The First World War

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson

On 28th July this year we'll reach the 100th anniversary of the firing of the first shots of World War I. This took place between Austro-Hungarian and Serbian forces. Britain didn't come into the war until slightly later. When Britain did enter, in order to prevent the Germans overrunning France, the war on the Western Front settled down into what was up to that time the greatest bloodbath in history, fought under conditions which even now have never been surpassed for their sheer hellishness.

It was the first big war where machine guns were used extensively, likewise aircraft, and chemical weapons. Even tanks during the final stages. Battleships of colossal power.

Millions died, and eventually thanks to US intervention the war was ended.
But it accomplished nothing very positive for any of the participants, except maybe America, which after the war replaced Britain as the dominant world power. Britain itself squandered the wealth of Empire on the War, and emerged as a power in decline. A decline which still goes on to this day.
The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the Ottoman Empire was finally killed off, as well as the Austro-Hungarian.

The conditions imposed on Germany led to economic and political chaos which led in turn to the rise of Hitler and hence to World War II.

The anniversary is already provoking some conflict here in the UK.

Some politicians and others are seeking to promote a kind of 'patriotic' attitude to the war. I feel it's a kind of cheap jingoism which flies in the face of the facts.
There's a suggestion that those who have criticized the war in the past and even now, are following a left wing agenda.
To me this seems like the purest nonsense. Nobody could read the WWI poets such as Owen or Brook and come away with any impression that they thought they were engaged in a noble enterprise or fighting for 'freedom'.
I will post some of their work up here sometime soon.

Anyway, let's talk about the First World War, and how we should remember it.

On a personal level it's interesting for me because two of my grandparents met during the war where my grandfather fought in the British Army and met my grandmother, a Frenchwoman who was a nurse.
So my particular genetic mix would not have come about but for the war.

I'll do another post soon and try to outline some of the background that led up to the conflict. Anyone with anything to contribute please do so.

In the item from the Guardian I posted, I tend to agree. I'd just add though that the Royal Navy could easily have secured the channel ports even if the Germans had taken France.

 

I find WWI very fascinating, and count two comics about the war by Frenchman Jacques Tardi among my favorite works.

It Was a War of the Trenches which is based on personal accounts and shows different stories, and Goddamn this War!, which tells the story of a fictional soldier that can't stand the war, but doesn't want to get himself injured or risk running and getting executed as a coward; and concludes with an essay on the history and details of the war.

I recommend both highly; though I do warn, they are appropriately disturbing and bleak.

 

Correction ... Britain didn't actually give a toss about France, and would happily have allowed the Germans to overrun France, as long as they could do it without setting foot in Belgium.

But the Germans couldn't ... or rather, they wouldn't. The Schlieffen plan involved a broad encircling movement which involved marching through Belgium to get to France. And as soon as German troops set foot in Belgium, Britain was bound by treaty obligations to come to its aid.

And of course, "Britain" at the time included Ireland, and many of the troops sent to fight in order to defend the freedom of small nations against their imperialist neighbours were Irish.

The irony was not lost on the Irish (see, for instance, the lyrics to "The Foggy Dew" ... )

 

Squandered?

Had Britain not devoted the wealth of empire to fighting the war, the French would have collapsed long before the Americans came to their aid, and Germany would have prevailed.

Was it "squandering" the wealth of empire, to use it to prevent this happening?

Only if you start from the proposition that a German victory would have been no bad thing.

IS that your premise??

If so ... perhaps you could develop your theme a little, so we can see how you reach that position.

 

I could not agree more here.

There can scarcely be a family in Britain which was not affected by the war ... and that is why it is important that we commemorate it.

There can be very few left for whom it was parents and uncles who fought ... and died. Rather more for whom it was grandparents. For my generations it was great grandparents, whom we never knew. And for the youth of today ... it was even more remote relatives.

But, even so ... we grew up in families which had been mis-shapen and disfigured by the war.

Why did they go to war? Not the nation, but the men, I mean.

After 1916, it was because they had no choice. They were conscripted. Forced. They fought because they were made to.

Quite frankly I don't care about the rights and the wrongs of it all. They were the squabbles of a bygone generation of politicians, who are all dead now.

But because of their squabbles, our relatives fought, and died, in the hell that was the Western Front. And we should mark this fact with respect.

And we should mark it in a way that is inclusive ... that can be shared by those in France, Germany, Turkey, Russia ... every nation that fought. Whether they "won" or "lost" is irrelevant. They were on the side of the country they happened to be in, and for the vast majority that was simply an accident of birth. They were all brave men just "doing their duty". And many of them never came back.

Let us commemorate that, and just that ... and reflect on the fact that whenever politicians squabble, and go to war, this is what it means for ordinary people, and resolve to do what we can to stop our politicians squabbling in future.

 

A German victory in any war would not have been a bad thing.

>.>

 

Maybe Britain didn't really care about the French, but also I think it was a question of not wanting German domination of the continent. These points are all debatable.

Not only Irish, but many Indian and other empire troops were thrown into the western front.
My grandfather who fought in the war was himself born in Ireland.

 

How would Germany have prevailed? Do you think they would have tried to run France as part of a German Empire? Like the Brits did in India? I just think that's very unlikely.
The thing is that back then naval power was everything. The British could have easily blockaded the German fleet in the Baltic, as they did in effect after Jutland.
Without access to the open seas, the Germans couldn't have become a substantial threat to British Imperial interest even if France had fallen.
Also the Brits are more like Germans then French, so maybe we could have done business with them. As we do now.....for a while yet.

I really don't have any firm opinion about whether or not a German victory would have been good or not.

The Allied 'victory' didn't pave the way to a better world, but only to more conflict and greater horror.

As regards America's entry into the war, it's worth remembering that for all Woodrow Wilson's idealism and high-mindedness, there were massive financial interests involved. By 1916 we owed the USA massive amounts of money we'd had in loans. (the wealth of empire didn't last long) and those American financiers wanted to ensure they got their money back.

 

I'm glad to hear that

We have to remember the war. But as I said I'm worried that the right in this country will try to use it as a kind excuse to indulge in xenophobic 'little englander' type rhetoric, which tends IMO to distort the facts, or the realities as experienced by those who fought, as well as those who returned to Lloyd George's 'land fit for heroes'. (general strike, Jarrow marches etc etc).
Few years later, an even worse war with even worse German Imperialists.

We should feel for the people who died and suffered, military and civilian, but I still think we have to regard the war as a terrible and avoidable blunder, and not as something of which we should be proud. Better if we were humbled by the sheer potential for insanity in human culture.

 

A German victory in WW II would have been an unimaginable disaster. I'm glad that Stalin kicked them up the arse.

 

I'm not convinced at several levels.

First, I have yet to be convinced that the Germans were INTERESTED in becoming "a substantial threat to British Imperial interest".

I think they were interested in humiliating France (which would mean facing down Russia, because of the treaties involved) and securing a hegemony over mainland Western Europe.

The purpose of the High Seas Fleet was not to defeat the Royal Navy ... it was to prevent the Royal Navy from intervening decisively against German interests. And it did that pretty well.

The Germans feared war on two fronts ... they didn't think they could sustain it. In fact, when the time came, they sustained it pretty damn well for three years; and then when Russia collapsed they threw their all into the Western front, and damn near prevailed.

Had they KNOWN in 1914 that actually, they COULD hold the field against Germany, France and Britain combined for three years, and that when they did, it would be Russia which fell first ... well, I think they'd have thrown the Schlieffen plan in the bin, stayed out of Belgium, and gone into overdrive with their diplomatic charm offensive to convince Britain that, as you say, we've more in common with the Germans than the French, wouldn't they?

But if it HAD come to fisticuffs ... with France fallen and its resources industry available to Germany, how long do you suppose it would have been before the High Seas Fleet eclipsed the Royal Navy?

 

Fortunately we were spared ever having to find out. Their contributions in starting and losing wars was nothing short of unimaginable horror.

 

I think this is a slightly harsh judgement.

They came to the party a bit late, that's all, and by the time they joined in the mechanization of the war (and logistical) processes had changed the nature of the game beyond all recognition.

The whole of Europe has a long history of starting and fighting wars, which sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. There is nothing exceptional about Germany's record in this regard, except for the fact that they started - and lost - the two most recent, which were also the bloodiest.

But they were bloodiest because of the fact of mechanisation, nothing else.

(And they won in 1870 - 71, remember :mickey: )

 

England gained power from opposing the strongest power on the European continent over the course of several centuries. Spain, Holland, France, and Germany were all the main European power at one time, and all were involved in war with England.

England also developed a extraordinary navy with which it could project power all over the planet.

My grandfather was in the AEF and became a mustard gas casuality in the battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918.

 

Had America not come in, they would very probably have won in 1918.

But given subsequent history, it might seem the victory of the Allies was a shallow one. I don't think Britain benefited much. Only America really gained anything lasting, emerging from the war as the leading world power, and owed huge amounts of money.
All Britain got out of it was huge debt, and the killing off of most of the best genetic stock, and a war memorial in every town and village.

 

I don't think there's any real doubt about that, is there? Britain and France were exhausted, and had nothing else with which to counter the German "surge" (to use a modern term) on the Western front following the collapse of Russia.

 

My point is that the fact that we didn't actually beat the Germans should be taken on board by those who wish to 'celebrate' the anniversary in a patriotic or jingoistic way.

My opinion is that WWI was probably the biggest single mistake in modern history.

 

So ... who DO you say beat the Germans?

Not the Americans, surely? They merely took the pass and ran the ball over the try line. It was in truth a team effort; and the British, French and Russians did all the heavy grunt work to get within sight of the try line.

 

But they couldn't actually win despite all their efforts. And prior to US intervention, Germany was actually in a position where they could have won.
The superior industrial power and sheer numbers the USA could deploy probably convinced the Germans it was all over.
At least until next time.

 

My great grandfather saw the Germans march thru Alsace-Lorraine in 1870. He and his family developed a great hatred of them for their militarism.

My grandfather, who I knew very well, fought as a Sergeant in Gen. Pershing's army in World War I. He suffered a mustard gas attack while fighting in Luxembourg. To recuperate, he was taken to an inn in a small town where the young, pretty, innkeeper's daughter took care of him until 1919. She became my grandmother.