| Was Fighting the Great War Worth It? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 15 2014, 12:17 AM (493 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 15 2014, 12:17 AM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Today's subject for debate and this week's Great War centenary question: Given all we know with the advantages of hindsight, was it worth it to fight the Great War? For most countries, I'd lean toward no. Invading Serbia certainly did nothing to help the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Germany did not achieve mastery on the continent and failed to break its diplomatic encirclement. The Russians and Ottomans saw their empires crumble, while France lost an entire generation and eventually succumbed to defeatism. About the only clear victors among the participants were the United States and Japan, with the latter participating only tangentially. Even that is somewhat dubious, given that it set in motion tensions in the Pacific. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Apr 15 2014, 12:32 AM Post #2 |
|
I'm still trying to figure that out, for Britain, and the empire. I still think, the way it worked out, we were honour bound to enter was we did, and that was worth it, yes. The question is if it was worth becoming honour bound, as those things do not happen without any choice in the matter. I'm still of two minds about it sometimes. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Apr 15 2014, 03:05 AM Post #3 |
|
Britain would have found herself in a very uncertain world with a defeated France and Russia. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Apr 15 2014, 03:20 AM Post #4 |
|
It is true, though I suppose the counterquestion is how a quick defeat of France and Russia would have played out (as without our assistance the war would have not dragged on as it did.) I've honestly just not looked at it enough, nor have I had the time to, though I hope to one day. I just think that between Niall Ferguson and Peter Hitchens it is at least worth giving consideration. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 15 2014, 04:04 AM Post #5 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Yes, it was worth it for Britain to fight for what was right and to defeat Germany. The cost was great and some of the ways in which it was fought were far from optimal, but that doesn't detract from the purpose. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 15 2014, 04:06 AM Post #6 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I'm not familiar with Ferguson's work, but from a quick read of the summary on that page, I'd lean toward what the historian Gaddis said. The arguments sound like they exhibit great range and quality, but also sound ultimately unpersuasive. Adler would undoubtedly have a fit at my saying this, but I generally lean toward the view that Nazi Germany was more or less an expression of fundamental German values and militarism that stretched back to at least the 19th century. It was not an aberration. The problem was not (merely) with Hitler; it was with the country. That is bit off-topic but relevant to the question of who started what and whether a German triumph would have been all roses for Europe. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Apr 15 2014, 04:12 AM Post #7 |
|
Oh, don't get me wrong, by 1914 we had to fight and I would say we should do it every time. I just wonder if there would have been some other just as honourable way. Keep in mind, Europe as it is is pretty much the German empire, conquered by force makes little real difference. In the end, 50 years after we sacrificed our empire it still ended up that way. Of course this is with hindsight, but you allowed for that. Edit: Just a thought, but if it was inherently right to oppose Germany in 1914 by force, would it have been right in 1870? Edited by Matthew, Apr 15 2014, 04:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 15 2014, 04:16 AM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Germany didn't invade neutral countries in 1870. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Apr 15 2014, 04:35 AM Post #9 |
|
As much as I loathe the European Union, when a German speaks to an Englishman, he speaks to him in English and not the other way around.
Edited by Lewington, Apr 15 2014, 04:39 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 15 2014, 04:43 AM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Throw in the fact that they have been thoroughly de-Prussified and de-militarized and the fact that the British and French have the bomb. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Apr 15 2014, 03:05 PM Post #11 |
|
The war basically cost Britain any chance of maintaining the Empire, and put the first cracks into Empires in general. I have long believed that if the German's didn't invade Belgium, and didn't violate their neutrality then the German's would have handedly defeated France in a two to three year campaign, and would have crushed the Russians in another year to a year and a half. What would have happened after that is debatable, but logically the Germans would have asked for a bit of territory from France - perhaps the rest of Lorraine, and French Algeria or Morocco. Russia would have had to sign a similar agreement to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with large swaths of Eastern Europe being transferred to the Germans. The German's would have had to spend billions to modernize that region, and would have had to deal with Italy, and Austria-Hungary as they would be potentially disgruntled allies, and could view themselves as have been treated poorly in the peace agreements. Edited by Vonar Roberts, Apr 15 2014, 04:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Petar | Apr 15 2014, 06:56 PM Post #12 |
![]()
The General
|
From a purely Croatian POV, absolutely not. From a purely A-H POV, absolutely not.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Apr 15 2014, 09:43 PM Post #13 |
|
Its not about neutral countries, though. I fully agree, the way it worked out, in 1914, we were honour bound to fight. But we didn't primarily fight for Belgium. It was a factor, largely in how it changed public opinion, but it was largely fought due to a sense of obligation to France and opposition to Germany on principle, or at least the latter is how it seems it is being argued. I know we fought for both reasons, and I think it was right to fight for Belgium in 1914, and it was right to fight for France in 1914 because we led them to believe we would. That does not address the deeper question of opposition to Germany on principle. To some degree I am playing the devil's advocate because, as said, I've not yet examined it enough. However your fellows counterarguments to what Hitchens and Ferguson say haven't really been convincing, just somewhat saying it was right, because, well, it was right. As to what you are saying, Vonar, I do not really believe Britain would have stayed out "if only" Germany had not invaded Belgium. It would have been interesting to see how it would have worked out, but the issue was much deeper, and by 1914 I think Britain had to be involved, one way or another. As to the Nazi's arising out of structural German problems, I think its a bit of yes and a bit of no, but again, if this is a structural problem, it goes back to 1870. I suppose I am just trying to say that if there was a "problem ... with the country" which we ought to have opposed, why should it matter if "Germany didn't invade neutral countries in 1870"? |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 15 2014, 10:05 PM Post #14 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean (not the arguments themselves, only what conclusion you draw from it). |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Apr 16 2014, 12:23 AM Post #15 |
|
That's the thing though. The German's were not out to conquer all of Europe. The British went to war to defend Belgium, not as many of our historians tell us now because of the so called noble alliance between France and the United Kingdom which never really existed until the NATO alliance. For the record fighting for Belgium in 1914 was right. The British had a guarantee of independence to protect, Fighting a loosing battle for France was a questionable move that nearly bankrupted the Empire in the process. Sure aligning with France once we are all ready engaged in the fighting keeps the balance of power firmly on our side, but the French and the Russians for that matter are our ancient enemy. Remember the Great Game in central Africa? Or the Napoleonic wars? or the Seven Years' War? or the Hundred Years' War? The French couldn't be more against our national interests if we asked them to hate us more then they all ready do. Why are we fighting this war and protecting their interests when we should be opportunistically carving up their decaying Empire? What's better for the Empire? A long bloody war that will see our colonies asking for additional freedoms and puts us in hot water with American banks or a larger more stable Empire, and a slightly stronger Germany who was a ally less then 50 years ago? Who will by virtue of their relationship keep France and Russia - two rivals who compete with our interests pretty much everywhere in line and will by necessity keep the Germans focused on maintaining their new Empire which will not be a easy task for them. This is the kind of thinking that should have been going through the mind of every British politician during the Great War. Edited by Vonar Roberts, Apr 16 2014, 12:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Apr 16 2014, 12:50 AM Post #16 |
|
The Germans wanted Britain's place in the sun and got burnt.
Edited by Lewington, Apr 16 2014, 12:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 16 2014, 02:19 AM Post #17 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The thinking that went through the minds of many was preventing the dominance of Europe by one power who's actions, policies and interests were directly opposed to those of Britain - that was the lesson of the previous centuries and the consistent thread of British foreign policy. As such, Britain fought Germany and won convincingly; that the peace was too lenient and not enforced does not detract from victory. France was no longer a rival or a threat and Russia was contained, with the Great Game having been effectively won. The French Empire had nothing worth obtaining - in many ways, it was a Clayton's empire - the empire you have when you're not having an empire. * Belgium was the convenient excuse, not the reason. Germany had been stirring the pot for a long time prior to that. It kind of gives me a yen for doing the Great War again... ( * = A reference to an Australian non alcoholic wine advertisement of the 1980s) |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 16 2014, 02:45 AM Post #18 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Yen? Surely you mean pound sterling.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 16 2014, 02:58 AM Post #19 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
No, I'm mainly good at losing pounds of late.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 16 2014, 05:01 AM Post #20 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I've been going over a book by Isabel Hull on German military culture, which has some interesting points relevant to our broader conversation. Her focus is the evolution of German doctrine over 1870-1914 and the role of excessive force. It's a pity BC's not around. I'd love to pick his brain on some of the details, having scant personal knowledge of the area outside one or two things I've read. Essentially, her argument is that Germany's military mindset ensured the kinds of atrocities and excesses we saw in the First World War. The absence of a coherent war policy in 1914, the separation of political considerations from military planning, and the tendency to characterize all struggles as existential left the Germans to cling to one overarching, but nebulous goal, namely hegemony. That necessarily meant the destruction of (as opposed to negotiated settlement with) Germany's foes, including Britain, by means fair or foul. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 16 2014, 06:11 AM Post #21 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That thesis sounds familiar; I must have read a review on that book somewhere. It goes along with some of the arguments of Fritz Fischer. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |








2:39 PM Jul 11