Is it all for the best?

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Jul 20, 2018 20:02:36 GMT carlton43 said:

Jul 20, 2018 19:48:15 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

If I could alter history I’d probably ensure we (The UK) remained neutral during the Great War. Despite the propaganda I feel that it was a useless war costing far too many young British and Empire lives and only for a few useless colonies and some esoteric notion of Belgian neutrality and “honour”, which considering what they were doing in the Congo it’s debatable they had any. 

The more important consideration after casualties is the massive loss of wealth, the devastation of our foreign investments, the loss of merchant shipping, the increase in national debt, and the loss of markets and exports (especially of arms/steel/ships sales during the war). 

It was a quite monumentally wrong decision, perhaps the worst in the history of Britain and the source of most of our present ills.

Not to forget the German defeat was responsible for the rise if Hitler. It’s a bold claim but I think the world would be a better place without our involvement. I also must mention the deep sadness one feels when you look at a war memorial, look at an over century old photo of relatives who died in the war or hear family stories about it. It was an utter waste.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 20, 2018 19:48:15 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

If I could alter history I’d probably ensure we (The UK) remained neutral during the Great War. Despite the propaganda I feel that it was a useless war costing far too many young British and Empire lives and only for a few useless colonies and some esoteric notion of Belgian neutrality and “honour”, which considering what they were doing in the Congo it’s debatable they had any. 

It wasn't for Belgian honour, it was for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe and specifically to avoid German hegemony and an eviscerated France. Having tried "Splendid Isolation" as a foreign policy and found it wanting, the humiliation of our only continental allies - together with the damage done to our reputation from failing to stand by them - would have hastened the decline of Britain as a Great Power (as we still were) considerably. Belgian neutrality wasn't an esoteric notion, it was part of the forward defence of the UK to make sure that the Channel ports should not be in hostile hands.

Of course it is very arguable that it still wasn't worth the cost, but it wasn't quite the quixotic decision you suggest, it was hard-headed power politics. A better alteration of history would be for Grey's diplomacy in July to have brought the Great Powers to an agreement that a general war was not in anyone's interests; or failing that, that after the failure of both the Schlieffen Plan and of the "Russian Steamroller" and the appalling level of casualties already apparent, for a peace based on the status quo ante around Christmas 1914.

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Jul 20, 2018 21:08:36 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Jul 20, 2018 19:48:15 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

If I could alter history I’d probably ensure we (The UK) remained neutral during the Great War. Despite the propaganda I feel that it was a useless war costing far too many young British and Empire lives and only for a few useless colonies and some esoteric notion of Belgian neutrality and “honour”, which considering what they were doing in the Congo it’s debatable they had any. 

It wasn't for Belgian honour, it was for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe and specifically to avoid German hegemony and an eviscerated France. Having tried "Splendid Isolation" as a foreign policy and found it wanting, the humiliation of our only continental allies - together with the damage done to our reputation from failing to stand by them - would have hastened the decline of Britain as a Great Power (as we still were) considerably. Belgian neutrality wasn't an esoteric notion, it was part of the forward defence of the UK to make sure that the Channel ports should not be in hostile hands.

Of course it is very arguable that it still wasn't worth the cost, but it wasn't quite the quixotic decision you suggest, it was hard-headed power politics. A better alteration of history would be for Grey's diplomacy in July to have brought the Great Powers to an agreement that a general war was not in anyone's interests; or failing that, that after the failure of both the Schlieffen Plan and of the "Russian Steamroller" and the appalling level of casualties already apparent, for a peace based on the status quo ante around Christmas 1914.

Regardless of the geo political motivations of some, the violation of the Treaty of London 1839 is why we entered the war. I also think you give them too much credit, history rarely happens due to grand geo political plans or the kind of intelligent forward thinking you describe above. It happens often because of stupid decisions and miscalculations in the heat of the moment, and the very long and hot summer of 1914 was one such moment.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 20, 2018 21:20:43 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Jul 20, 2018 21:08:36 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

It wasn't for Belgian honour, it was for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe and specifically to avoid German hegemony and an eviscerated France. Having tried "Splendid Isolation" as a foreign policy and found it wanting, the humiliation of our only continental allies - together with the damage done to our reputation from failing to stand by them - would have hastened the decline of Britain as a Great Power (as we still were) considerably. Belgian neutrality wasn't an esoteric notion, it was part of the forward defence of the UK to make sure that the Channel ports should not be in hostile hands.

Of course it is very arguable that it still wasn't worth the cost, but it wasn't quite the quixotic decision you suggest, it was hard-headed power politics. A better alteration of history would be for Grey's diplomacy in July to have brought the Great Powers to an agreement that a general war was not in anyone's interests; or failing that, that after the failure of both the Schlieffen Plan and of the "Russian Steamroller" and the appalling level of casualties already apparent, for a peace based on the status quo ante around Christmas 1914.

Regardless of the geo political motivations of some, the violation of the Treaty of London 1839 is why we entered the war. I also think you give them too much credit, history rarely happens due to grand geo political plans or the kind of intelligent forward thinking you describe above. It happens often because of stupid decisions and miscalculations in the heat of the moment, and the very long and hot summer of 1914 was one such moment.

But keeping the Channel Ports safe is exactly what the Treaty of London was all about. It was all power politics all along, not benevolence to Belgians (our original 1814 plan being to subject them to the Dutch, thus creating a stronger power better able to preserve its own neutrality.)

The diplomatic history of the period is pretty well documented and if you look into it you'll find the Foreign Office going through exactly the thinking I've outlined.

The deployment of the BEF followed a plan laid down by Sir Henry Wilson back in 1910; from 1909 on British military planning assumed that if Germany and France went to war we would need to support France (French naval planning was based on our promises, so keeping out after having made those commitments would have screwed the French.)

[carlton43]

It is tempting to say that 'France gets screwed' is an added inducement?

Treaties and agreements are rather like pairing in the HOC. They are a tool of convenience and a mechanism to be observed whilst they suit. I know that conflicts with the tender feelings of many of you who regard all these matters as near to Holy Writ.

Of course I understand the why and wherefore of that position.....But I just reject it as an absolute for the very reason that it leads to an attitude of mind that is akin to 'Honour Killing' and 'The Vendetta'.

We lost an Empire, the largest block of foreign investments in the world, the strongest currency in the world and a dominant economy purely in an absurdist 'honour support' of French and Belgian interests within a situation of Belgium being created as a buffer state and France being exposed because of the rapacity it had shown under the Napoleon era when it grossly interfered and screwed with everybody from Russia to Portugal and Britain.

We could by diplomacy have engineered ourselves into a position of attempting a new European settlement and when it inevitably failed withdrawn in a huff to renewed isolation and concentrated on island defence and making our navy even larger and more dominant.

Europe was in a febrile condition (as it is now) and was spoiling for a showdown over ancient hurts, economic competition and the scramble for colonial expansion. Hungry eyes were looking at the tired Austro-Hungarian empire and the collapsing Ottoman empire. It was a Continental matter and one that we should have avoided.

Germany might well have gained strength and territory but equally avoided the horror of defeat and the rise of what they saw as a fascist correction. No one can know how it would have turned out? Belgium and Luxembourg might well have disappeared and France lost territories and colonies? That might have led to a less expansionist Germany.

[yellowperil]

It would be a pretty strange argument from anyone to claim that the first world war was worth it in anyone's book. The question is how could we have avoided it.We could have course tried being more accommodating to the demands of the axis powers , but we were to try that in 1938/9 and it wasn't a resounding success then , was it? The implication from some people above, that humiliating France and acceding to the disintegration of Belgium would have been worthwhile in foreign policy terms scarcely can be taken seriously. And the idea of giving the Germans what they want so they would be sated and content, which is what is implied in some of the arguments above, goes well beyond parody.

I do feel the outbreak of war was inevitable, but once it had broken out and it was clear it wasn't going to be quick and clean, as so many had thought, that is where the real failure to grasp an opportunity came.  It really should have been all over by Christmas.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 21, 2018 7:27:52 GMT yellowperil said:

It would be a pretty strange argument from anyone to claim that the first world war was worth it in anyone's book. The question is how could we have avoided it.We could have course tried being more accommodating to the demands of the axis powers , but we were to try that in 1938/9 and it wasn't a resounding success then , was it? The implication from some people above, that humiliating France and acceding to the disintegration of Belgium would have been worthwhile in foreign policy terms scarcely can be taken seriously. And the idea of giving the Germans what they want so they would be sated and content, which is what is implied in some of the arguments above, goes well beyond parody.

I do feel the outbreak of war was inevitable, but once it had broken out and it was clear it wasn't going to be quick and clean, as so many had thought, that is where the real failure to grasp an opportunity came.  It really should have been all over by Christmas.

Lyn McDonald said that when she and John Terraine were interviewing large numbers of survivors for the oral history that underpinned the BBC Great War series (in late 60s) she was astonished to find that the majority of her interviewees thought exactly that. She did however say that as time went on that changed and she feared that many of them had changed their minds in the face of the consensus in later generations; it perturbed her to think that they had been made ashamed of a sacrifice they had previously been proud of.

I'm not so sure; I think that her later interviewees, facing their own imminent deaths, may have had a greater insight into whether the sacrifice of their friends was worth it. But I think we should be careful of disparaging those who at the time thought it worthwhile.

On the issue of accommodating Germany, Fritz Fischer (Germany's Aims in the First World War) is absolutely fundamental to any discussion and he was of course not only German but a product of the Kaiser's regime.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2018 7:27:52 GMT yellowperil said:

It would be a pretty strange argument from anyone to claim that the first world war was worth it in anyone's book. The question is how could we have avoided it.We could have course tried being more accommodating to the demands of the axis powers , but we were to try that in 1938/9 and it wasn't a resounding success then , was it? The implication from some people above, that humiliating France and acceding to the disintegration of Belgium would have been worthwhile in foreign policy terms scarcely can be taken seriously. And the idea of giving the Germans what they want so they would be sated and content, which is what is implied in some of the arguments above, goes well beyond parody.

I do feel the outbreak of war was inevitable, but once it had broken out and it was clear it wasn't going to be quick and clean, as so many had thought, that is where the real failure to grasp an opportunity came.  It really should have been all over by Christmas.

The outbreak of the war could be compared to an earthquake - not a discrete event which comes out of nowhere, but the catastrophic release of pressures which have been building for a long period. The invasion of Belgium was the occasion for war, not the cause. 

The reason there was no compromise peace was that nobody, on either side, wanted one. Only victory could assuage Allied fears of German aggression or the Central Powers' fear of encirclement.

[yellowperil]

Jul 21, 2018 8:21:23 GMT @goodoldcause said:

Jul 21, 2018 7:27:52 GMT yellowperil said:

It would be a pretty strange argument from anyone to claim that the first world war was worth it in anyone's book. The question is how could we have avoided it.We could have course tried being more accommodating to the demands of the axis powers , but we were to try that in 1938/9 and it wasn't a resounding success then , was it? The implication from some people above, that humiliating France and acceding to the disintegration of Belgium would have been worthwhile in foreign policy terms scarcely can be taken seriously. And the idea of giving the Germans what they want so they would be sated and content, which is what is implied in some of the arguments above, goes well beyond parody.

I do feel the outbreak of war was inevitable, but once it had broken out and it was clear it wasn't going to be quick and clean, as so many had thought, that is where the real failure to grasp an opportunity came.  It really should have been all over by Christmas.

The outbreak of the war could be compared to an earthquake - not a discrete event which comes out of nowhere, but the catastrophic release of pressures which have been building for a long period. The invasion of Belgium was the occasion for war, not the cause. 

The reason there was no compromise peace was that nobody, on either side, wanted one. Only victory could assuage Allied fears of German aggression or the Central Powers' fear of encirclement.

Would not disagree with that in summary is why war broke out in 1914 and why peace didn't. I was trying to move beyond the mechanical question of why, to the ethical question of whether it should.

[yellowperil]

Jul 21, 2018 8:08:03 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Jul 21, 2018 7:27:52 GMT yellowperil said:

It would be a pretty strange argument from anyone to claim that the first world war was worth it in anyone's book.

Lyn McDonald said that when she and John Terraine were interviewing large numbers of survivors for the oral history that underpinned the BBC Great War series (in late 60s) she was astonished to find that the majority of her interviewees thought exactly that. She did however say that as time went on that changed and she feared that many of them had changed their minds in the face of the consensus in later generations; it perturbed her to think that they had been made ashamed of a sacrifice they had previously been proud of.

I'm not so sure; I think that her later interviewees, facing their own imminent deaths, may have had a greater insight into whether the sacrifice of their friends was worth it. But I think we should be careful of disparaging those who at the time thought it worthwhile.

On the issue of accommodating Germany, Fritz Fischer (Germany's Aims in the First World War) is absolutely fundamental to any discussion and he was of course not only German but a product of the Kaiser's regime.

Yes in no sense would I want my line above to be taken as belittling the genuineness of the sacrifice the actual combatants made. What made it worth it for them,at least originally? I would guess a lot of it was at the level of comradeship- sacrifices made for the guys around you, then a vague feeling of patriotism(for king and country,etc) -very little of it would bear any relation to the diplomatic niceties of the events leading to war (who gave a stuff for Belgium,or Serbia for that matter?). Fortunately perhaps we can now debate the issues of the rights and wrongs of the war without having to consider the feelings of the survivors of the war as we have reached the point where there are no survivors.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2018 8:47:53 GMT yellowperil said:

Jul 21, 2018 8:21:23 GMT @goodoldcause said:

The outbreak of the war could be compared to an earthquake - not a discrete event which comes out of nowhere, but the catastrophic release of pressures which have been building for a long period. The invasion of Belgium was the occasion for war, not the cause. 

The reason there was no compromise peace was that nobody, on either side, wanted one. Only victory could assuage Allied fears of German aggression or the Central Powers' fear of encirclement.

Would not disagree with that in summary is why war broke out in 1914 and why peace didn't. I was trying to move beyond the mechanical question of why, to the ethical question of whether it should.

I don't think anyone would quarrel with the proposition that the war was a catastrophe not only in human terms but for Europe and civilisation generally. August 1914 saw the opening of the Pandora's box from which all the evils of the twentieth century emerged.

However, I don't think the question of whether the war "should" have been avoided or ended early is very useful without considering how that might, in practice, have happened. I have read the memoirs of many of the leading figures of the war - on both sides* - and I just don't see it.

*The memoirs of Emperor Wilhelm II, Crown Prince Wilhelm, Czernin, Burian, Bánffy and others are all readily available in English translations, some of them online.

[Georg Ebner]

Jul 21, 2018 9:09:16 GMT @goodoldcause said:

I have read the memoirs of many of the leading figures of the war - on both sides* - and I just don't see it.

*The memoirs of Emperor Wilhelm II, Crown Prince Wilhelm, Czernin, Burian, Bánffy and others are all readily available in English translations, some of them online.

The danger with this literature is, that after such terrible 4 years politicians liked to portray their decisions as "inavoidable".

Certain is only, that US and SU fitted best to the new conditions (selfabdication of the bourgeosie, dominance of the masses) and would have won superiority over Old Europe under (roughly) all circumstances, with/without war.

[greenchristian]

Jul 21, 2018 18:22:07 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Jul 21, 2018 9:09:16 GMT @goodoldcause said:

I have read the memoirs of many of the leading figures of the war - on both sides* - and I just don't see it.

*The memoirs of Emperor Wilhelm II, Crown Prince Wilhelm, Czernin, Burian, Bánffy and others are all readily available in English translations, some of them online.

The danger with this literature is, that after such terrible 4 years politicians liked to portray their decisions as "inavoidable".

Certain is only, that US and SU fitted best to the new conditions (selfabdication of the bourgeosie, dominance of the masses) and would have won superiority over Old Europe under (roughly) all circumstances, with/without war.

The Soviet Union would not have come into existence without the Great War.

[Georg Ebner]

Jul 21, 2018 18:43:31 GMT greenchristian said:

Jul 21, 2018 18:22:07 GMT Georg Ebner said:

The danger with this literature is, that after such terrible 4 years politicians liked to portray their decisions as "inavoidable".

Certain is only, that US and SU fitted best to the new conditions (selfabdication of the bourgeosie, dominance of the masses) and would have won superiority over Old Europe under (roughly) all circumstances, with/without war.

The Soviet Union would not have come into existence without the Great War.

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

[greenchristian]

Jul 21, 2018 19:26:25 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Jul 21, 2018 18:43:31 GMT greenchristian said:

The Soviet Union would not have come into existence without the Great War.

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

How does it happen? Without the war, there's no February Revolution to overthrow the Tsar, no feeling that the system isn't providing basic things like food to rally support behind the Bolshevik faction, and no reason the reds would be able to initiate - let alone win - the inevitable civil war. The chaos, instability, and grievances that immediately caused the two 1917 revolutions simply don't happen without the war. It requires some other major national crisis to make the overthrow of the Tsarist regime even possible.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 21, 2018 9:05:30 GMT yellowperil said:

Jul 21, 2018 8:08:03 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Lyn McDonald said that when she and John Terraine were interviewing large numbers of survivors for the oral history that underpinned the BBC Great War series (in late 60s) she was astonished to find that the majority of her interviewees thought exactly that. She did however say that as time went on that changed and she feared that many of them had changed their minds in the face of the consensus in later generations; it perturbed her to think that they had been made ashamed of a sacrifice they had previously been proud of.

I'm not so sure; I think that her later interviewees, facing their own imminent deaths, may have had a greater insight into whether the sacrifice of their friends was worth it. But I think we should be careful of disparaging those who at the time thought it worthwhile.

On the issue of accommodating Germany, Fritz Fischer (Germany's Aims in the First World War) is absolutely fundamental to any discussion and he was of course not only German but a product of the Kaiser's regime.

Yes in no sense would I want my line above to be taken as belittling the genuineness of the sacrifice the actual combatants made. What made it worth it for them,at least originally? I would guess a lot of it was at the level of comradeship- sacrifices made for the guys around you, then a vague feeling of patriotism(for king and country,etc) -very little of it would bear any relation to the diplomatic niceties of the events leading to war (who gave a stuff for Belgium,or Serbia for that matter?). Fortunately perhaps we can now debate the issues of the rights and wrongs of the war without having to consider the feelings of the survivors of the war as we have reached the point where there are no survivors.

Good question.

IIRC the belief that Germany was a threat that needed to be stopped, and Britain was fighting in its own defence, was widespread (and as Fischer showed, not irrational) In that respect the average Tommy in 1914 wasn't much different to Tommy in 1939, who probably cared no more for Poland than his predecessor did for Belgium. Doubtless everyone else thought they were fighting for their country too. (I read a book on Monte Cassino which said that pretty much all the many nationalities engaged in that battle were motivated by that idea, plus the comradeship you cite; hardly any were motivated by ideological views on nazism, communism or democracy either way)

The big difference is that the idea of cutting a deal with the Kaiser or the Tsar, and being able to trust them to stick to it, seems much more plausible than with Hitler or Stalin, which makes WW1 seem more avoidable.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 21, 2018 19:26:25 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Jul 21, 2018 18:43:31 GMT greenchristian said:

The Soviet Union would not have come into existence without the Great War.

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

Soviet Union based on realism? Unless I've wooshed, the Soviet Union was based very much on ignoring realism, cf their adoption of Lamarkian biology in stubborn opposition to objective reality.

[Georg Ebner]

Jul 21, 2018 20:21:38 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 21, 2018 19:26:25 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

Soviet Union based on realism? Unless I've wooshed, the Soviet Union was based very much on ignoring realism, cf their adoption of Lamarkian biology in stubborn opposition to objective reality.

Realism is meant in this context as the opposite to nominalism.

[Georg Ebner]

Jul 21, 2018 20:21:38 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 21, 2018 19:26:25 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

Soviet Union based on realism? Unless I've wooshed, the Soviet Union was based very much on ignoring realism, cf their adoption of Lamarkian biology in stubborn opposition to objective reality.

p.scr.:
Lamarckianism is generally of course NonSense - but not entirely, as EpiGenetics demonstrates.

[Georg Ebner]

Jul 21, 2018 19:48:31 GMT greenchristian said:

Jul 21, 2018 19:26:25 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oh yes, it would!
Just have in mind, how unlikely a communistic China seemed to be
- and still it happened!

US/Atlantic and SU/Eurasia represented complementary ideologies (with a joint theoretical basement) and their antagonism was far away from being accidental:

SU=Collectivism/Realism/NeoPlatonism
US=Atomism/Nominalism/Aristotelism

How does it happen? Without the war, there's no February Revolution to overthrow the Tsar, no feeling that the system isn't providing basic things like food to rally support behind the Bolshevik faction, and no reason the reds would be able to initiate - let alone win - the inevitable civil war. The chaos, instability, and grievances that immediately caused the two 1917 revolutions simply don't happen without the war. It requires some other major national crisis to make the overthrow of the Tsarist regime even possible.

Revolutions have needed a certain economic security. When people were totally absorbed by a fight for economical survival, it ended in not more than spontaneous and thus failed rebellions.

St.Petersburg had always been an artificial (and 1914 really outdated) fata morgana.
Young officers would probably have initiated another coup (perhaps out of PanSlavism?), perhaps immediately introducing a permanent socialistic WarIndustry the military has liked so often. Later replaced by more radical elements.