Whats your opinion on the First World War? Watch

Wee.Guy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
as its the centenary of the First World War, what are your thoughts on the first world war?

A just and necessary War?
A Waste of life?
Should never should have happened?


what is your view?
0
reply
Wee.Guy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
bump
0
reply
delia96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
I believe that the war should've never happened, the amount of lives lost was not worth it whatsoever but-- it was unavoidable because of all the events leading up to it.

Firstly, there were too many alliances between countries. I understand the fact that each country was just trying to protect themselves, but the whole concept of one country siding up with another created fear and tension and that was causing a stir worldwide. Like, what was Europe up to you know? It was like a long row of dominos. As soon as a country declared war, all countries were suddenly scrambling and falling.

Personally, I think that imperialism was one of the biggest causes of the war. Countries were just getting too greedy and reaching for Asia and Africa's raw materials and then there was this whole mess of "let's see who's more macho" and suddenly every country was trying to be dominant.

I find that the whole war was a waste of years and lives
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Wee.Guy)
as its the centenary of the First World War, what are your thoughts on the first world war?

A just and necessary War?
A Waste of life?
Should never should have happened?


what is your view?
Another stupid cartel war.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
septimius
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
It was inevitable.

And it was 100 years ago, don't get why the media is highlighting this.
0
reply
JayJay-C19
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Wee.Guy)
as its the centenary of the First World War, what are your thoughts on the first world war?

A just and necessary War?
A Waste of life?
Should never should have happened?


what is your view?
I personally believe that the First World War was necessary for some but not all of the countries involved.
0
reply
reciproversexclu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by septimius)
It was inevitable.

And it was 100 years ago, don't get why the media is highlighting this.
They highlight it to pretend it had some justifiable meaning - which it hadn't.

All this gush on the BBC and Radio 4 this week, no attempt to hold anyone responsible or tell the youth who they forced to his death why he was sacrificed.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
It was a pointless war, with everyone bored and European countries wanting to flex their military muscles. The casualties themselves were shocking, but the treaty of Versailles was a piss-take as well which helped cause the second world war, which was a war actually worth fighting.
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
I feel the central powers are unnecessarily demonized in the claim they started ww2.

Yes Germany, Austria Hungry and Turkey had motives but so did the Allied powers.

The UK wanted to curb Germany's growing economic and colonial power.

Japan wanted to increase it's sphere of influence over the pacific and china.

France was still embarrassed by the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 which ended in the complete defeat of france and a the siege of paris. They were pretty desperate for revenge, re-claiming Alsace-Lorraine and having the balance of power back in their favour.

Russia wanted influence in the Baltic just like the Austrians did.

Basically everyone was desperate for a scrap in a european war and most wanted war quite openly at some stage or level. Simply claiming the Central Powers was purely to blame is a massive disservice and a prime example of the victors writing the history books.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
A bloodbath fought for empire and realpolitik. More disturbingly, while there had of course been precursors (e.g. French Revolutionary Wars), I'd argue it marked the introduction of the 'mass war', or as I've seen it called somewhere, the 'democratisation of killing'. In other words, it was the end of war as a series of short, pitched battles featuring not that many people and the start of unbroken wars where every citizen is a potential soldier and therefore a potential target,
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by anarchism101)
A bloodbath fought for empire and realpolitik. More disturbingly, while there had of course been precursors (e.g. French Revolutionary Wars), I'd argue it marked the introduction of the 'mass war', or as I've seen it called somewhere, the 'democratisation of killing'. In other words, it was the end of war as a series of short, pitched battles featuring not that many people and the start of unbroken wars where every citizen is a potential soldier and therefore a potential target,
I believe that concept is known as "total war".
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by The Socktor)
I believe that concept is known as "total war".
I'd say they're very similar, but there's a slight distinction. The casualties of WW1 were still mostly combatants by a large margin. It was a step that made total war inevitable, but mostly not a total war itself.
0
reply
ParasiteRex
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by anarchism101)
A bloodbath fought for empire and realpolitik. More disturbingly, while there had of course been precursors (e.g. French Revolutionary Wars), I'd argue it marked the introduction of the 'mass war', or as I've seen it called somewhere, the 'democratisation of killing'. In other words, it was the end of war as a series of short, pitched battles featuring not that many people and the start of unbroken wars where every citizen is a potential soldier and therefore a potential target,
I disagree with this assessment if you're implying the British fought for the British Empire as it would have been apparent to the British government that involvement in war with Germany would mean redirection of manpower from the colonies, putting them at risk of annex. Before the start of the war the British Empire spanned an obscenely large land (and sea) area; war with Prussia would result in massive loss of influence and wealth (which it did, twice, find a nice before/after map), so why go to war? The answer is basically contrary to what the national curriculum teaches when it's stated that Asquith searched for means to convince the US that involvement was wise; the US wasn't only convinced but were the instigators and British involvement was a result of its status as unofficial Protectorate of the US, or, put more aptly by a US WWII general, Britain was (is? the RAF scrambled not a day after USAF deployment) "America's unsinkable aircraft carrier", making it ironic that Britain as victor lost influence and wealth an order of magnitudes greater than that lost by Prussia.
0
reply
ageshallnot
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by ParasiteRex)
I disagree with this assessment if you're implying the British fought for the British Empire as it would have been apparent to the British government that involvement in war with Germany would mean redirection of manpower from the colonies, putting them at risk of annex. Before the start of the war the British Empire spanned an obscenely large land (and sea) area; war with Prussia would result in massive loss of influence and wealth (which it did, twice, find a nice before/after map), so why go to war? The answer is basically contrary to what the national curriculum teaches when it's stated that Asquith searched for means to convince the US that involvement was wise; the US wasn't only convinced but were the instigators and British involvement was a result of its status as unofficial Protectorate of the US, or, put more aptly by a US WWII general, Britain was (is? the RAF scrambled not a day after USAF deployment) "America's unsinkable aircraft carrier", making it ironic that Britain as victor lost influence and wealth an order of magnitudes greater than that lost by Prussia.
Er, what???
0
reply
septimius
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
this may be controversial, but then aren't we the biggest cause of it not Germany?

We rightly, in a way, got scared because the 2nd Reich was up and coming, and there was the naval race, but then Germany offered to stop building ships and we said no. I don't get how Germany was a real threat pre-war, because their empire was small compared to ours. If we weren't so prideful, the war may still have happened but not been as long as it was.
0
reply
ageshallnot
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by septimius)
this may be controversial, but then aren't we the biggest cause of it not Germany?

We rightly, in a way, got scared because the 2nd Reich was up and coming, and there was the naval race, but then Germany offered to stop building ships and we said no. I don't get how Germany was a real threat pre-war, because their empire was small compared to ours. If we weren't so prideful, the war may still have happened but not been as long as it was.
It's not just controversial, it's wrong.

Britain wasn't 'scared' but obviously concerned. As an island nation, Britain depended on naval superiority for its defence - ditto its empire. Germany, as a continental nation sandwiched between two large countries, depended mainly on its army for defence.

Germany's naval build-up could only be construed as a direct challenge to Britain, which responded with a building programme of its own. If Britain had decided to create a peacetime conscript army on the German model, no doubt the Germans would have felt threatened - as they did when Russia and France embarked on military reforms.

As for the size of empires, that does not equate to military power.

It wasn't a matter of 'pride', but national security.
0
reply
AntisthenesDogger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Pretty much France's fault.

Oh and it was a ****storm.
0
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
I know this may seem like a slightly obtuse comment but one fascinating thing for me is how lots of working class men up and down the land sat there with their cloth cap and whippets down the local pub suddenly are motivated,almost without question to take up arms and depart to foreign lands all because some bloke who most if not all of them had never heard of ,got shot. No mention of his poor wife Sophie who also died of lead poisoning that day.
0
reply
reciproversexclu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Limpopo)
I know this may seem like a slightly obtuse comment but one fascinating thing for me is how lots of working class men up and down the land sat there with their cloth cap and whippets down the local pub suddenly are motivated,almost without question to take up arms and depart to foreign lands all because some bloke who most if not all of them had never heard of ,got shot. No mention of his poor wife Sophie who also died of lead poisoning that day.
Crowd control/peer pressure/social conditioning.............. we all get it from birth.
0
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by reciproversexclu)
Crowd control/peer pressure/social conditioning.............. we all get it from birth.
Indeed..im sure that in that era,even more so than in WW2, there was almost no one who would raise a voice of dissent to question the war,to say they were not signing up or being conscripted. Imagine being someone living in a small town and not signing up? The weight of stares and comments from others whos men had gone and perhaps been killed. The white weather through the letter box... and what for? because some unknown guy went and got himself shot.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (112)
17.75%
It's just nice to be back! (172)
27.26%
Not great so far... (225)
35.66%
I want to drop out! (122)
19.33%

Watched Threads

View All