94 replies to this topic

[truthergw]

I've been getting hammered for suggesting that Britain really cocked up by taking on Germany in 1914;  ..........
Cheers, Bill

Bill, the fact is, that the realities of world politics had pushed all the belligerents into their alignments except for Turkey. Even Italy, nominally one of ther Central Powers,  could not afford to go to war against France or Britain because she did not have the naval power to protect her shores. Those alignments were set up long before 1914. If the Kaiser had pursued a different path after getting rid of Bismarck, some sort of modus vivendi might have been arrived at and a different set of alliances may well have arisen.

[dutchbarge]

Bill, the fact is, that the realities of world politics had pushed all the belligerents into their alignments except for Turkey. Even Italy, nominally one of ther Central Powers,  could not afford to go to war against France or Britain because she did not have the naval power to protect her shores. Those alignments were set up long before 1914. If the Kaiser had pursued a different path after getting rid of Bismarck, some sort of modus vivendi might have been arrived at and a different set of alliances may well have arisen.

I don't accept that the belligerents were 'pushed into their alignments'.  The belligerents consciously made foreign policy choices which they thought best suited their individual interests. That, as you say, the Kaiser might have made different choices after getting rid of Bismarck implies that Britain (and France, Russia, etc.) could also have made different choices.  Ones that would have avoided a prolonged world (as oppose to a limited European) war.

Judged by the outcome it would, IMHO, have better served Britain's (and the world's) interests not to have gotten involved in WW1. Her decision to enter the European War turned it into a world war which she was unable to prosecute without the massive spending and borrowing which ultimately bankrupted her treasury leading to the manifold problems which unraveled her Empire.  Had Britain survived the war with her Empire intact, had she retained her pre-war power to positively influence world affairs, we might all now be living in a much happier world.

Cheers, Bill

[truthergw]

I am at a loss to answer most of your points. They do not follow any of the information I have. They do not reflect the world as I see it in the 40-50 years prior to the Great War. One point I will try to make. You say that the powers chose their alignments. I say they were pushed. The Kaiser was known for sabre rattling speeches and belligerent threats to his European neighbours. France felt impelled to enter into alliances against the German Empire. She did so when she allied with Russia and Britain. Britain saw no threat from the Belgian and French sharing the Channel. She was extremely reluctant to allow Germany to replace either or both. She guaranteed Belgian neutrality and integrity against invasion. She held conversations with France leading to an understanding whereby Britain secured the Channel coast and France the Med. All of this was seen as encirclement by the Kaiser and a plot to deny Germany its place in the sun. All of those moves and counters were forced on the participants. None were free to act without careful consideration of the positions taken by possible allies and enemies. The prime mover was Germany's determination to expand and the rest followed from that. Britain could no more refuse to fight the Great War than she could the Second World War. It was fight or die.

[dutchbarge]

Britain could no more refuse to fight the Great War than she could the Second World War. It was fight or die.

We can rarely be absolutely certain what was in the hearts and minds of the participants.  They have left papers, memoirs and diaries to be sure, but  all of us tend to see and record our own actions in the best light possible and those of our enemy in the worst.  Almost every book on the Great War I have read brings up the issue of the differing accounts (concerning the same events) left behind by participants regarding who said/did what and when. etc.

The fact is that all the belligerents had the choice of fighting or remaining neutral.  Certainly neutrality  had its own set of risks and rewards. The US certainly didn't suffer from its cynical policy of sham neutrality and a very late tossing of its hat into the Allied ring. It may also be cynical to say that treaties often ARE 'scraps of paper', but ignoring inconvienent or ill concieved treaty agreements is often regarded as an expidient of national survival. Whatever their motivations, greed, honor, fear, revenge, IMHO, the belligerents did what they felt best satisfied their particular goals. If Britain felt compelled to go to war in 1914 it was her decision.  I feel it was the wrong decision for both Britain AND the rest of the world, for whatever else can be said about Britain she was on the whole a tremendous force for the betterment and advancement of all mankind. To have lost that influence has made the world a poorer place. And IMHO it was unnecessary.  The diplomatic skills Britain had perfected over hundreds of years should have seen her through all the stated motivations for war (defending poor little Belgium, defending the status quo, helping France, etc) without the need to turn the European War into the first world war. All motivations save one. I am left with only two answers to this riddle.  Either Britain horribly miscalculated the downside or was driven by inviolate notions of honor which we haven't seen the likes of in a very long time.  Given that Albion had successfully manouvered her way thru hundreds of years filled with crisis, I am compelled to conclude it must have been the latter. Whether this is enough consolation for the losses she suffered only they can say.

Regarding WW2.  While horrifying and terrible, what a joy it would be for all of us living today to have an issue before us of such clarity as the need to defeat Hiltler. While we might debate that Hitler could possibly have been contained earlier, the fact that Britain alone held out against Nazism, will always be a source of pride for  Britain, and a cause for respect from the free world.

Cheers, BIll

[truthergw]

You believe then that Britain was wrong to perceive a mortal threat in the German occupation of The Channel ports? That she should have allowed the German Empire to hive off the industrial and mining areas of France and Belgium. Britain had always striven , not for peace, but for a balance of power between her potential enemies on the continent. She had always played them off one against the other. She did not normally get involved in land wars but financed and supported the underdog. That is why we see her fighting against France, Germany and Russia when appropriate and allied with them at other times. When Grey said in August of 1914, that Britain would consult her own best interests, he was repeating a well worn mantra.  This is all schoolboy history to any European. Ask any Frenchman about perfidious Albion. Ask a pre war German about who was the real opponent in the European struggle for domination.

[dutchbarge]

You believe then that Britain was wrong to perceive a mortal threat in the German occupation of The Channel ports? That she should have allowed the German Empire to hive off the industrial and mining areas of France and Belgium. Britain had always striven , not for peace, but for a balance of power between her potential enemies on the continent. She had always played them off one against the other. She did not normally get involved in land wars but financed and supported the underdog. That is why we see her fighting against France, Germany and Russia when appropriate and allied with them at other times. When Grey said in August of 1914, that Britain would consult her own best interests, he was repeating a well worn mantra.  This is all schoolboy history to any European. Ask any Frenchman about perfidious Albion. Ask a pre war German about who was the real opponent in the European struggle for domination.

So it wasn't a question of honor, only one of self-interest/preservation? Cheers, Bill

[Siege Gunner]

So it wasn't a question of honor, only one of self-interest/preservation?

Expediency, yes ...  As Tom says, this is schoolboy history to any European.

[dutchbarge]

Expediency, yes ...  As Tom says, this is schoolboy history to any European.

Any schoolboy in America will tell you that he was taught that the US altruistically went to war in 1917 to bail out Britain and France, make the world safe for democracy and end all wars. Few schoolboys still believe this rubbish after they've learned to think for themselves. Informed opinion is that the US sat neutral on the sidelines working the war for her own profit until it was seen as imperative to her vital interests to take an active part.

It probably sounds terribly naive but most Americans actually do need to believe in the nobility of a cause before they'll fight (even though after the fact we often regret that we've been duped and ill used).

Are you saying that Tommy Atkins was prepared to fight and die for nothing more nobel than to maintain the status quo?  I can see how professional soldiers might accept this, but citizen soldiers?

Cheers, Bill

[Roger H]

GJH

You may not have noticed, but prior to your post, the last post was over three years ago.  I think the battle has been fought!

Roger

[Steven Broomfield]

Roger - have you never heard of the concept of a replay? Where's your sporting side?

[George Armstrong Custer]

Given a certain thread which has flourished today, what a coincidence that this one should be resurrected with such an observation at this point.

George

[truthergw]

There seems to be a post missing here?

[George Armstrong Custer]

truthergw, on 30 January 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

There seems to be a post missing here?

Mmmm - 'GJH' seems to have deleted it.

George

[Roger H]

truthergw, on 30 January 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

There seems to be a post missing here?

Tom

Yes there is - one that basically said (IIRC) "cool it".

Roger

[George Armstrong Custer]

Perhaps as a newbie he felt that you were being overly aggressive in pointing out that the debate had run its course over three years ago, Roger!  

George

[Roger H]

Touche (I can't get my french accent thingy to work!)

Roger

[George Armstrong Custer]

We're joking, but it wouldn't surprise me these days if it turned out to be the case!

George

[truthergw]

I am dreadfully disappointed. I wanted to apologise to him.

[Steven Broomfield]

You can apologise to me if you like. I'm not particular.

[Paul Granger]

I'm sorry to hear that.