Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
World War One Explained (Not)
The very idea of a culture minister is fundamentally unsound, but if Britain is going to have one, it would be preferable if he or she actually had some culture.
The UK’s Maria Miller may be failing that test.
As the country limbers up to commemorate the start of the Great War, the Daily Telegraph is reporting that the British government will not be putting the blame for starting the conflict on any country or countries, something that has given rise to the suspicion that it is worried about offending the Germans (nobody seems to be worried about hurt feelings in Austria-Hungary).
That’s irritating enough , but Ms. Miller’s stumbling approach to the rather more genuinely difficult question of whether Britain should have gone to war at all (the answer , by the way, is a carefully qualified no), is not much better:
“The reasons why it was necessary are there for everybody to see,” [Miller] told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme. “I think it’s important that you set out the facts and it’s clear that at that point in Britain’s history, it was important that there was a war that ensured that Europe could continue to be a set of countries which were strong and could be working together rather than in any other way.”
I think I know what she means (that the objective of the war was to stop Europe being dominated by Germany), but it is wrapped up in language of so much EU-friendly sanctimony that it is impossible to avoid the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Miller does not really know what she is talking about.
Published in General
After reading her comments, I’m afraid Whig history is about to be replaced by EU history.
“Don’t mention the war”.
Nice! I predict in 10 years they will be apologizing for the treaty of Versailles and in 20 it will be considered bad form to mention that Nazis were German.
On an unrelated note I hope on this 4th of July my fellow Americans will remember to burn the Union Jack and an effigy of King George like I do every year.
I always thought WWI was just an intrafamilial squabble amongst members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
The Austrians and the Hungarians aren’t bankrolling all of Europe right now. The Germans are. (Not the UK, obviously.) I’m sure that plays into it.
I think with the growing strength of Germany and the waning power of France war was inevitable. The Brits would likely have had to be involved sooner or later. However, the US should have stayed out of it but Wilson’s desire for war-socialism and love for the British wouldn’t allow him sit on the sidelines and that war begot the next.
Fortunately, Germany didn’t take over Europe…. Oh, wait.
This is some strange anti-lip service. The Treaty of Versailles was specifically designed to lay the blame for the War at the feet of Germany, who had no choice but to accept or resume hostilities, so being unwilling to say so explicitly now is neither here nor there. Right or wrong, this — along with the false impression that Germany was never defeated on the battlefield — lead, directly or indirectly, to World War II.
As Niall Ferguson pointed out in The Pity of War, the purpose for Britain’s entry into WWI was to prevent a German-dominated Europe, the primary objective of which was to generate a German-dominated currency zone. And, after two world wars, we have … a German-dominated currency zone. So, well done, Britain, for not even being willing to remember the history that you played a decisive part in.
Unfortunately for the Germans, the only part of Europe Inc. they have taken over is the Accounts Payable Department.
I think Ms. Miller is right that the purpose of Britain’s involvement was to preserve Europe as “a set of countries which were strong.” Unfortunately, the purpose of the EU is precisely the opposite — to totally emasculate national governments in favor of a strong federal state run by unelected bureaucrats.
It’s her use of the phrase “working together” that leaves so much wiggle room for revisionism. “Working together” can mean so many things, and not all of them good.
Business partners “work together,” but so do slaves or prisoners in a chain gang. The EU member states are starting to look more like the latter than the former.
Baldrick: The way I see it, these days there’s a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn’t a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
Edmund: Do you mean “How did the war start?”
Baldrick: Yeah.
Edmund: ……the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war. You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Restore the Hapsburgs.
Bite your lip (if you can)!
I was just thinking the other day that the reasons for US Civil War “are there for everybody to see. I think it’s important that you set out the facts and it’s clear that at that point in [the North’s] history, it was important that there was a war that ensured that the [United States] could continue to be a set of [states] which were strong and could be working together rather than in any other way.”
Yep, her squishy explanation sounds absurd no matter what war you apply it to.
…rather more genuinely difficult question of whether Britain should have gone to war at all (the answer , by the way, is a carefully qualified no)
Care to explain that?
They should apologize for the Treaty of Versailles. Without it, there’s a good chance that the Nazis would have been a minor footnote in the history of Germany. It was a political punitive tool to punish rivals, and had nothing to do with justice or the rule of law. WWI was, nothing more and nothing less, an imperial pissing match about who got to rule what in the third world. Germany said “It’s our turn to be join the Empire club”, and Britain and France said “Nope, only we get to do that… too late. Admissions are closed”. Everything else… the Balkans, Gavrilo Princip… was just a sideshow and an excuse to fight. We truly had no business getting into it. We fought not to make “the world safe for democracy”… a silly idea… but to protect Britain and France’s overseas possesions. The isolationists were right all along about that war. And as a result, WWI was a direct cause of WWII.
Indeed. I would think even the Germans would agree the ship has sailed on that one. The only folks being prickly about this issue seem to be the British, and for no discernable reason other than a knee-jerk impulse to not offend.
The politics of the First World War were convoluted and complicated, fought due to many different reasons and motivations from each side, and there was plenty of blame to go around. The blame placed on the Germans at the time was simply to make a scapegoat of the loser. I see no reason to continue to club them over the head for this war.
On an unrelated note I hope on this 4th of July my fellow Americans will remember to burn the Union Jack and an effigy of King George like I do every year. ·17 hours ago
Aw, I have a soft spot for Ol’ George. At the end of the Revolution he said of Washington:
So George III gets partial credit for catching up pretty fast.
Burn Lord North. What with the wigs and all, they would have been pretty hard to tell apart anyway.
Oh the poor Germans wrongly accused of starting the First World War. They didn’t have to declare war on anyone when Austria and Russia decided to fight it out over Serbia.
If anyone nation should take the blame for starting WWI (and I don’t think that is necessarily fair), I nominate the Russians.
But the Austrian Empire was Germany’s only ally on the continent. Coming to the aid of an ally is not usually considered, in itself, discreditable.
http://rereadingeverybookiown.blogspot.com/2011/11/merry-wives-of-windsor.html
Edmund: ……the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war. You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks. ·7 hours ago
Marvelous…and here we go on another disaster:
http://www.theospark.net/2011/12/baldricks-take-on-euro.html
Amy Schley
etc., etc.,
I’d forgotten this….thank you!
…rather more genuinely difficult question of whether Britain should have gone to war at all (the answer , by the way, is a carefully qualified no)
Care to explain that? ·4 hours ago
In retrospect, of course, it’s easy (and, on a related subject, it’s interesting to read Churchill’s later comments on why America’s involvement turned out not to be a good thing).
At the time, I think it was already clear to anyone paying attention (Edward Grey, famously, and, rather surprisingly, Henry Newbolt, among others) that the technology of war and the balance of forces had evolved to such a point that this would *not* be a war that was over by Christmas.
Throw that fact into the calculation, and it becomes quickly apparent that Britain would have done far better to stand aside, maintaining its “splendid isolation”.
The Belgian guarantee? A “scrap of paper”, as the Kaiser (dreadful man) correctly observed. Based on the sound principle that a nation has permanent interests, not permanent alliances, Britain should have ‘forgotten’ about it, and sat out the conflict, stirring the pot where necessary.
*Huge* topic though. My comments don’t do it justice.
On an unrelated note I hope on this 4th of July my fellow Americans will remember to burn the Union Jack and an effigy of King George like I do every year. ·8 hours ago
Ha! Do what you want with a scarecrow of old George, but perhaps you might fly this flag instead. As a British-American (I know, I know) it’s one I rather like.
FWIW, I once wrote about that whole 1776 business here.