Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?

[Mark Hone]

Actually the Allies did invade and occupy France in 1814 and again the following year, albeit briefly. Napoleon did attempt to continue the war after his defeat at Waterloo. He still had considerable forces left (including Grouchy's corps) and elsewhere French armies were putting up stiff resistance against other Allied incursions. However he realised that he could no longer rely on political support and eventually surrendered to the British.

[keithmroberts]

Hi Geraint -a minor point - the Allies maintained an army of occupation in parts of France from 1815 to 1818.

Armies, Britain's excepted were much larger by the beginning of the 20th century, and while I agree entirely that the British regular army was overwhelmingly dedicated to maintaining the the Empire, it is also clear that plans had been drawn up to fight alongside France if needs be - Henry Wilson was key in developing to many of the detailed plans. They of course were based only on six divisions but the plan was in place.

British foreign policy from the 16th century was to ensure that no one power could control mainland Europe, agreed so far as was practicable much of the fighting was done by proxy, subsidising others to fight either on our behalf, or alongside British and even Hanoverian troops, but British governments always opposed the strongest power, and the treaties that defined our alliances in 1914 were no different. What the politicians understood by them is hard to imagine, but Kitchener with his knowledge of the various wars of the late 19th century was clear that the war would not be over by Christmas, and that it would be a war of larger armies than we had ever seen before. That may have taken some time to be recognised by the British establishment, but it was surely inevitable.

The tragedy was probably inevitable. An approach based on naval blockades alone, would almost certainly involved a much longer war on mainland Europe, with the probability of even greater elements of hardship in civilian populations, but that clearly is hypothesis, rather than a testable argument.

Keith

[nigelcave]

Re Post 69, I always thought Belgium was 'created' in 1830?

An example of a naval blockade which did not end the war in Europe would be the Napoleonic Wars - eventually it took land armies, mass ones by the standard of the day, to end that conflict which had dragged on and on for years. How the Americans would have felt about such a blockade (given their reaction during the NWs) suggests that it would have been an extremely difficult business.

English/British foreign policy had been predicated for centuries on the basis of maintaining (from her point of view) vital trade links - thus no major power to dominate western Europe; in a sense it dates back to the Conquest, when English interests switched from Scandinavia to mainland Europe. There was, arguably, a diversion with the arrival of first a Dutch and then Hanoverian monarchs (at least the earlier ones - George III resolutely declared that he was British). The British, I think more than any other European power, were focussed on trade - anything that impeded that was not good - hence the desire for no one dominant power in Europe (and if one threatened, better to subsidise the opposition than get involved unless absolutely essential); and also the desire to control any European imperial ambitions that might threaten trade with the Empire, above all India.

So, a the time of outbreak of the war, you had both threats writ large - the danger of a dominant power in Europe and one that also had imperial ambitions that might well threaten British interests. Quite frankly I cannot see what options there were in 1914 - some ministers were very much opposed to intervention - two initially resigned for example; the invasion of Belgium provided the moral cover for a full scale war which was ultimately a matter of maintaining a British foreign/colonial policy which was almost as old as the hills.

This, of course, completely excludes from the discussion the appalling tragedy that befell millions of people; but that is the nature of diplomatic history.

[Steven Broomfield]

Re Post 69, I always thought Belgium was 'created' in 1830?

I believe de Gaulle referred to Belgium as "a joke played on the French by the English".

[David Filsell]

Funny that. I always thought de Gaulle was a joke played on Britain by the French

[Stoppage Drill]

My funny story about de Gaulle.

Harold and Lady Dorothy Macmillan were dining with General and Mme De Gaulle, and Harold asked Mme - in English - what she was most looking forward to when the General retired.

In her heavily accented English, she replied, "A penis" which caused a bit of sputtering.

The General looked across the table and said, "Madame means 'appiness."

Funny that. I always thought de Gaulle was a joke played on Britain by the French

"Non !"

[MichaelBully]

I seem to be slow on getting what's happening on GWF as have only just noticed this thread. Going back to the original post 'Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?' :

I'd say certainly hope not!

As a nipper I got fed the 'Oh What A Lovely War' line at school. And we were taught that accounts of German atrocities in Belgium were 'stories'. and the nature of German occupation of most of Belgium and a section of Northern France, with hunger, hostage takings, deportations, plundering of resources was glossed over. And General Haig was particularly singled out for derision.

I later took an English A level part time and Vera Brittain's 'Testament of Youth' was a set book.

Now over the last 5-6 years I've started trying to really learn about the Great War,I see the case for Britain taking part in the conflct which a vast majority of people at the time thought was a just war. Just compare how marginalised anti-war feeling was during the Great War compared with the Boer War.

I don't accept that Germany and Austria-Hungary were exclusively guilty of starting the war , and consider that there were factions in Russia and France who were prepared to risk a war with Germany, or even hoped that this might happen.

I am still learning and there are whole areas of Great War research I avoid commenting on because I don't know anything about them.But I welcome the input of diverse views and reading opinions that are different from my own.

It worries me that some GWF pals are getting the impression that only one view of the Great War is deemed 'acceptable' , though it's constructive that the issue has been raised.

Regards

Michael Bully

[PhilB]

Over the last 30 years there has been a pronounced swing to a more objective, records-based narrative that supports the idea of learning, of development and that the BEF was by 1918 a pretty good weapon of war.

The "learning curve" has been much discussed previously. Those running the army could scarcely fail to learn and develop - it would be virtually impossible not to. The question has always been "Did they learn quickly enough?" The facts that, after 2 years, we had the most catastrophic day in our military history and after three and a half years we had our backs to the wall makes one wonder. It also needs to be explained why the "pretty good weapon of war" was in such dire straits in early 1918 and why it took a moribund German Army (and a French CinC!) before significant victories could be obtained.

[dycer]

To,my addled mind,there are two "views" on the Forum,,of WW1.

The first,of course is factual i.e."in which Battle did my Grandad die,what badges was he wearing,where as his medals?,"Why did a particular Commander choose that particular route?",etc,and Forum responses should,to my mind, remain factual

The second,"view", to my mind,is of the WW1 "experts" ,on the Forum, who can not only identify a particular WW1 serviceman,,where he is likely to have served.,what badges he may have worn,when he wax invalided out,what trench "he was in", when he was killed and even worse ,offer a view as to when "he" died on the Somme,,but is remembered at Ypres.

It is a narrow judgement so I trust HMG'S Government steer it well,in the 2014-2018 period,,within the Queen's bodily, limitations,plus her Government's current financial problems and their desire for future electoral success.

George

[Hedley Malloch]

I went to a talk by Gary Sheffield a while ago. His main point was that the war was worth the cost. When weighing up if something has been worthwhile, you must judge what you have gained by what you have lost. I suspect, in this case, it is simply not possible to do - as it is impossible to weigh the cost. The numbers alone (which are larger then my imagination can understand) to not tell the full story of the terrible suffering involved. I personally think for revisionist read "warping" - but then they have to make a living by saying something.

Simon

Was the war really worth the cost? Would not this country have been better off if Germany had actually won and absorbed us into a greater Pan-Germanic empire? This would have put us in a position to benefit from German attitudes to support for manufacturing industry, especially small and medium sized firms, and a comparatively well-regulated banking systems which invests in German firms. This could have been supported by a truly world-class education system in which vocational education is valued as highly as 'academic' qualifications. Add to this equation systems of industrial governance in which employee representation is seen as a benefit; and welfare provisions years in advance of anything in the UK.

If this had come to pass then there is a very strong case for saying that if we had followed this path, then the UK would not be in the economic, social and political mess it finds itself today.

And of course, no Hitler, no Second World War, no great depression. Last, but by no means least we would all be speaking two languages - English and German.

Kaiser Wilhem leading a Victory Parade down Pall Mall? There's a lot to be said for it.

[PhilB]

A previous thread, IIRC, tended to the conclusion that we would have been better off losing, and the sooner the better!

[keithmroberts]

Hedley

I think you are talking about the modern Germany, not the Kaiser's. Modern politics are out, but consider how modern Germany came to be reconstructed with the features that you refer to, not least the Marshall Plan, and the roll of the TUC in helping to design Germany's current industrial relations style. The Germany of 1914 so far as I can establish, (I know nothing of the banking system pre 1914), bore no resemblance to the germany that you refer to.

Keith

[SteveMarsdin]

To support what Keith says, I don't think the Kaiser's Germany was particularly keen on trade unions ! Modern Germany resembles more the Wiemar Republic which came about following the defeat of the "Kaiser's Germany". No Hitler ?, no Second World War ? maybe but no modern Germany either

[Hedley Malloch]

Of course we simply don't know. As Keith says the TUC were largely responsible for formulating the postive, pro-active role with worker representatives had in managing German enterprises after the War. That was specifically designed to prevent the rise of another Hitler, backed by the likes of Krupp. And the Marshall Plan. Both were the result of WW2.

But as early as 1914, Germany was outperforming the UK in terms of output, efficiency, it had a better education system and much better welfare systems. I don't know about attitudes to trades unions, but they could hardly have been less supportive than those to be found in the UK at the same time.

I suspect that there are some long-standing German cultural attitudes to work, saving, investment, education and training which have resulted in a particular version of participative (Rhinean?) capitalism which gives primacy to medium-sized manufacturing firms, a well-regulated banking system and hard work. Post-1945 developments allowed these to come to the fore. These have been at the heart of her economic success.

Compare and contrast with what is in place in the UK.

[mconrad]

From what I've read from German big business circles around 1914, their attitude was exploitative. Acquire foreign spheres of influence, subordinate local industries to the Reich-based cartels, retain control of all big decisions. Definitely not a free market. Much more like colonialism, which when I think about it wasn't that the prevailing economic and political viewpoint in 1914 anyways?

German industrialists were clear about this in regard to Belgium and France, which were realistically within their grasp in 1914. I don't know how much German influence could be brought upon the British economy after a 1914 German victory, at least in the immediate post-war period.

[Simon Birch]

It is quiet possible the Germans would have done an 1870 special, quick invasion of France and hop it home - left us alone. I cannot see the Germans getting over the channel in the Great War.

Bad news for the French of course - but good news for the 1 million of our soldiers who currently lie in Europe.

Simon

[hazelclark]

It is quiet possible the Germans would have done an 1870 special, quick invasion of France and hop it home - left us alone. I cannot see the Germans getting over the channel in the Great War.

Bad news for the French of course - but good news for the 1 million of our soldiers who currently lie in Europe.

Simon

Don't think they would have left that little tadpole called Britain alone for long. The Kaiser didn't even have much respect for the rest on his relatives in mainland Europe. it is interesting to speculate though. No Russian Revolution?

Hazel

[T8HANTS]

How about the BEF lands in France, links up with the German army and aids it push through to Paris, With France now defeated we regain our lost French territories, and although there is some very unseemly bickering over the distirbution of former French Colonies, and we are not happy with the absorbtion of Belgium into Greater Germany after four months of war, peace has returned to Europe for a while anyway.

[hazelclark]

How about the BEF lands in France, links up with the German army and aids it push through to Paris, With France now defeated we regain our lost French territories, and although there is some very unseemly bickering over the distirbution of former French Colonies, and we are not happy with the absorbtion of Belgium into Greater Germany after four months of war, peace has returned to Europe for a while anyway.

I suspect the last part of your last sentence would apply!!!

Hazel

[Old Tom]

It is a simplification that the war was between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente provoked by a specific incident in the Balkans. There had been many incidents in the Balkans that had not provoked european war. There had also been imperialistic crises which might have provoked war. I am inclined to think that a significant factor was european competition in the field of imperial expansion. Britain, France and too a lesser extent Germany in Africa; Italy in North Africa, Serbia in the Balkans ( perhaps not an imperial issue); and Russian access to the Mediterranean. France wanted to regain the area lost after the Franco-Prussian war, but their war plans were mainly defensive although becoming more agressive in 1913. The plans of the Alliance and the Entente were essentially defensive although attack was the best form of defence for the Germans.

Christopher Clarke in his 'The Sleepwalkers' and Niall Ferguson in his 'The Pity of War' (somewhat maligned on the forum) seem to me to reach broadly similar conclusions, that hte war was an error and that those responsible had no appreciation what they were starting.

Old Tom

[salesie]

Hedley Malloch, gives highly selective summary (a cliched and stereotypical view of Germany). From it, we would wonder why many millions of Britons (and many other nationals) fought tooth and nail to stop such an enlightened, benevolent Germany from having its benign way with Europe. Of course, what he says is codswallop i.e.

1) The German economy had severe liquidity problems in the immediate years running up to 1914. Why on earth does anyone think they stopped building battleships in 1911/12 in order to concentrate on the army? Because Germany was skint and couldn't afford to continue building up both their navy and army (in the event, the army did not get anything like what was planned either) - the massive growth of previous decades caused severe liquidity problems, and, unlike Britain, the German economy didn't have massive invisible earnings. Once war was declared Britain did not just blockade the seas it also blockaded the financial markets. The German economy was "not fit for purpose" in 1914.

2) Germany was far from being a democracy - by 1914, the army was pretty much in charge, pretty much the de-facto rulers, and in 1916 the pretence was virtually gone.

I could go on and write a thesis of my own, but I won't. All I say is that this highly clichéd, stereotypical view of Germany is highly spurious, and just cursory research will show the folly of such beliefs. The bottom line is that due to its own geo-political follies, Germany was far from being the economic/social/political idyll that Hedley paints. And to this very day, after being bailed out by Marshal, it has learnt nothing - Britain outperformed Germany in all aspects of Total war - on all fronts, economic, social, intelligence, diplomatic, political and military.

Do some proper research, Hedley.

Cheers-salesie.

[CROONAERT]

It is quiet possible the Germans would have done an 1870 special, quick invasion of France and hop it home

A very misunderstood war that one. It wasn't quite the simple 'invade, win and ****** off' war that they tried to teach me for O'Level history with many German troops remaining as an army of occupation until 1873 (or 1918, depending on where you lived!)

[keithmroberts]

I may have opened the door by mentioning the Marshall Plan and the contribution of the TUC in the post WWII reconstruction of Germany, ffor which I must apologise, as this led to comments that are definitely heading into current affairs and today's international politics. I have made a couple of edits, and hidden two posts which were exclusively relating to current affairs. mea culpa.

Let's not go nearer to the present than that reconstruction please.

Keith

[phil andrade]

The "learning curve" has been much discussed previously. Those running the army could scarcely fail to learn and develop - it would be virtually impossible not to. The question has always been "Did they learn quickly enough?" The facts that, after 2 years, we had the most catastrophic day in our military history and after three and a half years we had our backs to the wall makes one wonder. It also needs to be explained why the "pretty good weapon of war" was in such dire straits in early 1918 and why it took a moribund German Army (and a French CinC!) before significant victories could be obtained.

If the German Army was moribund, then we might ask why and how it was reduced to that condition. The army that was in such dire straits

had something to do with the answers. Surely, it must have been a " pretty good weapon of war" to have inflicted such colossal damage, especially when it had its back to the wall.

The British Army's Finest Hour ? I would say " Yes".

I respect your challenge, though, Phil, and I confess that I sometimes feel uncomfortable with some of the positive spin that's been put on the commentary regarding the generalship.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

" and after three and a half years we had our backs to the wall "

Was that not more to do with Lloyd George, the politicians, and the lack of men?

Mike