Grishka you were asked where and when British diplomatic efforts could have been brought to bear in the period in which you claim they did nothing (1904 to 1911) in order that the War could have been averted? So far you have been unable to answer that question. What "fair peace perspective" could Great Britain have offered either France or Germany between 1904 and 1914? "Fair" to who? Who decides what constitutes "Fair"?

The "essay" linked to by Monique shows the British efforts towards both the French and the Germans. The former were pressing the British to engage in a formal military alliance in support of both themselves and the Russians, the latter were pressing the British to formally declare their neutrality in the event of a war between Germany and France. There was no eagerness on the part of either the British or the French military for a war, the fact that they were making plans to counter any attack in itself means nothing. Example: The US Military have plans for the invasion of Iceland, Ireland and Great Britain and they have had those for decades and they are constantly reviewed and revised - Why? As a precaution, so that should any such action be required they are already prepared, they don't have to start from scratch.

The British withstood the pressure applied by the French until 1911 when they formally joined the Triple Entente, in joining this alliance the British made it perfectly clear to the Germans the penalty of any German invasion of Belgium. Britain, Germany(Prussia) and France were all signatories of the 1838 treaty that guaranteed Belgian sovereignty and British resolve to honour that treaty was so well understood that the French in their war plans made certain that under no circumstances would they enter Belgium to counter any German mobilisation (That is clearly stated in the "Essay" supplied by Monique) as that might bring Britain into the war on the side of Germany.

So talking of the "western front" here there was absolutely nothing that Great Britain could have done between 1904 and 1914 that would have averted the conflict that became known as The Great War.

Your example of present day diplomacy with regard to Iran, did not just occur in the last six months, the peaceful diplomacy also must include what was done in the period 2004 to 2012 and that includes all the sanctions all the rhetoric all the scaremongering and hypothesising about military action and the threat of military action, all of that brought pressure to bear and resulted in what we have arrived at today, and what we have arrived at today is still very much a "let's-wait-and-see"; "Carrot-and-Stick" process

As to why a wish "to honour those who served" should be viewed as a "stumbling block" I simply cannot see. In what way do the elected members of parliament who form our Government and Opposition seize the merits of those who they in the company of our Head State honour each year at the Cenotaph? As far as those who served in the Great War are concerned there are now no longer any participants living to parade and publicly demonstrate any act of remembrance for their comrades who fell and for those who served - so if they are to be remembered at all it is entirely fitting that the remembrance of a grateful nation is officially demonstrated.

"Privately we may well honour soldiers" Well we may but that isn't quite enough is it? Doesn't quite do the job. Why? How? Just read through this thread and find out how many clowns think that "Oh what a lovely War" and "Blackadder goes Forth" are representative of anything that occurred during those terrible years.