User talk:FoulesGold

Ultimatum Edit

What was your object in recharacterizing the Serbian response to not consider the fact that it was insincere including a series of transparent lies? You have stripped out footnoted material.

Werchovsky 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my objective to obscure this, I agree with that assessment, I just didn't think so much and so detailed information should be crowding the beginning of the article. (I've written more on the talk page).

I see you just edited the summary of this article after a pro-Serb anon had just edited it with regards to whether the "Ultimatum" was intended to be acceptable. As long as intent is not treated at length in the body of the article, I don't see how we can put intent into the summary. Intent here is really a quite difficult issue to deal with. The 3 most senior members of the Austro-Hungarian Government including the Emperor, the Foreign Minister, and the Hungarian Prime Minister hoped that Serbia would cave in as Austria-Hungary step by step ratched up the pressure (ultimatum, then breaking relations, then mobilization). It was not until the incident at Temes-Kubin that Berchtold and Franz Joseph finally gave up hope of a diplomatic victory. There were of course many important Austrians, especially in the military, that were publicly chomping at the bit to attack Serbia. Some of these, no doubt, were expressing their true feelings and analysis. Others may just have been patriotically posturing.Werchovsky (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current high level of chatter

Everything you and I and John Kenney say with respects to warguilt or international law seems to just create endless and unproductive responses. So, I am changing my approach and intend to discuss only concrete edits to the article until the red herrings stop.Werchovsky (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't check you and John's talk pages and notice your consensus until after I wrote that on the talk page. I more or less agree.