but the Democrats are a fundamental mess that will NEVER be able to deliver on the things its supporters think it's promising.
BTW, Anthony, there is another aspect to this. The Democrats don't need to break up to fail. If parts of their coalition start playing the "we aren't voting unless..." game, that's just as good. But even more so...
ReplyDelete... they lost nine million voters.
And each election they lose more. If the Republicans weren't so determined to make America hate them, they would be the easy majority in the country. The only thing saving either party right now from de facto extinction is the incompetence of the other party.
tryanmax, Sadly, I agree about the white racist Democrats. They jumped ship and are now screaming the loudest about being "lifelong Republicans".
ReplyDeleteIn any even, yes, that's more my point. The point isn't that I'm predicting a breakup, I'm predicting an inability to ever get their agenda in place combined with them continuing to bleed voters year after year.
They have become a Perpetual Immobility Machine.
I can't say that I have researched this but it appears that keeping the coalition happy is an ongoing problem. People often criticize the two party process but all systems have only two parties: the party in power and the party out of power. Machiavelli wrote about it in 1532. Our system is really no different from parlimentary except we build coalitions prior to running the candidate. It is why looking at the high democrat voting by blacks is so interesting. By being so entrenched, they don't allow the republicans to court them therefore the republican don't. This actually weakens the black community overall and since they have been entrenched their quality of life as a group has plummeted.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, them more I blame Romney and his campaign for losing the election. Yes, the crazies were out but he didn't clearly indicate to the voting public what his basic platform was so it was assumed his platform was the GOPs. It didn't have to be. In addition, once someone wins the GOP nomination, the party needs to do a better job going to the noisy people such as Sanitorium and tell him to shut up or he will never see another GOP $ every again. I swear so of the "leaders" of the republicans may actually be retarded. Don't they know party trump person when it comes to government? The democrats get it and it is the primary glue that holds their party together.
I'm starting to ramble to I will stop for now.
Koshcat, I agree actually.
ReplyDeleteThe crazies are to blame for the party image and the anger with which the party fights.
BUT the leadership is at fault for not slapping them down and rescuing the party image. They need to stand up, jettison the cranks, and seek a new, more palatable coalition. The middle class is out there waiting to be won actually.
AND Romney had a chance to win the last election by distancing himself from the brand entirely by redefining it through his own platform. He just stunk when it came to having a vision and selling it. He spent all of his time trying to placate the cranks and then tossed out an unreadable 52 point plan for economic moreness. He needed a simple platform that spoke to the American people and he needed to sell that exclusively... "This is why you want me." He never did that. Instead, he went with "I'm not Obama." And Obama had the easy task of responding with, "I'm not a Republican."
I also read somewhere that his campaign refused to visit inner cities. If true even if they did it because they felt it was a lost cause, it plays right into the narrative that republicans don't care about the poor.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, I think that doesn't help. That whole issue is a disaster. The only Republicans I've seen who actually seem interested in engaging minorities are Rubio and Paul Rand. Rand actually has been going to black colleges to give speeches.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the bigger problem with the campaign is the discussion above, there just wasn't any reason for the public at large to vote for him. So it came down to base v. base, and both bases are shrinking... ours quicker than theirs.
You didn't mention anything about the MSM, Andrew. Having the MSM on your side is like taking ground from the Taliban with a Marine tank corp at your back. You can be pretty disorganized and even incoherent and you'll still win.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with your ideas about a simple populist message, mainly associated with the economy, but I think your analysis is flawed without taking into account the MSM factor. It's going to be tough to keep on a simple message when reporters are yelling "What about your gaffes!" at you.
K, The MSM is a red herring. The MSM has been pro-Democrat my entire life and that hasn't stopped conservatism, nor has it helped liberals. Ditto on education. If those things mattered, the public wouldn't respond the way they do to polls, they wouldn't vote the way they do, and they wouldn't act the way they do.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, as Fox News and talk radio have grown, creating an counter-MSM, conservatism has fallen apart.
How has Fox News hurt the right?
ReplyDeleteI doubt very much that Fox has hurt conservatism. My point is this:
ReplyDeleteFor generations, the media and the education establishment have uniformly pimped for the left. In that time, a solid 60% of the public have continued to report conservative views. We've had mainly Republican Presidents. The Republicans ended fifty years of dominance by the Democrats in the House. The Republicans control more than a majority of state houses and governorships.
In other words, the MSM has had no ability to shape public opinion and it has been no obstacle for conservatism for generations.
Now that conservatism has shot itself in the head, conservatives are looking for any excuse they can find other than their own behavior. Suddenly, they start pointing fingers at the MSM, which they describe as an unbeatable enemy who has distorted their message of righteous extremism and brainwashed the public.... something the MSM was never been able to do before.... something poll results continue to show has not happened... something the crashing number of Democratic voters proves has not happened.
My point about Fox is that in the same time when the MSM became the unbeatable monopoly boogeyman, Fox has actually broken the monopoly and stripped the MSM of a huge chunk of its audience and of its ability to squelch stories. So the MSM boogeyman argument is even less valid.
I know Kit's question about Fox News was only to clear confusion, so the following comment isn't aimed at that, but it did make me think of something I see a lot that has become a real problem in the right-wing blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteKit asked "How has Fox News hurt the right?" in response to Andrew's statement that the left-wing MSM is a red herring. Obviously, something was inferred that wasn't there, which is a perfectly natural human tendency. Here, Andrew was able to clarify, but elsewhere in the blogosphere that sort of thing is preyed upon.
Imagine if, rather than putting the question to Andrew directly, Kit instead took the "red herring" comment along with the misinterpretation and threw an article up at American Thinker decrying Commentarama as a site for RINO heretic media sympathizers (not that he would). Next would come a flurry of commenters hating on our site and using the statement as a platform to reinforce the MSM-brainwashing trope that K alluded to. Then imagine, by some twist of fate, someone with a national platform picks up the trail and makes a villain of Commentarama to his audience and just happens to link to the website along with an admonishment to not disrupt the site.
That little fiction I just wrote is exactly the kind of thing I see right-wing bloggers, radio hosts, and other media types do daily, several times over. And to make it worse, not only do they pick up on someone else's misunderstandings and amplify them without checking the facts, they generate their own misunderstandings when they demonstrably have enough facts in-hand that the only conclusion is they are doing it on purpose.
That's why it's so important to take everything out there with a grain of salt and try to get the whole story before jumping on any bandwagons. Call it an instinct, gut-check, smell-test or whatever, but 90% of the time when something seems too ridiculous to be true, it usually isn't true.
tryanmax, Interestingly, I ran across just such a thing today. There was a headline at Drudge that read: "Democrats erupt into applause for John McCain..." along with another headline that said, "Might vote for Hillary."
ReplyDeleteThe obvious implication is that McCain did something today which made the Democrats love him. Looking at the second headline, it would be reasonable to assume it was an endorsement of Hillary over the Republicans. Or given other recent Drudge headlines, it was about McCain being traitorous on immigration reform.
There have already been a few comments to this regard that I've seen and I'll bet that there will be screaming blog posts about this in the next day or so.
Here's the thing... that's a totally false implication by Drudge. McCain accidentally walked into a room where the Democrats had gathered to hear Obama speak. They started applauding as he walked in because they thought he was Obama. He laughed and walked back out. End of story.
The implication that he did something to earn their applause is simply false.
He also didn't say he "might vote for Hillary."
ReplyDeleteThis definitely explains a lot about the past several years... I remember an article you wrote around the time the blog started that pointed out how dysfunctional the party was, but I had no idea it had gotten this bad. Hopefully the Republicans can get on the ball as far as kicking the cranks go.
ReplyDelete- Daniel
Thanks Daniel. I think it does. I think it explains the dynamic completely, i.e. why neither party has managed to win the public or get their policies in place.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I think it also gives us hope because it suggests that our side can fix their problems and win back the public, whereas the Democrats will never be able to do that. We just need to make it happen.
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 31, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 4
In the early hours of the morning, officials begin posting red placards in Russian cities and towns, announcing the general mobilization.
2:45 AM -Gasping again at another chance for peace, Bethmann sends the telegram from King George V (who, himself, was forwarding Grey’s proposal to support Russian-Austrian negotiations and the ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan), to Ambassador Tschischky in Vienna. He orders him to present the plan to Berchtold at once.
7:00 AM -Moltke contacts General Hell*, commander of the German XX Army Corps in Allenstein, asking if Russia appears to be mobilizing. (Moltke received reports of Russian war preparations on the Prussian border around 11 last night.) His answer: “Yes, I have thought so for several days.” He adds that frontier guard-houses are being burned and that the red placards are going up. Still, these are just rumors. Moltke needs evidence before he can act. Hell is ordered to get one of those placards anyway he can. Interesting note, here: despite the status of the military in Germany, Moltke is still adhering to the civilian government. He’s going through the proper channels and getting the necessary permissions. Unlike Berchtold and Saoznov, he’s making no efforts to undermine his leaders. In fact, in an ironic twist, Germany, considered by many to be a warlike military camp, is actually of the few countries whose leaders are following the rule of law.
10:00 AM -Bethmann meets with British Ambassador Goschen. Bethmann says he has unconfirmed reports that Russia is mobilizing. (He adds that ‘money chests have been taken into the interior.’ Goschen says that’s not good enough- it could mean a number of different precautionary measures being taken by Russia. (It’s unclear if Goschen was as willfully ignorant as Buchanan in St. Petersburg, or just very ill-informed.) Bethmann retorts that if Russia is moving, “he could not leave his country defenseless while other powers were gaining time.” He says that if these reports are proved true, today Germany will take a “serious step.” Bethmann then meets with Moltke and Fahlkenhayn.
Morning -London stock exchange closes ‘until further notice.’ British bank rates at record highs. Financiers meet with Lloyd George, urging him to keep the country out of the impending war. Churchill says that “the city has broken into chaos. The world’s credit system is virtually suspended.”
Meanwhile, Grey meets with Lichnowsky. He apparently has gained faith in the ‘Halt-in-Belgrade’ plan. He adds that Britain may, after all, sit out the war. He’s practically offering British neutrality in exchange for Austria agreeing to ‘reasonable terms.’
In Vienna, a meeting of government ministers rejects Grey’s peace proposals (the Four Power plan from earlier). The messages from Moltke seem to have gotten to the group. Finally, Berchtold, Krobatin, Sturgkh, and even Tisza (worn down by the turn of events), agree to recommend that Emperor Franz Joseph declare general mobilization.
-In St. Petersburg, Portales has learned of Russia’s general mobilization. He meets with Sazonov and warns him that Germany will mobilize in response.
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 31, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 2 of 4
11:40 AM -While meeting again with Moltke and Fahlkenhayn, Bethmann receives a telegram from Pourtales, confirming Russian general mobilization. Bethmann now agrees to the military leaders’ requests. He authorizes the ‘Imminent Danger of War’ program- which will be followed by general mobilization in 48 hours. He then calls the Kaiser, who leaves Potsdam for Berlin.
Last night, Kaiser Wilhelm read the note about Sazonov saying that Russian mobilization “could no longer be reversed.” He goes into a rage, accusing all other Great Powers of encircling Germany, England in particular. (Years earlier, he often blamed his uncle, King Edward VII of Britain for this- despite Edward having no role in the British Foreign Office. “You can’t imagine what a Satan he is!” the Kaiser once told Teddy Roosevelt.)
Now, the Kaiser erupts at England again. “Now this whole trickery must be ruthlessly exposed and the mask of Christian peaceableness roughly and publicly torn off the face [of England]!” Later, however, he had a change of heart (he’s known for his legendary mood swings) when reading George V’s note. He even sends a telegram thanking the British sovereign.
Noon -Austria officially orders general mobilization. (Earlier, only eight army corps had been mobilized against Serbia.) Whether the weight of the Austrian army will brought against both Serbia and Russia or just Serbia alone is uncertain. And in keeping with now-classic Austrian delays, general mobilization won’t start until August 4th. Almost no one notices this latest action from Vienna.
Early Afternoon -Pourtales meets with Czar Nicholas at the Peterhof Palace, warning that Russian mobilization will provoke a war. The Czar points his finger upwards and says, “there is only One who still can help.”
Afternoon -British Cabinet meets in London. No record kept, but anti-war party appears to carry the day. Lord Morley tells Churchill, “Winston, we have beaten you after all.” Churchill still orders the seizure of two battleships being built in England for the Ottoman Navy. While it may appear that he’s keeping these ships from a possible German ally, it’s more likely that he just wants them for the British Fleet. Meanwhile, the British First Fleet has reached Scapa Flow.
Grey meets with French Ambassador Paul Cambon, saying in extremely diplomatic terms that Britain cannot commit itself to France under the current circumstances. Russian mobilization, he says, makes it look like the Germans are acting in a purely defensive manner. Cambon seeks help from Permanent Undersecretary Nicolson, who later that day writes to Grey, “it is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that possibly in the next 24 hours Germany will be moving across the French frontier.”
2:00 PM -Nicholas sends another “Willy-Nicky” telegram. While he says that mobilization cannot be halted, he claims it is not intended as an act of war.
Wilhelm sends a telegram of his own at roughly the same time. He tells the Czar that he has authentic news of war preparations. He says peace can be maintained if Russia stops its military buildup.
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 31, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 3 of 4
2:17 PM -French Ambassador to Germany, Jules Cambon, sends a telegram to Paris, confirming Russian mobilization. Mentions Austrian mobilization briefly.
3:00 PM -Kaiser Wilhelm signs the order for ‘Imminent Danger of War’ program. German railways put under military control; martial law and military censorship underway; all leaves cancelled, troops returned to garrisons; frontier stations strengthened; across-the-border postal traffic suspended.
Sudden run on German banks. Food prices in Germany rise sharply.
3:30 PM -Bethmann tells his ambassadors about the pre-mobilization order. He orders them to make the order public after delivering it to their respective countries' governments. He also notes that tonight, Russia will receive a 12-hour ultimatum to end mobilization. Ambassador Schoen in Paris is additionally instructed to find out how France would react to a German-Russian war by noon tomorrow.
-French Cabinet receives Cambon’s telegram from Berlin. They meet at the Elysee Palace to discuss it.
Afternoon -New York Stock Exchange closes for first time since 1873.
French socialist leader Jean Jaures, fresh off a socialist convention in Brussels where he stood with the German representative, Hugo Hasse, addresses reporters at the Chamber of Deputies. He condemns Russia as the instigator of the impending war. That evening, he verbally spats with Foreign Undersecretary Abel Ferry, saying “to the very end, we continue to struggle against war.” With political tensions at a fever pitch in the French capital, Ferry replies, “you’ll be assassinated on the nearest street corner.”
5:30 PM -Grey sends out telegrams to France and Germany, asking that Belgium neutrality be respected
6:30 PM -Ambassador Schoen announces Germany’s pre-mobilization in response to Russian mobilization to Viviani. Viviani tries to lie, saying Russia hasn’t mobilized. Schoen isn’t buying it. He demands to know France’s intentions. Vviani tells him to come back at 1:00 tomorrow. (2 hours after the ultimatum to Russia will expire.) Schoen asks if his passports are ready. Viviani tells him to wait.
Later, Viviani recalls the meeting to Joffre, who urges Messimy to order general mobilization for France. Also, Italy secretly informs France that it will not honor its treaty obligations with Germany and Austria.
6:40 PM -Ambassador Buchanan finally acknowledges Russian mobilization in a telegram to London.
8:30 PM -Paleologue sends another confirmation of Russian mobilization to Paris.
9:00 PM -French Cabinet meets, and sends another telegram to Paleologue, asking for further verification. (Historians think that if Britain found out that France knew about Russian mobilization ahead of time, they wouldn’t ally with them. Therefore, France needed more plausible deniability.)
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 31, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 4 of 4
Late Evening -German leaders prepare to send the 12-hour ultimatum to St. Petersburg at midnight. It warns that the current program will be followed by general mobilization starting on August 2nd.
9:45 PM -While out at dinner, Jaures is murdered by Raoul Villain*, a homeless man eager to prove his French nationalism. (He believed socialists were undermining the country, and had earlier planned to show his spirit by going to Berlin and assassinating the Kaiser.)
9:50 PM -Cabinet learns of Jaures’ murder. Police warn that “there will be a revolution in Paris in three hours.” The Cabinet, however, decides not to authorize plan Carnet B (the list of spies, anarchists, agitators, etc. to be arrested at the start of mobilization). Instead, only suspected foreign spies are ordered to be arrested. Cavalry regiments moved to capital. Viviani refuses to order general mobilization tonight. (Too late to meet midnight deadline for such orders to be carried out.) Joffre orders commanders to prepare for war, anyway. Messimy assures Izvolsky that France will fight alongside Russia. However, he asks that Germany, not Austria, be the prime target.
10:00 PM -Austrian Ambassador to Paris, Count Szecsen, meets with Phillippe Berthelot, director of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Offers a proposal to just have Serbia ask for terms. Berthelot refuses, says it’s “extremely late” and that the situation has been “overtaken by events.” Szecsen reports to Vienna that “the Serbian question fell entirely into the background.”
10:30 PM -British Ambassador to Paris, Sir Francis Bertie, asks Viviani if France will respect Belgian neutrality. Viviani is evasive, saying only that the German embassy was “packing its bags.” (A lie. Nothing is happening- yet- at the German embassy.) French leaders will later send a message to Britain saying that they will respect Belgium. (A copy of the letter will be sent to Albert, King of the Belgians.)
11:10 PM -Pourtales delivers Germany’s 12-hour ultimatum to Sazonov. A now-desperate Sazonov complains that “it was impossible to stop [Russia’s] mobilization on technical grounds.” He adds that, “the meaning of Russia’s mobilization could not be compared to [Germany’s].” Basically, he’s saying that mobilization doesn’t have to mean war between Germany and Russia.
*- yes, those are their real names (Hell and Villain)
Well, better late than never.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I must request a writ of TimeZoneimus Pacificus. (To cover all my bases this time.)
Rustbelt, your posts are really good. If I didn´t know how it all ends, the tension would be unbearable.
ReplyDeleteRustbelt, No problem. It's interesting that they were still trying to stop the war at this point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree completely with El Gordo -- interesting stuff and nail-biting if we didn't already know the ending.
For those who thought the McCain thing wouldn't happen, Glenn Beck has now spun this non-story into McCain getting ready to leave the party, ala Lieberman. Thus proving once again you are fool to believe anything you hear from Beck.
ReplyDelete