WW1 100 years ago
Discussion
Does Derek believe that treaties signed between sovereign, democratic nations are not worth the paper they are written on?
Britain did have a treaty with Belgium which had been in place since 1839.
What was it to do in 1914 - just ignore this treaty and say to the Belgians "tough titties"?
Britain did have a treaty with Belgium which had been in place since 1839.
What was it to do in 1914 - just ignore this treaty and say to the Belgians "tough titties"?
Or indeed that it is better for sovereign states and their peoples to have their rights of self determination extinguished and to be subjugated by a foreign, martial state than for nations with whom those subjugated states have treaties to inconvenience themselves by honouring their commitments?
Derek Smith said:
lamboman100 said:
A tragic war, for sure. And its gravity accelerated the sunset of the British Empire.
But it was necessary to halt the rise of the German Empire. Which it eventually did, ~31 years later.
The WW1 (and WW2) lives were definitely not lost in vain.
Not being argumentative for no purpose, but why was it necessary?But it was necessary to halt the rise of the German Empire. Which it eventually did, ~31 years later.
The WW1 (and WW2) lives were definitely not lost in vain.
The only downside would have been financial for the country. We would not have become poor, just no so advanced as Germany. Now fast forward to 1918 and ask yourself if a Germany dominated Europe would have cost us that much.
Above all, of course, were the deaths, the pointless deaths as it turned out given WWII.
From a personal, family, point of view, the war meant a higher infant mortality rate, little food for 14 years for a big family - my father was one of 18 children - and little heating. In fact, despite the dreadful life for the likes of my family before WWI, it actually was worse after it.
Whilst 20:20 hindsight is no real way to win an argument, I can't help believing that if Germany did take over various states in Europe it would have cost them more than they got from it in the medium and long terms. It would probably have meant no Holocaust of course.
Le Pop said:
I was uneasy about the whole idea that a church service was appropriate?
I'm somewhat with you there, although I guess that's down to my, and perhaps your, personal feelings on the whole church/religion piece. However, from what I saw (snippets during the 10 o'clock news, then I turned over to BBC2 at 10.30) the religious angle was very much played down - well, as far as anything held in a cathedral with church people officiating can be - which prompted my comment yesterday evening about them having pitched it just right; I felt that it probably went some way towards meeting the needs of the religious without over-doing that aspect for us heathens.Le Pop said:
I agree with everything above, although I was uneasy about the whole idea that a church service was appropriate? To me a military tattoo or similar would have been better. Don't see that religion should hijack the memory of those thousands of brave soldiers who died.
You can't really have one without the other, I'm afraid.I served 25 years in the military, and cannot recall a single occasion where an act of Remembrance was involved when religion and a religious service did not play a hugely significant role in the parade. Doesn't matter where we were, or what we were doing around the service, a military chaplain always led it, and prayers were always said. Brief respite in the fighting in Iraq, 1991, and a 'drumhead' service to remember the 9 young lads from 3RRF battle group killed by friendly fire? Religious service. Every Armistice Day service of remembrance? Religious service. In fact, in my early days as a 'boy soldier' we were REQUIRED to attend church every third Sunday (three squadrons on a rotation because the church couldn't accommodate the full regiment) as a Parade. No amount of "but I'm an atheist" would cut it. It was a parade, non-attendance attracted a toes-on-the-brass-line moment in front of the OC, and extra duties/stoppages of pay. Some of those administering the parade were atheists, because when a (rare) recruit complained, the answer, sometimes, was "so am I - it's the Army, suck it up or close the gate on your way out".
It will always be the same, too, while our Monarch is not only our Head-of-State, but Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces as well, because the Monarch is also Defender of the Faith and head of the Church of England. The two are firmly intertwined, and have been since the earliest days of Christianity, with soldiers 'marching before God' and each side claiming to be charged with 'doing His will' in crushing the 'evils' of whatever enemy they were facing at the time.
Ultimately, without organised religion 'hijacking' the memory of the millions who perished in the Great War, I think we would, sadly, have begun to forget already. Left solely to partisan Politicians, and liberal hand-wringers, there's a risk that history would have painted a smaller portrait of the tragic losses borne not so much by a country, but by individuals and families, by whole villages and towns, soaked in grief and visibly altered by the significance of their losses. We MUST remember those who fell, in order to understand why they were required to make the ultimate sacrifice, so that we may make strenuous efforts to avoid such situations again. Organised religion, whatever your opinion of it, has played a significant role in keeping Their flame burning for the last 100 years. Without it, who will keep the wick trimmed, and the lamp oiled?
Eric Mc said:
Does Derek believe that treaties signed between sovereign, democratic nations are not worth the paper they are written on?
Britain did have a treaty with Belgium which had been in place since 1839.
What was it to do in 1914 - just ignore this treaty and say to the Belgians "tough titties"?
Treaties? They change with the wind, as you no doubt know. Of course they are not binding. Our parliament should do what is best for the people of this country.Britain did have a treaty with Belgium which had been in place since 1839.
What was it to do in 1914 - just ignore this treaty and say to the Belgians "tough titties"?
Further, I was asking a question. I don't know whether or not it would have been better to allow Germany, whom we also had treaties with of course, to take over part of France. They did it anyway.
As for democratic, I don't think that's a fit description for this country at the turn of the century.
There seems to be an acceptance that the war was inevitable/good thing, but I have my doubts. We went into the war with everyone owing us money and came out of it owning everyone else. There were major problems in this country after the way with regards infant mortality, lack of healthcare and even heating.
So, to use your method of argument, does Eric think that treaties with countries are worth more than the deaths of a million men in the trenches, at sea and in the air? More than 30 years of poor nutrition for millions of children? I know what I think.
WWII was a continuation of WWI, So does Eric think we should say to those millions killed in the concentration camps: tough titties, we had an agreement you see.
I don't know what would have happened if we'd sued for peace once the trenches had been established. That's open to debate, but as we see daily, occupying a foreign country, or in this case countries, that don't want to know is not an easy option. I doubt that Germany would have dominated Europe in quite the way suggested, although I could be wrong of course. But I do know what did happen.
yellowjack said:
Ultimately, without organised religion 'hijacking' the memory of the millions who perished in the Great War, I think we would, sadly, have begun to forget already. Left solely to partisan Politicians, and liberal hand-wringers, there's a risk that history would have painted a smaller portrait of the tragic losses borne not so much by a country, but by individuals and families, by whole villages and towns, soaked in grief and visibly altered by the significance of their losses. We MUST remember those who fell, in order to understand why they were required to make the ultimate sacrifice, so that we may make strenuous efforts to avoid such situations again. Organised religion, whatever your opinion of it, has played a significant role in keeping Their flame burning for the last 100 years. Without it, who will keep the wick trimmed, and the lamp oiled?
I agree. I'm strictly speaking an atheist (question the existence of God, or at least the normal depiction) however the church and Christianity play a significant role in the lives of those that live in the UK and the west (morals, our laws etc). I cannot take issue with an atheist questioning religion, but many more vocal atheists perhaps should question themselves as to why they feel the need to be so strongly against it and whether what they're against is actually a good thing.
Derek Smith said:
Treaties? They change with the wind, as you no doubt know. Of course they are not binding. Our parliament should do what is best for the people of this country.
Further, I was asking a question. I don't know whether or not it would have been better to allow Germany, whom we also had treaties with of course, to take over part of France. They did it anyway.
As for democratic, I don't think that's a fit description for this country at the turn of the century.
There seems to be an acceptance that the war was inevitable/good thing, but I have my doubts. We went into the war with everyone owing us money and came out of it owning everyone else. There were major problems in this country after the way with regards infant mortality, lack of healthcare and even heating.
So, to use your method of argument, does Eric think that treaties with countries are worth more than the deaths of a million men in the trenches, at sea and in the air? More than 30 years of poor nutrition for millions of children? I know what I think.
WWII was a continuation of WWI, So does Eric think we should say to those millions killed in the concentration camps: tough titties, we had an agreement you see.
I don't know what would have happened if we'd sued for peace once the trenches had been established. That's open to debate, but as we see daily, occupying a foreign country, or in this case countries, that don't want to know is not an easy option. I doubt that Germany would have dominated Europe in quite the way suggested, although I could be wrong of course. But I do know what did happen.
Thought that might be your opinion.Further, I was asking a question. I don't know whether or not it would have been better to allow Germany, whom we also had treaties with of course, to take over part of France. They did it anyway.
As for democratic, I don't think that's a fit description for this country at the turn of the century.
There seems to be an acceptance that the war was inevitable/good thing, but I have my doubts. We went into the war with everyone owing us money and came out of it owning everyone else. There were major problems in this country after the way with regards infant mortality, lack of healthcare and even heating.
So, to use your method of argument, does Eric think that treaties with countries are worth more than the deaths of a million men in the trenches, at sea and in the air? More than 30 years of poor nutrition for millions of children? I know what I think.
WWII was a continuation of WWI, So does Eric think we should say to those millions killed in the concentration camps: tough titties, we had an agreement you see.
I don't know what would have happened if we'd sued for peace once the trenches had been established. That's open to debate, but as we see daily, occupying a foreign country, or in this case countries, that don't want to know is not an easy option. I doubt that Germany would have dominated Europe in quite the way suggested, although I could be wrong of course. But I do know what did happen.
Britain was not a democracy in 1914. About sixty percent of adult males and zero per cent of adult females could vote in elections at that time. Britain became a democracy during the 1920s. Germany already had adult male universal suffrage in 1914, but women there were disenfranchised too, so it wasn't a democracy either. One of the major warring nations that had universal adult suffrage in 1914 was Australia*, IIRC.
* although sadly subject to some discriminatory impediments facing aboriginal voters that persisted well into the C20.
* although sadly subject to some discriminatory impediments facing aboriginal voters that persisted well into the C20.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 5th August 11:52
The leading current exponent of the "Britain should not have got involved in 1914" argument is Niall Ferguson, who, even when you disagree with him, is always interesting and forceful. His take on WW2 is also very interesting, albeit sometimes controversial. I recommend all of his books, even though I only agree with him some of the time and think he can be positively mischievous on some topics.
My take on counterfactuals and what ifs in history is that they are a parlour game, as what happened happened, and we are where we are. Ever since I chose to study history at university (back in what now seems like another historical era) I have been more interested in trying to figure out what happened, and why and how it happened than in debating what might have happened if things had been otherwise.
My take on counterfactuals and what ifs in history is that they are a parlour game, as what happened happened, and we are where we are. Ever since I chose to study history at university (back in what now seems like another historical era) I have been more interested in trying to figure out what happened, and why and how it happened than in debating what might have happened if things had been otherwise.
Breadvan72 said:
My take on counterfactuals and what ifs in history is that they are a parlour game, as what happened happened, and we are where we are. Ever since I chose to study history at university (back in what now seems like another historical era) I have been more interested in trying to figure out what happened, and why and how it happened than in debating what might have happened if things had been otherwise.
Same with me. I am not an enthusaistic "What iffer"Derek Smith said:
Treaties? They change with the wind, as you no doubt know. Of course they are not binding.
No they are not binding but, as with friendships on a personal level, surely it's the measure of that person to stick by their word to the very end even if it amounts to some personal loss?Breadvan72 said:
Britain was not a democracy in 1914. About sixty percent of adult males and zero per cent of adult females could vote in elections at that time. Britain became a democracy during the 1920s. Germany already had adult male universal suffrage in 1914, but women there were disenfranchised too, so it wasn't a democracy either. One of the major warring nations that had universal adult suffrage in 1914 was Australia*, IIRC.
By any definition of democracy, it didn't start in this country until at the earliest 1918, and in the opinion of many, 1928. I don't want to make a big thing about it, but the treaty with Portugal, for instance, was agreed when the House of Lords was the senior. For instance, the Commons wanted universal female suffrage in the late 19thC but was blocked by the HoL.
The Commons was not, as we would take it nowadays, representative of anyone other than the upper middle class at best. There were pressure groups in reality. The idea of a voice from, for instance, a farm worker was an anathema.
My family didn't see WWI as anything that they wanted, needed or supported, yet my father lost 5 brothers in the two WWs and a greater number of his sisters were widowed. Yet every male in the family of fighting age took part.
WWI was, if it was there to support the British Empire, a financial war. My family paid for it and got nothing from it. WWII, or rather the extension of WWI, was different but, had it not been for WWI, it would not have started.
So the idea of a treaty, drawn up by those who took no notice of my family's desires and needs, is not binding. If they want it, let them fight for it.
With democracy goes responsibility. Then, even if you disagree with the decision, then you have to accept it. This did not happen in 1914.
My figures suggest <20% suffrage for the government that took us into WWI, but I could be wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff