Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War
1,346,576
Published 2014-04-23
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/events/britain-first-w…
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 15th April 2014.
The First World War is not called the Great War for nothing. It was the single most decisive event in modern history, as well as one of the bloodiest: by the time the war ended, some nine million soldiers had been killed. It was also a historical full stop, marking the definitive end of the Victorian era and the advent of a new age of uncertainty. By 1918, the old order had fallen: the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had been destroyed; and even the victorious Allied powers had suffered devastating losses. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. And yet barely two decades later, the world was again plunged into conflict. Little wonder then that historians still cannot agree whether Britain's engagement was worth it.
For some, the war was a vitally important crusade against Prussian militarism. Had we stayed out, they argue, the result would have been an oppressive German-dominated Europe, leaving the British Empire isolated and doomed to decline. And by fighting to save Belgium, Britain stood up for principle: the right of a small nation to resist its overbearing neighbours.
For others, the war was a catastrophic mistake, fought at a catastrophic human cost. It brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of Nazism. We often forget that, even a few days before Britain entered the war, it seemed likely that we would stay out. H. H. Asquith's decision to intervene changed the course of history. But was it the right one?
All Comments (21)
-
No one should've fought in the Great War.
-
I grew up in an era (1970's) when British Television used to be like this debate, you once had a great many shows that were about discussion, debate and social inquiry ... look at your TV guide today and ask yourself where the dumbing down disconnect finds its origin ...
-
I’m not sure how you can pick out evil and benign empires in 1914, but I agree with those that argue that absolutely nothing could have been a worse outcome of Britain’s decision to join the war than what actually happened.
-
The saddest thing of all wars is that unlike the politicians, the people who actually die from the wars often had no decision-making power over the war.
-
moderator "it's been 11 minutes"... 9 minutes on the video including 2 minutes of introduction. get a new watch dude.
-
There is a certain irony in the notion that Britain of all things cared for the sovereignty of small nations.
-
For all of the countries of Europe involved in this war, the real tragedy was the huge number of people lost to death, injury, or illness. Suicides and early death after the war were also staggering in number. Essentially Europe managed to wipe out multiple generations due to the multiplier effect of this war. Then they had the stupidity to commit to another war just a little over a couple of decades later.
-
The argument she made that Britain went into the war to protect the rights of small nations... meanwhile in Ireland.
-
The chairman should probably have his clock checked. When he said Dominic had talked for 11 minutes it had just been around 7 minutes.
-
The first speaker could not have been at 11 minutes in at 9 minutes in to the video
-
One of the most insightful debates I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching. Thank you!
-
There's no way they gave Dominic Sandbrook his 10 minutes
-
Britain? NONE of the participants should have fought in WW1. Particularly not Germany.
-
The 1st speaker was given 6 minutes and told to hurry up as he had actually taken 11mins! wtf
-
German speaking here ;) First of all, a wonderful and insightful debate, fought with passion and good arguments. I'm certainly amazed about all the quotes and facts that were put forth almost spontaneously. More of that! Secondly, I find it striking that both sides argued to only consider what the cabinet would have known but not what the cabinets frame of mind was. So we are urged to make a decision with 1914 information but with 21st century thinking? "Fighting to preserve the empire" was mentioned, yet the panel didn't really exam how Great Powers think as opposed to countries in the 21st century. And the British Empire very much was a classic Great Power of the era of empires in 1914. I'm both interested in history and in historic strategy games and I can tell you: if I was playing the British Empire in 1914, not fighting would have meant to preserve resources, yes. But it would have also meant to fall behind relative to my rivals. And that is exactly how Great Powers think - and it would have been akin to "losing the game" for Britain. Whether Prof. Charmley personally thinks himself that this is a vital interest is beside the point. In the minds of the cabinet it surely was of vital interest. We did hear arguments about whether Germany would have been capable to control all of the new territories that the "shopping list" called for and I think no one today nor back then in the cabinet could have known. But Germany was already growing stronger FASTER than the British Empire without winning the war. Not entering the war would have meant betting on the fact that Germany's power growth will be slower than the British IRRESPECTIVE of whether Germany wins or not. That seems a tall order to me. On the other hand, France and Russia couldn't keep up with Britains power growth. If they could be used as "pawns" to spend Germany's resources, the road to (continued) world domination for Britain (let's not pretend only the Germans wanted world domination) was at least still open. Open is better than continuing to lose. In my assessment, Great Power thinking played a large role in the minds of the people and especially the leaders of all important nations of that time, including Britain. If we think, that the deliberation in the cabinet was 60% fighting for Belgium out of principle and 40% loss of life, than we severely underestimate national chauvinism on all sides of the channel. I'd guess it was more like: at least 40% Great Power thinking, at most 40% loss of life and at most 20% fighting for Belgium. And that explains, why even Mr. Hastings and Mrs. MacMillan would vote for the motion if Belgium wasn't attacked. It was not about Belgium. Belgium only pushed it beyond the tipping point. It was a patriotic and empathic deliberation of the loss of life vs strategic deliberation fueled by national chauvinism (Great Power thinking). And national chauvinism won - as it did in all the participants of the war irrespective of whether they had strong socialist movements. And it continues to fuel conflicts in the world right into the present day. Thus, I think that if we replayed 1914 thousands of times, in the overwhelming majority of replays the British would join the war. As an armchair historian put in the shoes of the British cabinet in 1914, I concur. Even if there was the prospect which became true, that all of Europe fell into the abyss together. Thanks for reading my thoughts :)
-
These are some Great speakers! I find myself constantly shifting between views after every speech. Also a very intelligent and well educated audience i might add. Most of the questions were very well thought and i really appreciated the higher caliber of discussion seen here.
-
-
The first guy got screwed out of at least three minutes.
-
Amazing debate. The education, the way arguments are discussed. Congratulations from Mexico! Wish my people were open and willing to talk polemic topics with such quality of information, intellectuals and FACTS. I've never imagined that kind of question and the consequences of the "ifs".
-
Brava, Bravo. What wonderful impassioned debate. If only there were more of this calibre !
