Britain entering World War I was 'biggest error in modern history'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...niall-ferguson

Britain entering first world war was 'biggest error in modern history'

Historian Niall Ferguson says Britain could have lived with German victory and should have stayed out of war

Niall Ferguson said arguments about honour resonated now as in 1914, 'but you can pay too high a price for upholding the notion of honour'. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi for the Guardian

Britain could have lived with a German victory in the first world war, and should have stayed out of the conflict in 1914, according to the historian Niall Ferguson, who described the intervention as "the biggest error in modern history".

In an interview with BBC History Magazine, Ferguson said there had been no immediate threat to Britain, which could have faced a Germany-dominated Europe at a later date on its own terms, instead of rushing in unprepared, which led to catastrophic costs.

"Britain could indeed have lived with a German victory. What's more, it would have been in Britain's interests to stay out in 1914," he said before a documentary based on his book The Pity of War, which will be screened by BBC2 as part of the broadcaster's centenary season.

The Laurence A Tisch professor of history at Harvard University rejected the idea that Britain was forced to act in 1914 to secure its borders and the Channel ports. "This argument, which is very seductive, has one massive flaw in it, which is that Britain tolerated exactly that situation happening when Napoleon overran the European continent, and did not immediately send land forces to Europe. It wasn't until the peninsular war that Britain actually deployed ground forces against Napoleon. So strategically, if Britain had not gone to war in 1914, it would still have had the option to intervene later, just as it had the option to intervene after the revolutionary wars had been under way for some time."

It was remarkable, he said, that Britain intervened on land so early in 1914, when quite unprepared.

"Creating an army more or less from scratch and then sending it into combat against the Germans was a recipe for disastrous losses. And if one asks whether this was the best way for Britain to deal with the challenge posed by imperial Germany, my answer is no.

"Even if Germany had defeated France and Russia, it would have had a pretty massive challenge on its hands trying to run the new German-dominated Europe and would have remained significantly weaker than the British empire in naval and financial terms. Given the resources that Britain had available in 1914, a better strategy would have been to wait and deal with the German challenge later when Britain could respond on its own terms, taking advantage of its much greater naval and financial capability."

The comments are certain to fan the flames of the debate sparked by the education secretary, Michael Gove, about whether Britain's role in the war should be seen as heroic courage or monumental error.

Gove, in an article in the Daily Mail, attacked "leftwing academics all too happy to feed those myths by attacking Britain's role in the conflict", and decried the Blackadder portrayal of the war as "a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite".

Ferguson is unequivocal: "We should not think of this as some great victory or dreadful crime, but more as the biggest error in modern history."

He continued: "The cost, let me emphasise, of the first world war to Britain was catastrophic, and it left the British empire at the end of it all in a much weakened state … It had accumulated a vast debt, the cost of which really limited Britain's military capability throughout the interwar period. Then there was the manpower loss – not just all those aristocratic officers, but the many, many, many skilled workers who died or were permanently incapacitated in the war.

"We need of course to feel sympathy for the men like my grandfather who fought in the first world war, because their sufferings were scarcely imaginable. The death toll, which was greater than the second world war, was the most painful thing that Britain has ever experienced in war."

But, he added, we should also feel dismay that the leaders, not just of Britain but of the European states, could have taken decisions that led to such an appalling slaughter.

"Arguments about honour of course resonate today as they resonated in 1914, but you can pay too high a price for upholding the notion of honour, and I think in the end Britain did."

He concedes that if Britain had stood back in 1914, it would have reneged on commitments to uphold Belgian neutrality. "But guess what? Realism in foreign policy has a long and distinguished tradition, not least in Britain – otherwise the French would never complain about 'perfidious Albion'. For Britain it would ultimately have been far better to have thought in terms of the national interest rather than in terms of a dated treaty."

Ferguson, no stranger to controversy, is unlikely to worry about coming under fire for his views. Last year he managed to stir up a massive row over a long-dead economist when he suggested that John Maynard Keynes had no stake in the future because he was gay and childless – although he did later apologise, calling his remarks "stupid and tactless".

I agree, and Peter Hitchens has made the same point regarding World War II - why did Britain firstly make a pledge to protect Poland from German or Russian aggression when there was simply no way Britain could rescue Poland from a Western or Eastern invasion due to it being so far away and trapped between two great powers? And more to the point, what difference did the independence of Poland make to the interests of the British Empire? None. The foreign policy made no sense and neither did the protection promised to the Kingdom of Belgium in WWI.

It is common to say that eventually Germany would rise to meet Britain - something Ferguson and Hitchens both agree with. But the point is, that if that time came: Britain could have been in a much better position to take on Germany then we were at the start of World Wars I and II.

As it happens of course, we did interevene early in both these wars and it resulted in the weakening of Britain, followed by the increasing power of America which eventually de facto forced Britain to shed her Empire and have her world power position replaced by that of the United States. Considering everything we lost - including countless lives - was it really worth it? At the time we did intervene anyway?

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

Yes it was worth it as not intervening would have essentially allowed them to grow and absolutely pummel us.

[The Don]

yeh we should've let germany expand and invade us

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes it was worth it as not intervening would have essentially allowed them to grow and absolutely pummel us.

yeh we should've let germany expand and invade us

Re-read the piece and absorb it. He takes this argument on in what he said.

[The Don]

Re-read the piece and absorb it. He takes this argument on in what he said.

All one giant hypothesis. We have no way to tell how it could have turned out, but what makes more sense logically? Go to war when you still have allies, or let your allies be conquered and then go to war on your own. I know which one I think sounds more sensible.

[-:Undertaker:-]

All one giant hypothesis. We have no way to tell how it could have turned out, but what makes more sense logically? Go to war when you still have allies, or let your allies be conquered and then go to war on your own. I know which one I think sounds more sensible.

Pre-emptive war, as Ron Paul often points out, is what all dictators (including Hitler) have used as an excuse for starting wars and invasions. Under the pre-emptive war principle, we should be invading China pretty soon considering how they are building up their military and pose a threat to our allies in the Asia-Pacific area.

Germany or even Russia, had they taken over continental Europe, would have likely been overstretched for many years, would have faced constant civil uprisings, low morale and would have been financially and militarily broken. They would have been in no position to continue.

[The Don]

Pre-emptive war, as Ron Paul often points out, is what all dictators (including Hitler) have used as an excuse for starting wars and invasions. Under the pre-emptive war principle, we should be invading China pretty soon considering how they are building up their military and pose a threat to our allies in the Asia-Pacific area.

Germany or even Russia, had they taken over continental Europe, would have likely been overstretched for many years, would have faced constant civil uprisings, low morale and would have been financially and militarily broken. They would have been in no position to continue.

It's not preemptive when they actually start invading countries :rolleyes:

Your china comparison is silly, a better one would be if they invaded eastern europe since it's more or less on our doorstep.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's not preemptive when they actually start invading countries :rolleyes:

A country involved in wars makes it weaker, so therefore it is better to attack a potential enemy AFTER they have attacked other countries for the reasons I explained earlier: financially, military, strategic etc along with the fact that you can build up your defences. Germany, even before it launched war against the Soviet Union in WWII, was in no position to threaten the United Kingdom or the British Empire. After Germany had attacked Russia, it was even weaker.

It's lucky we are an island because had we not been and had we declared war on the Third Reich at the time we did then our present-day independence would be very doubtful. Look at the history of WWI and II in how quickly declarations of pre-emptive wars and confusing pacts between the European powers led to swift invasions.

Your china comparison is silly, a better one would be if they invaded eastern europe since it's more or less on our doorstep.

Eastern Europe is on our doorstep? Ermmmm, Britain's military influence and movements there have historically been very small/non-existant and it's certainly not our sphere of influence and has never been. Look at the Polish example: we went to war over Poland, a country we could never guarantee the independence of because of it's geography yet we did........ and it ended up being liberated from Germany and then dominated by the other great power who threatened it (Russia). So it was completely pointless, all we did by intervening was move Poland from the domination of one great power in Eastern Europe to that of another great power in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe is always going to be under of the influence of a great power/s - either a great power in the East (Russia) or the West (Germany/France and previously the Ottomans/Austro-Hungary). Britain, a maritime nation on the other side of Europe, has no horse in such a race and never has.

[The Don]

A country involved in wars makes it weaker, so therefore it is better to attack a potential enemy AFTER they have attacked other countries for the reasons I explained earlier: financially, military, strategic etc along with the fact that you can build up your defences. Germany, even before it launched war against the Soviet Union in WWII, was in no position to threaten the United Kingdom or the British Empire. After Germany had attacked Russia, it was even weaker.

It's lucky we are an island because had we not been and had we declared war on the Third Reich at the time we did then our present-day independence would be very doubtful. Look at the history of WWI and II in how quickly declarations of pre-emptive wars and confusing pacts between the European powers led to swift invasions.



Eastern Europe is on our doorstep? Ermmmm, Britain's military influence and movements there have historically been very small/non-existant and it's certainly not our sphere of influence and has never been. Look at the Polish example: we went to war over Poland, a country we could never guarantee the independence of because of it's geography yet we did........ and it ended up being liberated from Germany and then dominated by the other great power who threatened it (Russia). So it was completely pointless, all we did by intervening was move Poland from the domination of one great power in Eastern Europe to that of another great power in Eastern Europe.

On a global scale, um yes it is. Our military influence in that zone is irrelevant when countries start invading each other near us it poses a threat. If you think ww1 was pointless good for you, it's a hypothetical argument, one I can't be bothered with, but it definitely wasn't preemptive considering Germany INVADED other countries first. Look up the definition of preemptive.

[-:Undertaker:-]

On a global scale, um yes it is. Our military influence in that zone is irrelevant when countries start invading each other near us it poses a threat. If you think ww1 was pointless good for you, it's a hypothetical argument, one I can't be bothered with, but it definitely wasn't preemptive considering Germany INVADED other countries first. Look up the definition of preemptive.

When you say 'on your doorstep' in global affairs, that implies that it's within our sphere of influence and that we could have any effect on the happenings in that geographical area. Poland and Eastern Europe have never been on our doorstep and the historical events prove it. That area has always been under the influence of the powers I mentioned in my post, and Britain has never had a horse in that race - we had as much influence in that area as America has today in the Mongolian region between Russia and China: zero.

And yes, it is pre-emptive. Germany did not declare war on Britain, her Empire or our close (important) allies. I will give you that it could have been likely that Germany would one day go to war with us as her sphere of influence grew and clashed with ours, but that's my point: that we should have met that challenge when it came and prepared for it (unlike WWI and WWII when we were unprepared for such a war).