Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

'WW1 - An Unjustified War' comments on this?

Having a sort out of unwanted documents, I just picked up an old cutting from a newspaper letter of some years ago thus:

"World War 1 was an unnecessary war. The differences between the belligerents, their conflicting ambitions and varying visions of the future, were not so great as to require a settlement by arms.
A major second theme was that vainglorious France, not Germany, was the power that desired and worked for a great European war in 1914. France was the only nation whose aims - regaining the lost provinces of Alsace-Lorraine and the destruction of their German rival as a major power in Europe - could be achieved by war.
From 1892 to 1914, France, Russia, and their unofficial ally Britain, consistently spent more on armaments than Germany and Austria. Their allied armies combined far outnumbered those of the Central Powers in 1914, and they were much stronger at sea.
The pretext for war - murder of heir to the Austrian throne - was the result of a Serbian plot, with its roots in Russia's Balkan policy that France supported.
In the final days of the crisis the German government strove more than the governments of France and Russia to avoid war.
Russia, with French encouragement and foreknowledge, was the first to order general mobilisation, the decisive step to war. Germany was the last. Britain had no formal alliance with France or Russia and should have kept out. Upholding 'the balance of power' had always brought about war.
Going to war for the artificial state of Belgium was just an excuse to get involved. Britain and France would have had no qualms about violating Belgium neutrality had the circumstances required it.
Britain has never recovered from WW1. It took the best of a generation of menfolk and ruined the nation.
Most importantly, without it there would have been no Stalin, Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini. That would have been a price worth paying for Britain staying out of that war."

With events in Eastern Europe on a dangerous knife edge and with the real risk of escalation- heaven forbid- what do folk think?

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 1

Napp

Small events can trigger massive ones, like a stone cast into a pond. WWI is a case in point, however, events in EE are contained, unless the west decides to give real offensive weaponry to Ukraine, then Russia would be utterly justified in shooting down said flights, thenb, well..

Reply 2

Lucadahse

It may have been unnecessary but it was certainly inevitable

Reply 3

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

It may have been unnecessary but it was certainly inevitable

Inevitable from which point in time?

Reply 4

Lucadahse

As in, by 1914, tensions were so high, with countries begging for an excuse to start colonising, that war would have come by regardless of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination. The assasination was only the catalyst

Reply 5

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

Most colonisation had already taken place by 1914, so most countries were not "begging for an excuse" to start doing so. Prior to the assassination, tensions between the great powers were actually quite low.

Reply 6

Lucadahse

Original post by ageshallnot

Germany and Russia were biting at the bit to carve out Europe

Reply 7

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

Germany and Russia were biting at the bit to carve out Europe

Evidence?

Reply 8

Lucadahse

Original post by ageshallnot

Evidence?

It's common knowledge. Watch any documentary on the build-up to WW1, it will come up

Reply 9

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

It's common knowledge. Watch any documentary on the build-up to WW1, it will come up

I've watched documentaries, more importantly I've read a lot of books. Once again, evidence?

Reply 10

Lucadahse

Original post by ageshallnot

I've watched documentaries, more importantly I've read a lot of books. Once again, evidence?

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/9-reasons-world-war-became-inevitable.html?chrome=1

I read too.

Reply 11

Lucadahse

Again, its just an opinion

Reply 12

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

Again, its just an opinion

An opinion by a military techie, rather than a serious historian?

Reply 13

Lucadahse

Original post by ageshallnot

An opinion by a military techie, rather than a serious historian?

In no way am I a "military techie", I know eff-all about weapons, and am against war except for protection and survival. And no, I am not a serious historian, I am a GCSE student. But many people feel war was going to happen one way or another

Reply 14

ageshallnot

Original post by Lucadahse

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was referring to Andrew Knighton, the author of the article you cited.

I really dk

Original post by Lucadahse

It may have been unnecessary but it was certainly inevitable

This is something the historians have been debating about ever since.
After all, there had been several instances in the lead up to WW1 that could have escalated into a major continental or world conflagration, but were resolved by diplomacy. I believe the UK offered to host a conference to resolve the issues after the assassination in June 1914 but this was rejected by various factions.
At late as 1900 the UK considered the French -Russian alliance as a premier threat, not their cousins the Germans : was not there even consideration of an Anglo-German alliance ? I have often wondered, having a fair experience of Germany and the similarities between us, what the world order would have looked liked today had this been so.
The militaristic Kaiser thought otherwise, and wanted a rival fleet to the Royal Navy which we in turn regarded a threat to our interests. Hence in 1904, the UK signed the Entente Cordial with France followed by the Russian Entente in 1907.
Historically the UK had not worried too much about Europe, as long as it did not threaten their own interests and maintained a balance of power.
Indeed by the late 1880's Germany was already in a very advantageous position- economically it was a powerhouse, and the likes of its engineers and scientists up with the best. I remember reading once of a Durham miner who was put to work in the Ruhr mines after being taken pow on the Somme in WW1 saying the conditions for German miners were better in 1917, than ours were in 1950.
It is interesting to speculate what the course of events would have been had Frederick 11 of Germany, who although raised in the Prussian tradition hated war, and with his wife Victoria the Princes Royal, eldest child of Britain's Queen Victoria, once again showing the close ties between us, were instrumental in promoting liberalism, had not died prematurely and stayed in power instead of the erratic Kaiser.
Whether it was inevitable or not, I don't think even its foremost protaganists imagined it would become the four year, ghastly, horrific meat grinder destroying the best of Europe's youth it did. It was, don't forget, "Going to be over by Christmas" as was said at the time.
Anybody read Australian author Christopher Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' book, widely acknowledged to among the best publications on the subject?

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 17

ageshallnot

Original post by UnclePete

.
Anybody read Australian author Christopher Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' book, widely acknowledged to among the best publications on the subject?

Yes, it's the book that restarted my interest in the topic. I'm harsher on Germany than he is, tbh.

Currently I'm reading Thomas Otte's July Crisis: The World's Descent Into War, Summer 1914. He's in the camp of "failed diplomacy" rather than "inevitability".