Max Hastings BBC2 First World War.

[Hangarshuffle]

Hour long TV programme. I didn't think he made a good case for it being a justifiable war, from the British and Empire point of view. Still looks unnecessary and utterly disgraceful from the damp English county from where I am sat .

[ExAscoteer]

I disagree entirely.

Try reading his recent book 'Catastrophe'.

[NutLoose]

Is any war necessary? Ideally you have armed services to prevent it ever getting that far. Strength in defence and all that.

[Hangarshuffle]

The war continuing after 1915? After the stalemate was fully developed? Blackadder was right and the dozens and dozens of memorial stones less than ten miles where I'm sat speak far more eloquently than I ever will.

[500N]

War justified ?

Not sure it is the right word.

Preferable to have no war and solve by other means but if it comes down to it with an aggressor like Germany, it needs to be done.

[cuefaye]

Short and succinct, 500

[racedo]

I've read some of the What Ifs of WW2 but not of WW1

WW1 no British involvement then no Lenin / Stalin, no Great depression / Inflation in Europe, No Hitler and No WW2 and Cold War........

Course there would have been a war with Germany eventually but interested if there is a What If on WW1 book.

[Load Toad]

What really is shocking is its 2014 and that war never ended...its just been rolling around the globe...bursting up bigger every so often but mostly just smoldering away with its dirty little small wars that we hardly blink at on the TV every night....nor bother too much about the cost in money and lives.
I suppose you could say it was the 1919 Treaty that is to blame for that. Maybe.

[Tankertrashnav]

So Load Toad - wars started in 1914?

How about - the Napoleonic Wars, The Opium Wars, Afghanistan (several times) the Franco-Prussian War, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War etc? All major conflicts which took place in the 100 years or so before 1919.

Nothing new about wars, we just keep inventing more and more efficient ways of killing each other :*

[ShotOne]

It's a fascinating question. But in weighing up whether it was worth it we have to place the appalling cost of BOTH world wars in the balance against the alternative of a continent, ...er, dominated by Germany.

[Hangarshuffle]

The Necessary War, BBC Two, review - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10660290/The-Necessary-War-BBC-Two-review.html)


Link to the review of the programme. Hastings won the TV battle anyway according to this hack.


I find it hard to be dispassionate about it. I'm just off to see my new house, its only six miles away but I pass at least 3 Great War memorials, covered in hundreds of names of boys and men from the little mining villages and small towns. There was nothing in it for them, except their deaths.


I'll just have to agree to disagree with other pruners, as ever. Switzerland has the right idea.

[Basil]

I think that war with a powerful, ambitious, militaristic newly-emerged Prussian-dominated Germany was inevitable. Perhaps the Austrians and Serbs couldn't wait to get at each other but Germany was the big threat.
What if Britain had left Germany to win and consolidate her European position?

As for WW2 we have gone around blaming 'The NAZI Party' as if they were a bunch of mind-altering space invaders who suddenly arrived in the 1930s. That was just to let Germany off the hook and keep them onside against the USSR brand of Communism. Thank Heaven for Hitler and the NAZIs because, without them, the 'vons' would have eventually kicked off again and made a better job of it than did the National Socialists.

[racedo]

Thank Heaven for Hitler and the NAZIs because, without them, the 'vons' would have eventually kicked off again and made a better job of it than did the National Socialists.

I remain unconvinced that they would have. Jewish businessmen provided funding and support for Germany during WW1. There was no reason for slaughtering thos supporting you.

It was the post WW1 economic collapse and seeking scapegoats the Nazis were able to latch on to and use.

A war would have occurred BUT it may have not been for 10-20 years after.

The key point made by someone else is that WW1 has never really ended............its affects led directly onto WW2 and the Cold War and even what is happening in Ukraine today.

[Heathrow Harry]

think you are right Basil - we'd have had to fight Germany sometime and better to do it with the Russians and french onside

[langleybaston]

QUOTE:

What if Britain had left Germany to win and consolidate her European position?

This, if applied to the Great War, is a very good question indeed. From it arises two others:
1. What made the cabinet believe that Germany would win the war on two fronts if left unchallenged by GB?
2. What, in a war of many Army corps, did the cabinet think four [soon six] piddling infantry divisions and four cavalry brigades could achieve?
Hindsight tells us that the BEF made a huge difference in 1914, again in 1916 [the Somme took the pressure off Verdun] and in 1918, the Advance to Victory, but who'd a thort it?

[Simplythebeast]

Here we are one hundred years later and in the Ukraine we have a strongly nationalistic, strategically significant eastern European country deciding its fate, while three empires stand waiting in the wings, rattling their sabres. Familiar?

[Martin the Martian]

I think the EU are more in the way of wobbling their letter opener than rattling their sabre.

[Courtney Mil]

I think the military pacifists here may have missed Max Hasting's point. Yes, better to have no war, but the Great War that Britain couldn't prevent - we simply lacked the military might to do so - would have had disatrous concequences had we not stopped the man with the spiky hat and his troop of butchers.

As for the programme, I thought is was well researched and well argued. Cetainly spurred me on to learn more about that period of history.

[EyesFront]

On the assumption that anyone sufficiently interested in the subject to post publically is keen to read/watch/listen to as much background as possible, I recommend the recent TV 2-parter called something like 'Royal Cousins at War'. I thought I knew a lot about the period but this superb series brought new insight to Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas and the British Royals. Kaiser Bill was a 'loose cannon' to say the least, but I'd be interested to know more about his generals and ministers to conclude exactly where the desire/acceptability of war as an instrument of foreign policy lay. Another must-listen recommendation is 'The Great War of Words' - a radio 4 2-parter which makes a decent fist of distinguishing between propaganda and fact. It was noteworthy that most of the stories of German atrocities at the start of the war were not allied propaganda as some now seem to think, but the reporting of actual events. Especially interesting was the systematic rewriting of history by the losers following the Versailles treaty ... who says that history is always written by the victors?

[racedo]

I think the military pacifists here may have missed Max Hasting's point. Yes, better to have no war, but the Great War that Britain couldn't prevent - we simply lacked the military might to do so - would have had disatrous concequences had we not stopped the man with the spiky hat and his troop of butchers.

Ultimately he did not seek war either, rather the supporting of the Austo-Hungarians ended up it occuring.

Princip probably killed someone who was way ahead of his time in seeking to change life in the empire so had he lived Archduke Ferdinand may have altered the make up of Europe significantly.

[pax britanica]

Is a read over of the scenario before WW1 to the Ukraine today really viable

would the Russians with no KGB and coercive state machine go to war for 'fellow slavs ' meaning the elite would have to give up homes in London Monaco etc etc.

Would America go to war to support a country who most Americans would think is part of Russia anyway being full of people called ivan and Natasha and backwards alphabets?

The EU has troubles of its own and understandable -if you are French German Dutch Polish etc rather averse to having much of your country laid waste or occupied in close to living memory. I doubt the Brit military -with all due respect could make even the slightest impact on a conflict that far away and on a large scale.

Would Putin take such a risk when he is unlikely to be able to back it up , even at the height of Commie times they were far more scared of Nato than we were of them its just that we didn't realise it at the time.

So Ukraine needs some common sense handling and ought to get sorted out in a sensible manner and there are all kinds of reasons why it can all be worked out-its just that nagging doubt that history teaches us that sometimes it doesn't

PB

[kintyred]

Hangarshuffle

"I'll just have to agree to disagree with other pruners, as ever. Switzerland has the right idea."

So, make cuckoo clocks and act as money-launderer to much of the world's criminal fraternity.

[langleybaston]

and yodel.

[Simplythebeast]

As long as Lederhosen arent compulsary.

[racedo]

would the Russians with no KGB and coercive state machine go to war for 'fellow slavs ' meaning the elite would have to give up homes in London Monaco etc etc.

UK happy to launder the proceeds for Russian Oligarchs........

Any attempt to hit sanctions would see the billions invested from Russia and some of its neighbours go elsewhere.

CMD will do zilch.

[langleybaston]

who is/ are CMD please?

[500N]

Cameron or Cameron Milliband

[Rosevidney1]

In a weeks time we will be able to see the contrary viewpoint on the same TV channel which will also feature an equally respected historian.

[Courtney Mil]

Wonderful visions of how Europe may have been. You are straying from the point. The question, the OP's subject and the thread is about a television programme. I doubt we'll stick to that, but I like the OP's subject. Up to the pacificits new, I guess.

[Pontius Navigator]

While it is seductive to think that we reluctantly entered WW1 after the assassination of the Grand Duke, remember there was a naval arms race for much of the preceding decade. We built Dreadnought; they built more. The public voice was "coined the slogan 'We want eight and we won't wait!"

We were launching battleships in just 12 months.

The Germans had a series of Naval Laws. German Naval Laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Naval_Laws) but Britain adhered to a two-power standard.

You might say that we became involved in 1905 with the Moroccan crisis.

The German Navy was deployed world wide and undertook commerce raiding, attacking radio stations etc, and could well have begun offensive action against British interests even had we not declared was.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, let's reduce the whole issue to a simple question. Given that so many here seem to think that Britishinvolvement in WWI was so wrong, what - in simple terms - do you think Britain should have done?

A couple more questions to follow..

[cuefaye]

For me, as I said to 500N privately, it's not complicated.


In the sense that all wars are a result of human failure, there can't be justification. But once initiated, there is sometimes no alternative to the opposition of outright tyranny when sovereignty is threatened - that, in my view, is both justifiable and honourable. I thought the programme was well produced, and provided a balanced one-hour view for my grandchildren to contemplate upon later.

[langleybaston]

How about counting ten, seeing how things were going, training troops like mad, and consider backing the winner when the result seems pretty certain?

[this is not my view, but is an intellectually sound, if dishonourable, standpoint, I believe]

[racedo]

who is/ are CMD please?

Uk PM...........................Eton Tory Boy came out with this before last election with a "Call me Dave " comment.

[Pontius Navigator]

How about . . . seeing how things were going, training troops like mad, and consider backing the winner when the result seems pretty certain?

[this is not my view, but is an intellectually sound, if dishonourable, standpoint, I believe]

It was, to an extent what seduced Stalin in 1940. And was a Germany point of view expressed to be in Berlin just before the wall came down and not, I believe, new.

"You were on the wrong side" - "together we would have ruled the world"

Did we really want to allow the Germany of Bismarck to replace France of Napoleon? We were quite happy with the British Empire and Pax Britannica and would not have been happy with a Germano-Anglo partnership.

[Hipper]

I think the military pacifists here may have missed Max Hasting's point. Yes, better to have no war, but the Great War that Britain couldn't prevent - we simply lacked the military might to do so - would have had disastrous consequences had we not stopped the man with the spiky hat and his troop of butchers.

As for the programme, I thought is was well researched and well argued. Certainly spurred me on to learn more about that period of history.
I agree with Courtney's first post as above. Hastings was reasonably convincing for me.


I have just ordered the books on the Versaille Treaty (Peacemakers) and German Atrocities mentioned in the programme as I too always understood the atrocities were mostly propaganda and the Treaty led to WW2.


I'm looking forward to Friday's programme with Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War, also the title of his book which I've read. The gist of it is that purely from a UK perspective we could have avoided entering the war and so not have suffered the financially disastrous consequences that set us on the road to losing empire etc.. I'll have to re-read the book as I can't remember how he proposed to deal with a German dominated mainland Europe and a real threat to our ocean dominating navy and trade.


I've always been more interested in WW2 and never fully understood the Great War but this year I will try to make amends.


Anyway, here's a BBC link that might add to this discussion:


BBC News - World War One: 10 interpretations of who started WW1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324)

[Pontius Navigator]

I have just ordered the books on the Versaille Treaty (Peacemakers) . . . the Treaty led to WW2.

The war ended with an Armistice and not a Surrender. The German Army was not defeated in the field but believe it was betrayed by the politicians.

They were to pay punitive reparations which they would still have been paying now. They defaulted.

The treaty was to be supervised and enforced by the victorious powers but the US had withdrawn and relied on the League of Nations. Britain reverted to a maritime stance with no standing army in Europe. The French were too weak.

The National Socialists exploited these grievances, wanted a fairer deal and rearmed knowing that the allies would do nothing. The Spanish Civil War was a useful precursor.

[draken55]

"Did we really want to allow the Germany of Bismarck to replace France of Napoleon?"

Germany as created by Bismarck but who had long been out of the picture before 1914. His removal allowed a reckless, feckless and paranoid Kaiser along with a confident and strident German Military & Industrial complex to exercise too much power with insufficient political control over it, even though Germany was a Democratic Nation.

We had no interest in the Prussia/France ding dong in 1871. The loss of that War was one reason why France sought Allies leading to the Grand Alliance which, combined with our ancient pledge to protect Belgium, led to a War involving the British Empire.

France wanted enhanced protection, perhaps revenge for its earlier "humiliation" from having to pay reparations and in the loss of Alsace and Lorraine A bit like the reasons Hitler used to get back what Germany lost in 1918. So other than becoming involved in the ancient Franco German enmity what did our involvement achieve?

Niall Ferguson's programme can but speculate on the possible outcomes had we stood aside at least in 1914. However, years of ill feeling had been allowed to develop by then despite the close historical ties between both Britain and Germany. Such that even our dislike of France was replaced by that of a Nation that we had always had much in common with.

A Century on it all seems like a waste but then don't all wars once they end even if we "win" and win we did. Germany was collapsing into Revolution by 1918 with the Kaiser exiled. Hitler used the Armistice to peddle his "undefeated in the field" lie.

What would our fore-bearers think now we zoom around in Audi's, BMW's and VW's can shop at Aldi/Lidl and have no cultural issue with either?

[Courtney Mil]

PN, as this is about a television programme, not a re-run of WWI, what you're saying doesn't chime with Max Hasting's claims. Now, I am not a WWI historian, but I am very keen to hear the views of those who probably know more about it than I. But a well-argued position with evidence would be useful. Like Hipper, I shall retreat to my reading room for a while. Informative title suggestions much appreaciated.

[racedo]

BBC 4 had a 10 part WW1 program start last nite.............

One of the comments made was that French had used civilian snipers in 1871 was and Germany remembered and taught its officers to be aware of this.
They took it as Carte Blance to shoot civilians just in case.

[Courtney Mil]

now we zoom around in Audi's, BMW's and VW's can shop at Aldi/Lidl

And we take our headache pills and Berrocas from Beyer and accept Agfa for what they are today. As if I G Farben never happened.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, I take your point, if I understand it :)

[Courtney Mil]

I think you do, my friend.

[vulcanised]

With all the plethora of new WWI programmes being aired, I am wondering why the excellent 'The Great War' narrated by Laurence Olivier is not also being repeated.

Perhaps because it lasts for around 24 hours iirc ? I have 16 DVDs of the film.

[skua]

I heard Sir Max H present last night - the first half was very similar to the script of his excellent BBC doc. Very convincing arguments.


He mentioned a book by one David Reynolds - The Long Shadow, which covers the influence WW1 has had on 20th (& 21st) century thinking. Has anyone read it?


He also mentioned a couple of interesting factoids that demonstrated that most of the British people remained supportive of the cause of the war even after its end, and despite the lack of political change in GB: 1m people attended Haig's funeral, and Mme Tussauds installed a gallery of British generals entitled "The Men Who Won the War" - they were not melted down until public opinion shifted in 1934!

[langleybaston]

QUOTE:

The German Army was not defeated in the field but believe it was betrayed by the politicians.

I cannot believe you should think this. The "HUNDRED DAYS" has been forgotten?

Believe me, in these last days of the war the German Army on the Western Front was thrashed out of sight, as witness the huge numbers of prisoners and guns captured.
I would also point out that the British Empire achieved more in those days than all the others put together, although I am sure we were duly grateful for a little help.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I think the point is that they didn't surrender; it was an armistice.

Anyway, Hastings annoyed me last night; he made a good programme! Most of his offerings usually elevate my blood pressure.

[Pontius Navigator]

LB, it was not what happened but what they thought had happened.

[langleybaston]

I imagine it was very clear to the inhabitants of the Rhineland when the army marched in. Ours, not theirs,

[awblain]

That 1918 Advance to Victory was US-enabled. If there hadn't been that huge influx of new troops, there surely wouldn't have been many to be in the advance. That new numerical factor in terms of men and materiel was inevitably going to break the stalemate at some point.

Angering the US in an effort to match the blockade of Germany was a seriously bad move.

It was always likely that a breakthrough into the landscape behind the trenches was going to be easy to sustain. The whole logistics system was intended to supply the front. If it broke, then there was no obvious escape but to negotiate terms.

[langleybaston]

Think of all the lives and money saved if the USA had arrived two years earlier then!

[draken55]

"if the USA had arrived two years earlier"

LB,what if the US had not arrived at all? The British Empire (and France) was running out of manpower. Having defeated Russia, Germany nearly turned the War in 1917 by being able to transfer more troops to the Western Front.

Given the very large number of people of German descent in the United States circa 1917, I am just relieved Uncle Sam was able to arrive even if propaganda and the pursuance of unrestricted U Boat warfare by Germany were major factors that caused this to happen.

[langleybaston]

I don't disagree, better late than never.

[awblain]

If Lusitania has lead to direct action, then things might have been different.

However, when the trenches were in place, and well-supplied, Verdun and the Somme showed that 1916 wasn't the time to be able to break through, regardless of numbers. It took more technical development, and a more starved/ground-down enemy to make it easier as the years dragged on.

I suspect that an influx of millions of doughboys in 1916 would just have increased the casualties at those set pieces even further.

[awblain]

I wouldn't say that Russia was really defeated, it withdrew.
But that was indeed a very big help to Germany.

I imagine that a breakthrough from the East before US forces grew substantially in 1917 could have lead to the fall of France or at least Paris.

It also took a while for the US forces to get up to speed with it being 1917 not 1915, and they took a lot more casualties per head than Britain and France at that stage while they were learning on the job about the new world of trench warfare.

It was only an armistice because there was no hope for anything other than defeat at the end of 1918, so sensibly the Germans sued for an end to it all.

[langleybaston]

although I am an amateur [and published] Great War historian, late 1918 is not my scene, so I have had a good look at Charles Messenger's The day we won the war, Amiens 1918.

There is no doubt that Russia's exit, and America's imminent mass entry, into the war, prompted the desperate and unsuccessful German offensives in spring 1918. Thus, indirectly, the USA contributed massively.

Regarding USA active involvement at Amiens, Pershing was extremely reluctant to allow it, saying that they were not ready. In the event, some participation occurred.
The crushing victory was British [with big Empire contributions] and French.

Three days later the Kaiser said "I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our power of resistance. The war must be ended". Another two days later Ludendorff: " the termination of the war would have to be brought about by diplomacy".

There is no disputing the major and growing USA contribution in keeping the momentum going thereafter.

[Rosevidney1]

The most impressive book I have read on the Great War, and I have read many, is Hew Strachan's 'The First World War' a single volume survey of the war. ISBN 0-670-03295-6.

[skua]

and HS was extensively interviewed by Big Max in his Beeb documentary this week - they were "talking off the same page"...

[Hangarshuffle]

I think Jeremy reads these pages so watch out if you start debating with him.


Jeremy Paxman: why we would not fight the Great War now - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10685369/Jeremy-Paxman-why-we-would-not-fight-the-Great-War-now.html)


Basically, he has a book out now about WW1, I interpret it that he takes the view that modern UK would not engage because we are now more self obsessed, hedonistic, materialistic etc.


I would only counter we are little different to many other nations in that once the bandwagon rolls, wars seem to gather people in with a crazy momentum of their own. Like Syria, now?


One point - we hadn't fought a modern European war in 1914 - is this why people volunteered? People are far more wise now about this.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Fair point: now is not a good time to be a Belgian