Gordon Brown was on the BBC News yesterday (video clip embedded here) talking about the death of Harry Patch, who had fought in the trenches in World War One.
At about 34 seconds into the clip, he says we should "... remember what we owe that generation of people - our freedom, our liberties, the fact we are a democracy in the world. These men and women during World War One did a huge amount..."
WTF? Is he perhaps confusing World War One (1914 - 18) with World War Two (1939 - 45)?
The UK was not under any particular threat during World War One and it is a mystery to me why we got involved. We should have cheered from the sidelines while the Europeans did each other in; sold them weapons and supplies; and maybe taken the opportunity to pinch all their colonies from them.
They Aren't Superhuman....
1 hour ago
32 comments:
"We should have cheered from the sidelines while the Europeans did each other in; sold them weapons and supplies; and maybe taken the opportunity to pinch all their colonies from them."
Well said that man.
...and it is a mystery to me why we got involved.
Belgium?
L, what does Belgium have to do with it?
I suspect, but cannot prove, that our entry into WW1 was motivated by the Establishment, who saw the working classes (suffrage for men being more or less universal by that stage) getting a bit uppity and demanding things like Land Value Tax, so the whole thing was a smoke screen to keep the lower orders in their place.
If our glorious leaders had to fight the wars instead of the little people there would be none,just see how quick the problems were resoved
Niall Fergoson says we entered the war because Lloyd George and Asquith wanted to dish the Tories. In which case the demise of the Liberal Party was just.
"Ferguson"
DMC, exactly.
D, what does "dish the Tories" mean? I've been led to believe that the Tories (i.e. the Establishment) were even more pro-war than the Liberals. Either way, WW1 was the most illiberal and pointless war we've ever fought.
World War One started because the Germans were setting out to steal our colonies, and build a bigger navy than us by commissioning a fleet of ships called "Nassau" to rival our "Dreadnought" fleet. We, of course, were not going to allow this. Other factors were the rise of the Hungarian Empire in Europe and our commitment to help France and Russia out due to our alliance with them called the Entente Cordialle
Thank you state education!
Well, it could be argued that without British involvement, Germany would have achieved a decisive victory and stored up more trouble for the future.
That Hun fleet JP mentions involved very heavily armoured, modern battleships ideally suited for use in the North Sea, and this was a bit upsetting as it was pretty clear who such ships would be useful to fight.
Still, it was a dreadful war that achieved nothing useful and caused much ill, and it would have been better to avoid it if at all possible, in my opinion.
Oh God, either curmudgeon is arguring for British membership of the EU, or trying to find a reason for WW3!
Either way, lets leave Europe, which we are NOT part of, to squabble amongst itself and just get out!
I echo the last point Knirr makes too!
"We should have cheered from the sidelines while the Europeans did each other in; sold them weapons and supplies; "
Nah. You've all absorbed too much Marxist and liberal toss about the great imperial powers all being the same, and all that pacifist-approved poetry, etc.
Wilhelmine Germany was an aggressive and brutal place,(its monarch was virulently anti-Semitic), and was really a precursor of the twentieth Century fascist State rather than an Age of Empires holdover.
Its political class was all about obedience and supporting an aggressive military, and the world is better off without it.
The conduct of the land war by our generals was awful - that the peaceniks were right about, and the Marxist and fascist aftermath were truly vile; no argument there, but there's no reason to believe that a Europe of victorious Central Powers would have settled for mainland conquests, or been merciful to the vanquished.
Contemporary conservative and liberal politicians recognized this and [rather ineptly] let their generals run an inflexible campaign as if WW1 was the US Civil War or the Franco-Prussian War: one or two conflicts behind the times, as usual.
It's not just libertarians who believe what they say they believe - the Germans and Austrians did so too: as did the British Tories and Liberals.
Mark,
We had a treaty with Belgium (I forget which one) which basically meant that we would get involved if they got attacked. Not sure why we signed it, but we did.
The whole of WW1 is like the domino toppling of treaties. This piece has all the details: http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
what does Belgium have to do with it?
After Belgium independence in 1930, all the major European powers were worried that another would annex Belgium. It is well to recall the many wars fought in or over the Low Countries - the Armada was sent whilst the Spanish were fighting there; the Habsburgs ruled part at one time and the French had annexed it during the Revolutionary wars.
Therefore at the Treaty of London 1839 all the major powers agreed to respect and ensure Belgium independence.
During the crisis in July 1914 Britain had asked the French and German whether they intended to respect Belgium independence. France confirmed it would but Germany declined to respond.
Therefore once Germany had invaded Belgium as part of its invasion of France, Britain had a dilemma - keep its obligations to protect Belgium or let it be annexed.
Of course there were other factors too.
Furthermore, your other commentators are absolutely right to point out the expansionist nature of Germany. During the 19th century Prussia and then Germany had grow partly by alliances but often by annexation - wars against Denmark, Austria and France had all resulted in the annexation of large territories.
In addition, Germany, with a second rank merchant navy had recently built the second largest navy in the world, and unlike the British, who had it dispersed all over the Empire, aimed squarely at Britain.
Fritz Fischer, an eminent German war historian, showed clearly in Germany's Aims in the First World War that its foreign policy aims were annexationist and that she went to war to achieve them.
There is no surprise whatsoever that Britain thought Germany a threat and acted in what was thought to be her best long term interests.
Britain's traditional foreign policy had been to maintain the balance of power on the continent. It created alliances with minor powers to balance the major threatening power of the day. That had worked in the past with Spain, Austria and France and it was logical to continue that policy.
L, what does Belgium have to do with it?
The last two comments answer this one. The Schlieffen plan involved invading Belgium to get to France. Once Germany did that, our involvement was inevitable.
NNW: ou've all absorbed too much Marxist and liberal toss about the great imperial powers all being the same, and all that pacifist-approved poetry, etc.
It's worth expanding on this. Can I recommend that you read Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan where he debunks the popular view of the war, which began with Lloyd George's excusitory memoirs on the 1930s.
It's very easy to be clever in hindsight. Britain began a war with a miniscule Expeditionary Force. It had to train an mass army and keep the Germans at bay with basically the same people. During the same period it had to act in cooperation with its allies. If Russia or France asked for an attack to divert pressure from their front, there was no possibility of waiting till 1917 and the army was fully trained. Moreover, the tools and the methods that broke trench warfare had to be developed from scratch. Popular history has it that the tank broke the stalemate but in fact it was a minor part. We forget now about the creeping barrage and of the main problem of the era was communication combined with mobility - where did it go well, where do you need reinforcements.
As an example, the casualty rates at the Somme and Passchendale compare favourably with Normandy but we don't hear of the latter as a blood bath. That's partly because the slog at Normandy eventually turned into breakout, unlike the earlier battles but then equally, we never hear about the 100 days offensive that drove the German High command to sue for armistice.
Just ponder on that for a minute: most people know nothing about the final battles of WWI that drove the Germans into defeat.
It would be no mystery if you watched that video, Mark but it came down to treaties and money.
"Oh God, either curmudgeon is arguring for British membership of the EU, or trying to find a reason for WW3!"
Not at all - TDK and others have summed up very clearly why there were strong reasons for British involvement in 1914, even if with the benefit of hindsight the war turned out to be utterly disastrous all round.
For more than two hundred years before that, it had been British policy to prevent a single power gaining hegemony in Continental Europe, leading to long wars against France under Louis XIV and Napoleon. The key difference in 1914 was that Britain - eventually - had to put a large army into the field rather than generally depending on others to do the land fighting for her.
It could be argued that WW2 would have been a better case for standing aside and letting Hitler and Stalin slug it out between them.
All the arguments advanced above revolve around "British interests" without realising that these ran completely counter to "the interests of the British population in general".
Of course, we should have kept building battleships to maintain our superiority of the North Sea and Channel. That's 100,000 jobs in shipping yards as against a million men in the trenches.
Of course, we should have protected our colonial interests and annexed the French and German ones. Or Italian, Dutch or Belgian ones, come to that
Of course, the German Establishment wanted to build an Empire, but there's no reason to assume that a) they would have succeeded (as it goes against the First Rule Of Warfare) or b) that this was in the long run interests of "the German population in general". Which is why the German Establishment threw in the towel in the end and nearly had a Communist revolution.
As to Belgium, we could have honoured that treaty with a small volunteer army, there was no need to conscript and entire generation to be killed and maimed.
Anyway, Simon Clarke did a lengthier analysis - triggered by the same video clip - later today, and broadly speaking, I agree with him.
But Mark, we could not allow the Germans to occupy the Channel, Atlantic and Mediterranean French ports.
That would be a massive threat to britain's interests, while allowing the resources of France to bolster imperial Germany.
Dreadnought by Robert Massie is an excellent and easy read on the great arms race of 1890 -1914.
Much like the 2nd World war, the British Empire tried to stay out of it until it became inevitable.
I read Simon Clarke's piece. Some of what he said is sensible and these kind of historical what-ifs are always interesting but he is wrong on many serious points. Not least about the level of German democracy - particularly bad since he judges intervention based upon the democratic merits of the participants. Perhaps this can be blamed on Marxist revisionist history becoming the dominant narrative.
Once upon a time Britons were idealistic about a concept know as "liberty". That could be appealed to in propaganda films like "Henry V", because there was a generally understood difference between the continental systems and Britain. Even though Britain had already moved in the direction of collectivism it was no way as collective as Germany under Bismark and the Kaiser. So whilst I share the cynicism about Brown's use of the war dead for cheap political gain, I partially agree that such men did die to protect our liberties. It's a pity that two Libertarians cannot see that.
As J S Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
And there are plenty of examples of once independent states being subjugated for very long periods of time, for example Poland.
See what you've done Mark!
Curmudgeon, it goes back further than two hundred years. AFAIK, Britain has had the policy of keeping the balance of power on the continent since Henry VIII.
Germany of the Second Reich started as a Post Office Union, became a Customs Union and was turned a militarised Empire dominated by Prussia* ( in which the other States had varying levels of independence eg Bavaria in whose army young Hitler served).
The only major unresoved bit was whether Austria should join which was partly how Russia got involved.
Does that* development remind you of anything ?
Belgium was a country invented by Great Britain for the express purpose ( as stated above ) of preventing access to that part of the coast by either France or Germany. Germanys attack on it was a clear provocation and in any case the Triple Alliance of mutual support with France and Russia was more legally binding than NATO is today.
I agree that we should have let the Navy do our fighting and stolen Germany and Italys colonies ( oops, we did that anyway but, sadly, had to share them with the Frogs )).
BQ, "But Mark, we could not allow the Germans to occupy the Channel, Atlantic and Mediterranean French ports."
Correct, and those would have been worth fighting for, blockading and/or destroying. But AFAIAA the Germans got nowhere near them.
The Germans occupied Zeebrugge and got very close to Calais and Boulogne.
"But AFAIAA the Germans got nowhere near them."
True - because the we and the French stopped them. Would the French have been able to do this alone? Who knows? Probably not - but it wasn't a bet the British government was (correctly IMHO) prepared to take.
It might be, of course, that the British could have adopted the stance of the US 1n 1939-41 of being "neutral" but blatantly on the side of the French but I don't believe that the psychology of 1914 (if there is such a thing) allowed such a course of action to be considered. That said, none of the combatants entered into WW1 seriously believing what social shock and vast casualty rate would occur although there were straws in the wind about the effects of "industrial" war. After all, the US civil war had occurred 50 years before and had been incredibly destructive of both men and materiel.
One way or another most people and governments really did think that "it would be over by Christmas". To the Germans another humiliation of France and, by extension, Britain together with easier access to foreign empire was worth a few months' war. To the French a few months' stout defence which would see off the Germans for another generation (and maybe recover Alsace-Lorraine) must have seemed worthwhile. To the British, pursuit of the balance of power and preservation of its imperial power against a continental upstart must have seemed worth a few months' expense. This was particularly so since the British Isles were not themseves in any real danger (although the public reaction to the publication of the "Riddle of the Sands" had uncovered a deep mine of of concern about the possible consequences of a waning power of Empire and an aggressive Germany).
Had not the British had treaty obligations to Belgium and serious understandings with the French maybe a British entry into war was avoidable. For Britain not to enter the war, in repudiation of such obligations, would have been humiliating to say the least. However, you might say that a little bit of humiliation would have been an acceptable price for the saving of a million lives. What we'll never know is whether it would have stopped there. FWIW I consider that walking away from our obligations and an (at least) 200 years old foreign policy would have had the same consequences as Churchill noted only 24 years later at the time of Munich to the effect that sacrificing Czechoslovakia was "only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year"
Why are so many of you keen on stealing colonies? Most colonies just cost you money - there's no point in stealing them. We should have offered our more expensive colonies to the Germans so they could glory in them. Their rather, shall we say, brusque ways in SW Africa had shown that they had the, ahem, flair required to hold them.
Why are so many of you keen on stealing colonies?
I don't want the colonies. We were silly to have them in the first place and as you say they (in the main) cost us more than they gained us.
It's worth considering how and why we obtained the Empire. In the case of Africa it was driven by the Victorian desire to spread the three C's - Christianity, Commerce and Civilisation. This evangelical drive to perfect man has a lot in common with modern Socialism, not least in that both movements shared the soft racism of low expectations.
This is a far better argument for non-interventionism in general. But that's not the same thing as positing that there was no British interest in preventing German hegemony in Europe.
Belgium was a country invented by Great Britain
Not so. Belgium and Holland were united in 1815 as the "United Kingdoms of something". Belgium revolted in 1830 against Dutch dominance and managed to break free.
Britain saw a benefit in that independence but that isn't the same as inventing the country
Post a Comment