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

[The Don]

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.

I've clearly just clarified what I meant above.

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).

"A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that attack materializes. It is a war which preemptively 'breaks the peace'." Germany invaded and broke the peace so a perceived offense already materialised.

[Chippiewill]

I think we'd have been in a lot of **** if we had waited. Germany was fighting on multiple fronts in both world wars, if we hadn't intervened then they probably would have had the forces to defeat russia and then reared their heads towards us.

This is all of course under the ridiculous notion that Britain should abandon its allies.

[HOSKO02]

First off, how great it is to live in a period where Historical debate allows for the utmost criticism of our traditionally most cherished wars (as had been the consensus for decades).

I agree wholeheartedly. Many points have already been made about how we'd face Germany as a potential equal. Though I'd affirm that in the absence of both wars, the Empire would have continued to thrive, the US would have risen to second base at our heels no doubt, but in a far more protectionist and conservative form. The liberalism that sparked calls for sovereignty in our Empire states was both examplified by a free and thriving America and the newly independant South American ex-colonies and driven by the power vacuum while the US positioned itself on top as the land of opportunity. Neither of these would have been in place.

Many dominions would've sought closer ties with the motherland, the US would not be our overbearing ally, which was a reactionary position brought on by the USs new found power and dominance, driven by its own influence building in Europe. Instead they'd be a threat en par with Greater Germany as the three powers wrangled for dominance. Russia would be unheard of, a failed revolution and no annexation of the crucial assets they assumed post WWII.

I'd expect the oil rush would've sparked a global conflict which would've centred on the middle East, what of Israel if the holocaust was nought? Britain would maintain its grip on the middle east and the Yankees and Crouts would be throwing themselves at Suez to scupper us.

Everything would be different, who would develop the nuke first? Who would win the war of global ideology in place of Hollywood? Would consumerism exist in modern capitalist states as they do now on the back of US corporatism and marketing theory? Does the UK claim the moon for Queen and country? Everything was in place after WWII, built on the climate WWI left, if not for those even the East would still be undeveloped economies, by this reflective logic it is at least correct to identify them as World Wars.

Conterfactual history like this really is fascinating!

- [Android, Tapatalk]

[HOSKO02]

I think we'd have been in a lot of **** if we had waited. Germany was fighting on multiple fronts in both world wars, if we hadn't intervened then they probably would have had the forces to defeat russia and then reared their heads towards us.

Edit: Besides, operation Barbarossa was a complete failure, Germany stretched itself too far and didn't plan for long term annexation of secure states, they'd lost it before we even set foot on Normandy.

This is all of course under the ridiculous notion that Britain should abandon its allies.

I have Polish family, but even I can't accept that pre WWI Poland could be considered an ally.
We screwed them over afterwards and they haven't forgotten it, still very sore.

France had lost its monarchic connection with our sovereign, as had Germany. The Spanish were positively fuming at their crumbling Empire, whilst the mediteranean states were eating out of our hands. No country in Europe at the time could be considered a true ally, only our dominions deserved that title if they'd sought autonomy in some way. We were in conflict with them everywhere Empires lay.

Allied states arn't friends, they're mutually benefiting partners. Look the the US now, 'the 51st state', 'USs landing strip', 'Europes odd one out', our allies today remain critical and culturally adverse to the UKs global position. The true credit for the modern perception of alliance goes to multinational organisations, the avoidance of large scale wars and technological advancement. Without these we'd be walking in a no mans land or on eggshells amongst lesser or more powerful 'allied' states.



- [Android, Tapatalk]