Wars and Conflicts permalink
Just what did start the First World War.?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Whilst I’ve always known the assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, was the immediate trigger to the First World War, and read numerous books, seen films and heard sad and personal accounts from family members reminding me of uncles I’d lost…
I’d seen aunts quietly weeping and wiping the corners of their eyes as they watched the poppies falling from the ceiling at the Albert hall memorial services on the television… painfully remembering their lost husbands and brothers…
Its sadly, but more so, embarrassingly only just dawned on me… I have absolutely no idea what brought Germany into the war… how or why we entered… or how long it took to escalate into such a state for it to become a world war… when or if any action from any nation withdrawing from the first signs of conflict could have had any bearing on the eventual run of events… i.e. was I possible to pull back from the final conflict.
Before the shooting started, were all the participating nations squaring up to one another, jostling for position around the world arena and casting an envious eye on each other’s territories …? Would it have been possible to predict that action ‘A’ would precede action ‘B’, and lead to ‘C’,’D’, and ‘E’, and the eventual annihilation of millions of lives…
Just who was responsible…?
Regards bandick…Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
bandick
Whole books have been written about that. But here is a start.
1. THE BALKAN WAR
Obviously the assasination at Sarajevo was the catalyst- and that brought in the dynamics of the Balkans that included the shrinking power of the Ottoman Turks with four resulting tendencies:
(a) the attempt of Young Turks etc to stop the rot, and by modernisation
(b) the attempt of Austria-Hungary which had lost the leadership of the German region to the Prussian led German Empire to restore some credibility to its own crumbling power.
(c) the nationalist aspirations of peoples who had endured Ottoman rule from the approx fifty years following the fall of Constantinople in 1453- eg Greeks, Serbians, Romanians.
(d) the ambitions of the Russians especially those who advocated Panslavism, in which the Slav and Orthodox Russians were seen as the natural friends and allies of the Slav-Orthodiox Christians of the Balkans.
Because the assassination was at Sarajevo, in a region for which Austria-Hungary had been given some mandated responsibility(Herzegovina-Montenegro), and involved the heir to their throne and his wife, AH were almost inevitably going to take a strong line: and blame the relatively new state of Serbia. For the Black Hand Gang assassins were terrorists based there fighting for that region to be added to Serbia giving it access to the sea- seen as essential for any independent state.
AH needed to exert its power over Serbia..
But Russia was going to act as a friend to Serbia and help it out.
But given the backwardness of Russia and the length of time that it took to mobilise its armies, it was necessary for Russia to start to call up its millions of peasant soldiers before it actually declared war.
This Russian action made it almost certain that any war would not be just another Balkan War, of which there had been several recently.
THE EUROPEAN WAR
For many centuries the "Cock-pit" of Europe had been in and around the Low Countries from the north of France to the Netherlands. This was closely associated with the strategic importance of the mouth of the Rhine.
Britain had gone to war with France in 1793 when Revolutionary France pushed its frontiers up to the Scheldt Estuary- the "dagger pointed at the heart of England".. At the next French Revolution in 1830 it seemed possible that this region- formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire- would be annexed to either the Netherlands or France. Neither of these options was acceptable to Britain- and/or perhaps to all of the local people. Belgium was created as a kind of "hands off" country that all bordering countries would allow to be neutra.
This new security resulted in a huge investment which made Belgium the second country in the world to have an industrial revolution.
But as the railways spread out from the ports of Belgium right across the German plains, the ongoing economic and poltical transformation created a new Germany, which was forged politically by a succession of wars; most crucially the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1.
The existence of a new German Empire was declared quite humiliatingly in the Hall of Mirrors in the great Palace of Versailles outside Paris. And in addition to the humiliation of French arms, there were peace terms by which France lost the rich industrial areas of Alsace and Lorraine, and had to pay large reparations to Germany.
From that moment on France was bound to want to have a re-match to retrieve its national honour and its lands. But it was pretty clear that France alone could not beat Germany: and Bismarck made sure that France could not form an alliance with Russia- with Germany the "piggy in the middle". This policy was not contined after Bismarck's fall from power. France and Russia became allies, while Germany remained an ally of Austria-Hungary.
So when AH began its moves against Serbia after the assassination, the Kaiser assured AH of his full backing as an ally.. And was in a perilous situation as Russia began to put its armies on a war footing. ..
German war planners looking at fighting a war as "piggy in the middle" had taken into account the time-delay that it would take for R to get "war-ready", and- especially after 1870- had concluded that it would be possible to "knock out" France quickly once more, before then having to deal with "the Russian Giant".
But what if Russia had the chance to get war ready before a war was actually declared.. France and Russia could then attack simultaneously.. The answer was a pre-emptive strike that would defeat France and still give Germany the time to deal with Russia.. And the best way to deal with France quickly was to avoid the defensive systems along the German border and go through Belgium.
So as AH and Serbia went to war in the Balkans, and R mobilised, Germany demanded from Belgium permission to cross its territory in order to invade France. The Belgians insisted on their sovereignty and refused. But the German marched in anyway.
THE WORLD WAR
This placed Britain in quite a quandry.. About 10 years before it had seemed very likely that Britain would sign an alliance with Germany..But in fact - in an amazing 'volte face'- Britain signed a "friendly understanding" with France. This was not an alliance and the terms under which Britain would be bound to fight to help France did not necessarily cover any situation in which the French could hope to "settle its score" with Germany. Nevertheless the military had looked at the British guarantee of Belgian neutrality, and the possible need for a small British Expeditionary Force to go to help in the defence of Belgium.
The Germans, however, could try to argue that they were not attacking Belgium, merely asking the Belgians to stay neutral in this conflict between Germany and France..I often wonder whether the Kaiser may have calculated that the terrible revelations about Belgian attrocities in its rubber collecting schemes in the Congo and the revelation of the blood-stained hands of its royal family might have affected public sympathy for a little country that was anxious to grab its share of Africa and its wealth.
Within Britain there were definitely working class voices that said that all of this was really the affair of the businessmen and capitalists; and Parliament had some intense debates as to whether Britain should go to war over the violation of Belgium or not.
But Britain as a world power could not ignore the development of Germany as a world power- to Britain's detriment. It was felt that Germany (like modern China) did not "play fair" in economic development and was outperforming the UK in part due to government intervention, subsidies and the like, which meant that Germany was fast catching up, or overtaking Britain in many key areas of production. Germany had also launched a much more Imperialistic attitude to global affairs- the Grab for Land in Africa following on from the Congress of Berlin. And Germany had sympathised with Britain's enemies the Boers in the Boer War.
But of greater import to the sense of security within a country for whom the song "Rule Britannia. Britannia Rules the Waves" had become almost like a national anthem, there was the very evident intention of the Germans to build a fleet to rival the British Fleet. To many of the public this was perhaps summed up by the visits of Kaiser Willhem to Cowes Week, where, in his uniform of a British Admiral of the Fleet, worn in honour of his "Grannie" Queen Victoria, and his summer holidays on the Isle of Wight, he usually ran off with the first prize..
This naval situation came to a head when the HMS Dreadnought was launched- a whole new class of battleship that made all other ships immediately obsolete. The Kaiser announced that Germany would match Britain's building programme ship for ship..
At a time when there was a real need for Lloyd George's "People's Budget " - as the first step towards the Welfare State- the greater public outcry was for a doubling of the Dreadnought building - to the detriment of the wealthy who had new taxes to pay for it, and the poor whose lot could not be increased by as much as might have been possible had Britain not been engaged upon an arms race.
In 1911 all of these tensions had already brought Britain and Germany to the brink of war over the Agadir Crisis. Threatened with war on that occasion Germany backed down, and there was perhaps brief almost a "Cuban Missile Crisis" moment when it could be hoped that German militarism might be curbed.
The invasion of Belgium suggested that this was not the case. And when the British Empire and the British Navy entered the war it became a World War.
Of course the militancy before 1914 was not just international. 1911 was a double General Election year which perhaps did not help to calm things down. And life in Britain was disturbed by quite extreme (for the UK) industrial action, and of course by the emergence of Women's Suffrage Movement- with the militant extremists the Suffragettes grabbing the headlines, and much of the historical treatment.. In fact while there was still hope that the war could be avoided the international women's movement planned a great Congress to save the peace and stop the men getting there war.. Plans for this were upset rather when one of the German women wrote to one of the British ones saying what a good thing it would be for humanity for the Germans to win a World War and then spread the kind of good government that had transformed Germany to the rest of the world.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 3
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Thank you for that Cass… looks like it was specially written for me, in simple terms.
Please don’t take this the wrong way… as it’s probably one of the first of yours that I was fully able to understand, and it not go whistling over my head.
Kind regards bandick…Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Bandick
Well it was written especially for you.. but it was based on the way that I used to try to teach it..
In view of the importance that I suggest was attached to the British involvement, I might go on to say that to some extent the conflict almost became inevitable when the "Little England" of the Victorian "do-gooders" [that are to be featured in Ian Heslop's programmes] gave way to a much more ambitious idea of how the emerging powers being revealed [nb by Germany and the USA in the late 1860's] could encourage a much more ambitious idea of what should be achieved in an increasingly joined up world..
So I often quote John Ruskin's inaugural speech as Professor of Poetry at Oxford in 1869:
“There is a destiny now possible for us, the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused. We are still undegenerate in race; a race mingled of the best northern blood. We are not yet dissolute in temper, but have still the firmness to govern and the grace to obey... Will you youths of England make your country again a royal throne of kings: a sceptred isle, for all the world a source of light, a centre of peace: mistress of learning and of the Arts, faithful guardian of time-tried principles, under temptation from fond experiments and licentious desires: and amidst the cruel and clamorous jealousies of nations; worshipped in her strange valour, of goodwill towards men? ....This is what England must either do, or perish: she must found colonies as fast and as far as she is able, formed of her most energetic and worthiest men: seizing every piece of fruitful waste ground she can set her foot on, and there teaching these her colonists that their chief virtue is to be fidelity to their country, and their first aim is to be to advance the power of England by land and sea: and that, though they live on a distant plot of ground, they are no more to consider themselves therefore disenfranchised from their native land than the sailors of her fleet do, because they float in distant seas... If we can get men, for little pay, to cast themselves against cannon-mouths for love of England, we may find men also who will plough and sow for her, who will bring up their children to love her, and who will gladden themselves in the brightness of her glory, more than in all the light of tropical skies.â€
People now remember Ruskin and a British Socialist, but this is clearly "White Man's Burden" stuff- and pro-Civilization and against barbarity. Hence it seems appropriate that two of the young men present were Cecil Rhodes and Oscar Wilde.
By 1914 "the German" was very obviously The barbarian "Hun" capable of terrible barbarity-- and any doubts that the women still had were largely dispelled by the newspaper reports about the Belgian outrages in September 1914- definitely a deliberate attempt to whip up hatred and anger.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Before someone corrects me that should have been Bosnia-Herzegovina.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 6
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Well Cass… I didn’t like to say anything… knowing it was probably a deliberate mistake…
just to check if I was paying attention…
Regards bandickLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Bandick
Well Montenegro fits into the picture somehow too.. I could ask my Croatian daughter in-law.. But we mostly avoid Balkan complexity.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 8
Posted by alanpatten (U1866183) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
I've always considered that the seeds of WWI were sown with the ditching of Bismarck and his policy of non-colonial expansion. Although he was long-dead by 1914 he would have exercised a great power of restraint over Wilhelm II.
As far as Bismarck was concerned he did not want Germany involved in world expansion.
Regards.................AlanLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 9
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Wow! Print it. That's wrap
Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 10
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
alanpatten
Yes.. But I think that we should also acknowledge that "Little Englanders" and their idea of a peaceful world with small democractic & liberal states on the English model was challenged by the emergence of three potential superpowers- Germany, Russia and the USA.
Germany had obvious advantages. As historians like Ranke showed the Teutons had played an important role in the outreach of the Roman world, the Dark Ages and then the Middle Ages. The Swiss Burckhardt's idea of a Renaissance could appeal because the First Empire was something of which German people could be proud [I intend to catch up on the programmes this week about the German cultural tradition that Britain has tended to overlook]
But the USA and Russia were unknown quantities with often grim and savage elements in their histories. And railways that spread across a "Grimm" Europe also allowed the USA to really expand into "living space" right across the 3,000 mile continent; while Russia finally being modernised built the great Trans-Siberian Railway.. As we freeze this week we may be forced to be aware of the ongoing importance of the natural resources within that vast region.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Going back to Montenegro-.. I think that Austria Hungary had already been given more extensive rights to administer Montenegro, and the point at issue was whether this could be extended to Bosnia Herzegovina.
But I stand to be corrected.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 12
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Wow! That is the clearest and most succinct summary of the causes of WW1 that I have ever read. I have saved it to read again.
I'm sorry but now I'm going to lower the tone completely. I will say in self-defence that I didn't write it, but it isn't as silly as you might think at first.
The First World War, Bar Fight Version
An alternative approach to teaching history…
Are You Looking at My Pint?
Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria’s pint.
Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.
Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.
Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria’s trousers.
Russia and Serbia look at Austria.
Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.
Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.
Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.
Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.
Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.
Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.
Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.
Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.
France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.
Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.
France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.
America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
Comment:
"Who was running the pub......?"
Quick thinker:
"Switzerland "Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 13
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 29th November 2010
Slight correction. Germany appeared to be on the ropes in Spring 1917, but in fact wasn't. So America got lumbered with 19 months of war, including some heavy fighting, rather than getting in just nicely in time for the peace conference, as her President had supposed.
The American public didn't see the funny side and walked away vowing "never again" as soon as the war was over.Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 14
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 30th November 2010
Cass'n'Grannie!
Two brilliant summaries for the price of one!
Why can't they teach history like this all the time?Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 15
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Tuesday, 30th November 2010
Brilliant… if published it could be entitled… ‘The dummies guide to WW1’Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 16
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Wednesday, 1st December 2010
I've no idea who wrote it, and I know it's silly, but I just think it's hilarious!
Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 17
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
I am still puzzled by the speculative outcome of World Affairs, between the time of Bismarck and the beginning of the fighting in 1914.
Germanys real weakness, as would eventually be proved to her cost, was not so much the size of her navy, but the lack of 'friendly' ports once the cannons exploded...
After January 1915 the German Navy were little more than spectators to the whole event. Yes, the Germans began to depend more on their Uboats as a means of fighting at sea, but the fatherlands (I always feel its wrong to refer to Germany as 'she' !!!), starvation was assured by the lack of merchantmen bringing food to their ports. Britain herself who had the greater control of the seas alos came perilously close to starvation in 1917-18,) Oh yes, the German Navy had a night out at Jutland and almost repeated that at the second battle of the Skagerrak, but really, perhaps Bismark underestimated the usefulness of having the use of 'any old port in a storm?'Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
Amphion
I think that this was really the background to the Agadir Crisis which arose when a German warship entered that harbour so strategically placed near the mouth of the Mediterranean, which the English/British had gone to great trouble over the centuries to dot with home-bases for its own fleet.
The Atlantic Ocean was crucial, but perhaps especially because the Royal Navy could not "police" it as effectively as it did the Mediterranean or the "Narrow Seas".. One thinks of that amazing chase that took Nelson after the Spanish/French fleet all the way across the Atlantic and back again into safe anchorage- only finally to come out to do battle at Trafalgar.
The Germans came out to face the Royal Navy at Jutland, and then went back to harbour, with the mutiny of the German Fleet when finally ordered out to do battle in the Autumn of 1918 vital in the "end game" of the war.
But I would argue that in both World Wars the German inability to see that their actions would lead to war with Great Britain gives the lie to those who believe that English history is all about being aggressive and war-minded.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 19
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
Hi Cass,
While I realised that WWI tends to be thought of as an unnecessary war your analysis of its inception is very demoralising. Pitiful nationalistic reasons for killing millions of young men. People concern themselves with trivial misbehaviours by politicians (one of our politicians, hard-working, has resigned from cabinet because her husband did some business on a funded trip when he was meant to be just on holiday) when their worst behaviour by far is this tendency to put other people's lives on the line for reasons that have far more to do with militaristic and nationalistic fervour than security or safety.
Thanks for that - I will read it again to try and absorb it. (I printed it off and it came out in very tiny print - not sure why, since reading the screen seems to be in about a size 12; this was 8 or less.)
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
Caro
Thank you for that...
Your "demoralising" comment rather goes along with what I find to be a common reaction to my writing and to the understanding of history that I have been working on for the last 55 years...
But, in fact, what my pupils understood I think, is that my analysis is fundamentally optimistic and empowering as we look forward.
Nothing shows more clearly than attitudes to the IWW that the developing culture was one of guilt and blame, somebody had blundered, and that key mistakes had been made. To some degree if you go along with that kind of analysis then you are likely to end up with some kind of violent and nasty revolution- the French, the Russian, the Nazi.
In a favourite piece from Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" [which I notice that they are starting to re-show this week] he is squating near a pond at Auschwitz which could still contain the ashes of his Polish family..This, he says, was not done by science, but by people who have aspired to the knowledge of the Gods.. The Iccarus syndrome.
But to presume to try to put this in a NZ context [for I think that it is appropriate] I think that something that has come up many times on our exchanges has been the strength of the "Maori" way of life- in terms of helping people to understand a very human condition and humanity's place within creation. The British accepted the strengths of that society and realised very early on that it was a people that they "could do business with" and reach formal treaty accords that could be the basis of handling the problems between two very different cultures-- A book that I have dealing with the impact of the Europeans in the South Pacific region is entitled "The Fatal Impact".. It was perhaps less fatal in NZ than in many other places.
So what I see as the optimistic part of my understanding is that, instead of focusing on guilt and blame, which inevitably leads to harshness and punishment, everyone needs to think of just how they have it within their power to make the small change- that reduces the need to force other people to make major changes.. And millions of small adaptations adds up to a huge one.
In this I believe that I am very much still part of a Sixties generation who wanted to change the world. But, as I have written yesterday on amphion's thread about the general election of 1918 having been premature, I think that the IWW was such a "Deluge" that swept away old certainties, leaving a backward looking and morbid ex-civilization, in which people have naturally looked back to seemingly happier times- materially worse off, but at least with a view of how humanity fitted into the wider scheme of things.
But what the Sixties generation could do- though we did not have the teachers nor the intellectual base to actually change the world- was to change the world for young people like ourselves.
I have argued in a recent piece [the last part of my "Work in Progress] that a child like me born in 1944 sensed that we were the first "global" generation- since we were just bemused outsiders and observers to Hiroshima and Auschwitz and the horrors that made a ring of violence around the world. The Them and Us was the innocent and incomprehending "us" and the fighting "them".
It was a terrible inheritance, and yet as we grew up we understood that it was a common inheritance also that ran a ring around the world. And so world culture and world music, world history etc was all our legacy. The global "youth movement" based upon a desire to enjoy being young could not even be kept out of the Communist Block.
The result was fusion in areas of creativity like music, art, fashion- and in relationships. Hence along with other challenges I took on the challenge of marrying an "alien" and trying to build an Anglo-French reality.. I also ended up spending my teaching career deliberately in the inner city- a crucible of the modern world- where the children of the world and their parents came to me..
"Sixties" people did a great deal of this.. and the potential of what we did is still there, and came through [to my mind] with the Obama Presidential Campaign- only possible perhaps because a American white woman had married a black Kenyan forty odd years ago: and that a generation of Black Americans who had dreamed with Martin Luther King became active, and made sure that their grandchildren knew that the time of "yes we can " had come.
But as it has more or less been necessary to personally re-write an alternative to our recieved understanding of World History, I can fully inderstand why people find my pieces either very difficult to understand - or just too much like a jugernaut.
Regards
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 21
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
After January 1915 the German Navy were little more than spectators to the whole event. Yes, the Germans began to depend more on their Uboats as a means of fighting at sea, but the fatherlands (I always feel its wrong to refer to Germany as 'she' !!!), starvation was assured by the lack of merchantmen bringing food to their ports. Britain herself who had the greater control of the seas alos came perilously close to starvation in 1917-18,) Â
The HSF still mattered though.
By exising at all, it kept the Grand Fleet tied up in the North Sea, facing it. This meant that the bulk of the RN's destroyers had in turn to be kept theren as a "screen" for the GH, garding it against sub or torpedo-boat attack such as the Russians suffered in 1905.
Had there been no HSF (say it had been destroyed at Jutland) those destroyers would have been released to combat u-boats. Convoys could have been introduced far more quickly and the u-boat campaign scotched before it was well under way. The presence of the HSF prevented that. "They also serve - -" though a smaller HSF might have sufficed for the job.Link to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
-
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
Caro
Further to what I wrote about the militancy of a Britain of people spoiling for a fight too before 1914.. so that to some extent the IWW could be seen as diverting anger away from "virtuous" Britain to the "evil Hun"- I thought that this piece that I posted on the 1918 General Election thread was perhaps relevant to understanding why Britain was ripe for war, and why there was such a rush to enlist.
**
In view of just what was possible in 1918- and not just 1945- I was tempted to type up the two page section in C.R. Fay's 1928 "Great Britain From Adam Smith to The Present Day" entitled "The Labour Trend 1890-1927".
He concluded with:
"The unrest of 1900-27 was largely a result of the check to real wages that came about 1900.."
And started with: "In 1887, when Victorian England paused to celebrate its Jubilee, there were few clouds on the horizon of industrial peace." But "The victory of the Liberals at the polls in 1906 was followed by an epidemic of strikes." The situation endured more or less down to 1914, helping to create the idea that a war of some kind for the future was already being fought at home.
Labour largely set aside strife during the war- a period when working class household incomes generally went up. But post-war it seemed that no lessons had been learned:
"The post-war boom brought high profits and high wages, but the strife between capital and labour constricted the good season... The drone of the Coalition Government- 'Produce More'- helped nobody, and feeling went from bad to worse, not indeed in all trades but in those which were most powerful in the strategy of Trades Unionism, until in 1926 the miners rejected the very liberal proposals of the Coal Commission and thus precipitated a General Strike. When it was over everybody was quite sure that it had no chance; but there is at least a case for the view that only the radio and a display of overwhelming force at tactical points prevented serious loss of life and property."
In the mid-Sixties when G.D.H. Cole's son "Max" was my tutor on Soviet Economic History it was briefly possible to believe that this new "managed reality" would find a solution "In Place of Strife"- but that Wilson initiative had to be abandonned.. That was to lead to the Heath General Election on "who governs Britain?", and then to Thatcherism- the Miner's Strike etc.
**
A capacity for "overwhelming force" is of course the core business of the State: and as an Englishman I do not believe that those who "keep the peace" should need to carry guns. Guns are an indication of a need to impose peace or at least quiet and passivity- a totally different matter.
Peace is the presence of something. Quiet is the absence of something.
CassLink to this forum: Just what did start the First World War.?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.