Max Hastings BBC2 First World War.
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
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
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.
"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.
and yodel.
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.
Any attempt to hit sanctions would see the billions invested from Russia and some of its neighbours go elsewhere.
CMD will do zilch.
who is/ are CMD please?
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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 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.
We were launching battleships in just 12 months.
The Germans had a series of Naval Laws. German Naval Laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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.
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..
A couple more questions to follow..
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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]
[this is not my view, but is an intellectually sound, if dishonourable, standpoint, I believe]
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
"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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.