"Britain entering WW1 war was 'biggest error in ..." Topic

…modern history

"Britain could have lived with a German victory in the first world war, and should have stayed out of the conflict in 1914, according to the historian Niall Ferguson, who described the intervention as "the biggest error in modern history".

In an interview with BBC History Magazine, Ferguson said there had been no immediate threat to Britain, which could have faced a Germany-dominated Europe at a later date on its own terms, instead of rushing in unprepared, which led to catastrophic costs.

"Britain could indeed have lived with a German victory. What's more, it would have been in Britain's interests to stay out in 1914," he said before a documentary based on his book The Pity of War, which will be screened by BBC2 as part of the broadcaster's centenary season…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

He could well be right….

There was an Intelligence Squared UK debate on this topic in 2014 featuring Max Hastings;

link

Yes, Britain could have said, 'none of our European treaties matter one jot, you are all on your own.'

I am sure that would have worked well.

the fact the little twit has forgotten is twofold, we were morally and contractually obliged to defend Belgium. And the fact that it wasn't just Germany, it was also Turkey and Austria.

I do not believe that the plight of poor little Belgium really had anything very much at all to do with Great Britain's decision to involve itself in the war. I believe what really drove the decision were (a) the threat posed by the exploding economy of a united Germany to Great Britain's existing global economic/political dominance, (b) the effect of growing German power in upsetting the traditional status quo on the European continent, and (c) the German fleet expansion program. The Rape of Belgium meme simply served as a convenient means of justifying the war to the British public.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

"the little twit"…? Lovely to see the commitment to make TMP a better place with rational debate…

+1 Chokidar

Britain had a nickname of Perfidious Albion for a reason, so they had a precedent for abandoning Belgium. Also, Turkey and Austria did not invade Belgium.

yeah, the Belgium issue was pretty tough to swallow though. I was recently listening to Hardcore History podcast of Dan Carlin on this he does a pretty fair case on this,including Ferguson's position. Over all you have to say the conclusion is correct, in hindsight of course.

I would prefer to look at it from another direction – Germany's greatest mistake was invading Belgium. If they had kept out and just concentrated on hammering the French while making soothing noises to the British Public, it could have been a re-run of the last Franco-Prussian War. Maybe we would be drinking good German Burgundy wine as well as beer?

It wasn't the defence of Belgium as a country that was important it was the fact that Germany had signed a treaty promising to respect their neutrality.

As an historically neutral country in European affairs I believe the fact that Germany ignored this was more disturbing than the fact we were obliged by treaty to defend them.

As well as the fact that with the German ship building programme comnbined with the prospect of Germany gaining ports on the channel coast it was in Britains interest to try and prevent it.

We must be careful not to look at their decisions with hindsight, we know what the outcome of war meant for Europe and the great cost in life that accompanied it.

A victorious Germany would not have been much of a benevolent empire. Eventually there would have been an Anglo-German war as a German dominated Europe challenged British global ascendancy.

More time to prepare for that war would have helped the Germans as much as the British. Building more U-boats (maybe based in French ports) and ensuring the war was only fought on a single front would have made the Germans hard to beat.

Britain had a nickname of Perfidious Albion for a reason…

Jeeeeez, you let Fred the Great down ONE time and nobody ever lets you forget it.

Without the extension to the front through Belgium the Germans could not have made their numerical superiority work and the stalemate would have happened even earlier than it did.

The issue isn't about France being defeated as much about Russia being pushed out of its European territories so that Germany could exploit them. You might remember another guy who had the same idea. If that happened very little would have been able to stop Germany gaining a permanent ascendance in Europe.

I'd agree that the decisions of 1914 were a turning point, just not in quite the same way. Britain final accepted, albeit unwillingly, that we were a part of Europe and not just a puppet-master. Sadly the lesson was not a permanent one.

Jeeeeez, you let Fred the Great down ONE time and nobody ever lets you forget it.

haha! Indeed, but they also let down Prince Eugene prior to that and…

There is very little nobility in empires and warfare, but I find it hard not to admire the British for going to war.. twice.. to liberate those who were in need, at the cost of her own empire, blood and wealth.

Sure, everyone has ulterior motives and checking German expansion was a British aim but in the end, all that matters is what happened.

Britain had the 'common goal with France and Russia to reduce Germany, since 1890; although the alliance was formalized later, the political action was common since the time. It took over twenty years to "build" a war to save them from the responsibilities formally, but not substantially. No German at the time illusions that Britain would remain neutral.

I don't know Weasel. You could make the argument very easily that Britain joining the war made it last much longer, caused more lives to be lost and the end result was no different than if they had not. What would actually have really happened if the Germans won in the west or if a truce was declared after awhile?? The initial war aims were what?? Knocking out France so that they could prevent a 2 front war with Russia. Would it have been any different than the FPW? They already had alsace and lorraine. Do you you think they would have tried to keep Belgium? Certainly ww2 would not have happened the way it did if it did at all. I think the argument from the OP is quite strong.

The perspective would be quite different if you were a Pole, Czech, Slovak, Croat etc. though.

Looking at Brest-Litovsk, I don't think the Germans would have been particularly lenient in France and Belgium.

In the end, we're all speculating. We know what course history did take, we don't know what would have happened otherwise :)

Hind sight! So Russia and France defeated. Serbia conquered. What would happen next?

I had a history professor who droned on and on about the "Bawance of Powah".
Autocorrect is bad enough without having to substitute w for l and r.
He traces ALL of European history to both England and Great Britain keeping the Low Countries free from European superpowers, and free to trade with Britain.
Kaiser Bill should have taken that summer night course. It would have saved him a nasty surprise.

Now that we are discussing why Britsin should not have gotten involved, who's going to ask why the Yanks had to?

Winston has hit it right. The British government in 1914 was continuing policies initiated by William III. He aimed to keep the French from dominating Europe and that was British policy throughout the 18th and a good chunk of 19th century. The rise of Germany as an economic force in the second half of the 19th century made it inevitable that Britain would intervene in a war against them at some point. There was no altruistic motive of " saving plucky little Belgium"; that was just good propaganda.

There was no chance of Britain standing by whilst the low countries fell to Germany. This area has been the key British economic. Interest since the 100 years war at least- something that should have been remembered recently.

MrFerguson rather likes to throw outrageous posits about to sell his books, I'll read his arguments but I am very sceptical.

Holland didn't fall to Germany, and sheesh…talk about saving a country from a "fate worse than death" if the German armies went on to France,Belgium might have been saved from the catastrophe that DID befall her as the "line" to save her was kind of drawn through her.
Key British economic interests? If you look at it purely through economics, then you have already made the authors point for him. It devastated Britains economy far worse than Belgium having some kind of German trade tax or whatever would have happened if the UK stayed out of it.
I think you guys are conflating whether it was inevitable that the times dictated that the UK WOULD go to war vs what the author is saying, that it was a BAD decision in hindsight. Surely none of you can create a scenario where it could have been worse for Britain if they had stayed out??? At least initially so they weren't on the western front meat grinder that developed.

OK daler –

Remember that the people making decisions were the politicians and the military. What may be 'bad' to you and I may not seem quite so 'bad' to them. Politicians and monarchs have been sending their citizens and subjects to war for centuries over far more trivial issues than faced the British decision makers in 1914.

Germany wins the war and sets up satellite states in the areas that it did occupy in reality. Most of France's heavy industry was either in or dependent on resources in or close to that zone of conquest. Belgian coal fuelled a lot of France's industry too. Belgium is occupied with a puppet government set up. Austria gets access to the Med and controls much of the northern and western Balkans. Access for German exports to previously British and French markets.

France and Belgium are no longer customers for British goods – too poor to afford them. Germany no longer needs them. Britain has been making an effective loss on the Empire for 40 years or more so Britain goes bankrupt, mass unemployment, social unrest, revolution.

All possible, all feasible and a hell of a site worse for the politicians of Britain than a few million dead.

Stop looking at the past as if it was the present and you might see the falsity of the arguments presented by these 'historians' a bit more clearly.

Germany knocks France into a bad peace and takes Belgium, the Germano-Austrian Forces take the Balkans and nobble Russia, Next up the combined German/Austrian/Turkish thrust through the middle east, Empire, what Empire?

The day German forces entered Luxembourg and then Belgium they were given 24 hours to announce a withdrawal from the Neutral countries, otherwise Britain would be at war with Germany. Hardly a pretext.

Niall Ferguson is of the revisionist and hindsight school of History, and has a habit of forgetting or omitting evidence contrary to his conclusions.

Churchill thought the Kaiser a great bloke and that him ruling Europe was fine as long as GB could have a war with the Ottoman Empire without Germany intervening. He also disparaged the William III strategy, as it was his good Troy roots that sold out the WSS and gained Britain the perfidious reputation.

For a good analogy of Churchill, think of him as Boris, no actual skill or ability in politics but headlines in the papers.

And before deciding it would have been better to leave well alone, read what life in German occupied Belgium was like. Starvation, executions and forced labour, ring any bells yet?

Yes it would have been worse for Britain, several reasons but the biggest one in 1914 was this simple one. None of the self governing parts of the Empire would have trusted the British Parliament to have aided them at time of need, and would have cut ties or made their own deals with the new European Power, so that is the loss of South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand immediately, a rapid increase in unrest in India and other places.

Some how I think that 'might' have affected Britain detrimentally.

Sorry but Austria had every right to declare war on Serbia. He could end up there?

What grounds did Austria have for the war declaration? It happened in Bosnia. There has never been more than rumour that Serbia had any official or unofficial involvement, just an easy country to blame.

So Austria declares war, Russia says, we have a defence treaty so will help Serbia. Germany says, if you do we will assist Austria with all our power (the Blank Cheque), France says we have a treaty of mutual defence with Russia, attack them and we are at war.

Germany goes to war with France using a mobilisation plan that involves a neutral country that declined to allow free passage, so they are attacked (with kit specifically designed and built to neutralise the road blocks to attacking the French in Belgium (the liege forts)).

Let's suppose it's not Austria. Let's say some Irishman assassinates King George V. I'm SURE Britain would never go to war over that.

the threat posed by the exploding economy of a united Germany to Great Britain's existing global economic/political dominance

If that were the case, they would have been better served declaring war on the US.

Germany did not need to invade Belgium to defeat France, simply give ground in Alsace-Lorraine, then encircle and destroy the French army in the salient that would have created. Plan 17 (which the Germans had a copy of) would have played into that strategy quite well.

What grounds did Austria have for the war declaration? It happened in Bosnia. There has never been more than rumour that Serbia had any official or unofficial involvement, just an easy country to blame.

There was plenty of evidence that Serbia funded the assassination and other anti-Hapsburg activities. But the "poor little Serbia" propaganda was so appealing that the evidence was ignored. What is more shadowy was the French backing of the Balkan insurgent groups.

Good points.

Amicalement
Armand

Britain's Foreign Policy re: Europe was to prevent, by any means necessary, ANY nation from establishing an empire.

back in the 1700s, this was France doing the empire-building.

In the late 1800s, France was getting checked by a new country called Germany.

In the early 1900s, Germany was the nation that was working towards establishing a European Empire.

Let's say some Irishman assassinates King George V. I'm SURE Britain would never go to war over that.

Ireland was not a foreign country at that time, so not they wouldn't have.

And it would be the equivalent of assassinating David, Prince of Wales at the time, not KGV.

And Irishmen assassinated a member of the Royal Family and we didn't go to war with Ireland over it.

Had America stayed out of WW1, they wouldn't have expanded into the power they did, same for WW2. The isolationism was slowly making them a backwater.

Ferguson is a prat rather than a historian. He loves to raise storms in a teacup!

From my research Ireland was still part of Great Britain during WW1. Hard to declare war on yourself.

Ireland may well have technically been part of Great Britain, but it was not necessarily a welcome state of affairs for a majority of the Irish population. Ireland was seized by force of arms by England. British rule over the ensuing centuries relied upon bloody suppression of an endless succession of rebellions until the Irish finally achieved their independence in 1921.

Great Britain would not "declare war" in such circumstances; they would declare an "internal civil emergency": same pig, just a different shade of lipstick.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

The United States as a "backwater" in 1914. What an interesting assessment. Upon what is this viewpoint based?

B

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

The kickstart to American industrial expansion on the World stage was WW1.

Irelands war of Independence in 1920/21 got them exactly the same independence treaty that had been on the table peacefully in 1904.

Niall Fergusons arguments also mean that Britain not using the pretext of a treaty to start WW2 would also have made sense.

Ireland may well have technically been part of Great Britain…

Actually, it wasn't. It was "the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland" in which the British monarch also happened to be the Irish monarch.

…but it was not necessarily a welcome state of affairs for a majority of the Irish population.

Actually, it wasn't. Home Rule, with the retention of the monarchy, was extremely popular outside of Ulster, and would have happened but for the outbreak of WW1.

Ireland was seized by force of arms by England.

Nope. By the Normans; and confirmed by the 12th Century Papal Bull "Laudabiliter". And it was seen at the time, by the Irish/Gaelic clergy, as payback for the countless invasions and slave-raids on the western coast of England and Wales by Irish chieftains.

British rule over the ensuing centuries relied upon bloody suppression of an endless succession of rebellions until the Irish finally achieved their independence in 1921.

What "endless succession of rebellions" was this then? The medieval period saw in-fighting among the Irish nobility, most of whom sought English assistance at one time or another, against their internal foes. The Tudors only expanded beyond The Pale as a response to uprisings by two Irish noblemen, both previously loyal to the Crown, and a Spanish invasion. And there were three uprisings in the three centuries after that, one of which – in 1688-90 – was in support of the reigning monarch. As Bartlett and Jeffery point out in their "Military History of Ireland", they were surprised to discover that there were more uprisings in England than in Ireland AND Scotland put together, over the 800 years in question.

With all due respect, Fredd -

1 – You may wish to more closely study the position of the United States as a world industrial power on the eve of WW1. Just a suggestion.

2 – Your argument does not explain five odd centuries of Irish rebellion. The plain fact of the matter is that the Irish were unwilling subjects of the Crown.

3 – If the decision process to go or not go to war is dominated by factors deemed more crucial than an existing treaty, then that treaty will be honored, broken, ignored or disavowed in whatever way best serves the nation's essential interests. The breaking or honoring of a treaty on one occasion will have no bearing upon how treaties must or will be honored or broken at any future point in time.

4 – I read "The Pity of War" a long time ago, when it first came out. After observing the ensuing tumult in British academic circles, I remember thinking that Ferguson's greatest sin, once all the criticism had been reduced to its essentials, was that he had wandered off the reservation limits by questioning officially blessed history. It reminded me of one of Bismarck's famous aphorisms – "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied".

B

SM –
Whether Normans or William of Orange, it all traces back to England.

Whether or not the Irish won the division crown for most rebellions in a given season is immaterial. The fact remains that, over the long term, they persistently remained such surly and unwilling subjects that the British Crown finally was left with no practical choice but to cut them loose.

Please re-read my post regarding pigs and lipstick. I am pursuing no particular agenda regarding Anglo-Irish relations.

B

Actually the Normans were French… they occupied England in 1066. Dissention as such was more a case of religion – when England went Protestant, Ireland didn't. The main area of Irish dissent was in Ulster – which is why Ulster was basically resettled by Scottish farmers. In the English Civil War, the Irish basically chose the wrong side and have never forgotten it…

Hang on, hadn't the Brits spent approximately the generation prior to WW1 building alliances with France and Russia in response to Bismarcks successful German Empire building?

A solid new power block ('threat' is a provocative word, even if that is what it turned out to be) had lead the Brits to abandon 'Splendid Isolation' and embrace alliances on the continent. Even with those damned Frenchies!

Had WW1 started a generation earlier, I think that the Brits would have been about as interested as they were in the Franco Prussian war (ie, not very much).

But they had put a lot of effort, as they felt, into alliances to stabilize the continent, and my feeling from reading the memoirs of WW1 is that there was genuine public revulsion at the invasion of 'plucky Belgium'.

Overall, I incline more towards the idea that WW1 was a war decided upon by the same old elites, who then found that they had no clue at all how hideous industrialized war was, and no idea how to stop it.

For me, the tragedy of WW1 is more that the politicians on either side couldn't figure out a way to stop what they had started once it turned into a continent wide battle line or siege. That, is what kept the war going so long, political ineptitude.

Just my 2 cents.

You know what Blutarski, I wrote a whole rebuttal of your opinions on Ireland and its issues.

Then I decided that you are just not worth my time to argue with.

Europe was steaming towards war for years. The nations of 1914 were very different than the ones of the Congress of Vienna.

Britain stood on the brink of being eclipsed by Germany as an industrial nation. France had grown somewhat complacent about 1870. There was a desire for revenge, but war didn't appeal to many politicians at the time.

Russia was changing fast as well. A huge amount of European investments flowed into the country, allowing the Russians to expand their industry and railroad network.

And then there were the old empires of Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans. Both weakened internally by rising nationalism and political systems that couldn't deal with a changing world.

These nations were rubbing against each other like tectonic plates and it was only a matter of time before things went wrong.

Had a few things turned out different, Europe would have avoided a war and possibly the one after that, but sooner or later there would come a situation where the system would lead to inevitable war. Where the mistakes do pile up, communications lag sufficiently to create a false impression or fail to stop certain actions in time and off we go …

There was a confidence that the problems of that summer in 1914 could be resolved as they had been before and peace would be assured. The tragedy is that while no-one was willing to go to war, they were more than willing to go if it had been declared.

For me, the tragedy of WW1 is more that the politicians on either side couldn't figure out a way to stop what they had started once it turned into a continent wide battle line or siege. That, is what kept the war going so long, political ineptitude.

It wasn't so much ineptitude as the silly fact that nobody was actually losing. The Germans had Belgium and a big chunk of France, they simply dug in and waited for the other side to exhaust itself before they would sue for peace. Similarly, France had been assaulted, but was still capable of fighting. The technology of the day strongly favoured the defender. And when the rich, populous nations of Europe were able to keep millions of soldiers on a near permanent basis on the front lines, there was no magical solution or elegant tactic to carry the day, it was going to be a long battle of attrition.

To say I am not a fan of Ferguson is an understatement. There may be an argument that if Britain had pursued a different policy in the years leading up to WW1 the world, or at least the British Empire might have been better off. However if you assume the historical course of events up to August 1914, with Britain at that point opting for neutrality, I don't think so. Is there another reputable historian that is willing to go that far?

@ Patrick R. You know what? The idea that no one was actually losing is a very good point. The Austrians were inept, but even the Russians didn't actually collapse until 1917.

'Attrition' is an interesting concept, and one that I would have thought would be more of an imperative for the politicians to find a solution than it turned out to be.

Grant used attrition brilliantly to end the ACW.

The generals of WW1 used attrition with soul destroying ineptitude, and all they achieved was the continuation of the war.

I still see the wars continuation as a political failure though the grotesque inability of the generals to go to the politicians and admit that there was no foreseeable resolution, just more killing ahead is a contributing factor.

Hang on, hadn't the Brits spent approximately the generation prior to WW1 building alliances with France and Russia in response to Bismarcks successful German Empire building?

Yup. As mentioned, British foreign policy at the time was to prevent ANY nation from creating an empire in Europe capable of competing with the British Empire.

I don't see how the politicians could have ended this mess without getting into political suicide territory.

If the allies offered peace, Germany would have made demands which would result in a major loss of face for the allies.

An allied peace offer in 1916 would have meant at least some territorial and/or colonial losses, reparations and running the risk of seeing Belgium become a German protectorate/vassal state (read : spring-board for the next invasion) Public opinion would have demanded why they had given up, wasting so many lives in the process.

Ditto for Germany. Even if Germany offered to withdraw, it would have been a huge blow to the Kaiser's ego.

Militarily, even with the equipment and training of 1918 the allies would have been hard pressed to break through the defences of 1916 when the German army still had substantial reserves. I don't see how you can achieve anything on the Western Front. There is no possibility for a flanking move as the Southern Front in the Alps was possibly even worse to some degree.

Assaulting the "soft underbelly" like Gallipoli shows that such attempts can easily be bottled-up (we saw similar problems at Anzio and to a lesser degree in Sicily)

The fact is that despite all claims to the contrary, strong, deep defences, that cannot easily be bypassed or turned remain hard nuts to crack, be it Monte Cassino, Stalingrad, Tobruk, El Alamein, etc …

You mention Grant, but he was much in the same position as the allies were in 1918. The enemy had been weakened by the economic blockade, most of the veterans were dead or tired of fighting and most importantly the Union had cut off the main waterway of the Confederacy.

I find it hard to find a way out once the Guns of August start blasting. The Germans were the first to recognize this when the Schlieffen plan failed to knock France out of the war. They knew they had a good hand and simply sat back, dug in deep knowing the allies had no other choice than to go on the offensive.

The allies had little choice but to attack and hope they could achieve a breakthrough.

The only solution would be to win the battle in the first days or avoid the war altogether.

British policy was a follow on from English policy, ie, before there was an Empire and was not to

"prevent ANY nation from creating an empire in Europe capable of competing with the British Empire"

But to prevent any nation in Europe from dominating the rest and to ensure that a strong maritime nation did not control the Low Countries.

This has been such a consistent objective throughout history that it amazes me that the Kaiser's Germany chose to ignore the implications of their actions leading up to the outbreak of the War and let us remember it was Austro-German actions that led to the War, not British. Germany wanted the War to humble Russia before Russia realised its full (military/economic) potential.

If we had not joined the French in the War, no nation would have trusted us afterwards.

And FredBloggs is right, without the money Britain spent in the USA in both worlds, that country would not be as rich as it is..