egafd.com

Reggie Perrin wrote:

I could have put a brick through the TV when Gordon
> Brown came on to talk about Harry P, doing that horrible smile
> he's been trained to do. Awful turd of a man talking about a
> real man.

I can't argue with you there, but your views on World War One seem more informed by "Oh What A LOvely War" than much research. Perhaps you are familiar with the work of Fritz Fischer, who had access to the Imperial German Archives? He was able to show that the German government was actively seeking to provoke a European war from at least 1912, and the murder of Franz Ferdinand was a useful pretext for them.

Wilhelmine Germany was an aggressive, militaristic society, but the government feared two things: democratic government and the economic rise of Russia. A successful European war would enable them to defeat both these threats.

Obviously, the Germans did not anticipate the war as it developed, but the fact remains that they wanted it, and they made sure they got it. If successful, they would have occupied Belgium, shattered France and taken her African colonies, occupied Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic states, halting Russia's progress. Germany would thus have been the most powerful state in Europe, with the economic base to build an even more powerful fleet to challenge the Royal Navy for command of the sea. Say what you like, but World War One was not fought for nothing, and there really was no way Britain could have stayed out of it.

I would argue that the hidden genius of the Nazis was that they were really only carrying on from where the Kaiser's government left off. In fact if anything, they were better disposed towards Britain and the British Empire than Kaiser Wilhelm had been. The one thing that Hitler did bring to Germany the Austrian anti-semitism which had never been such a feature of German politics.

Top notch reply, Robches.

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> Yes you are right, the First War was probably unavoidable in
> those times and those conditions. The only slight flaw in your
> well-informed justification for this war was that it provided
> the perfect conditions post-war for the opportunisitc growth of
> the Nazis during the 1920s so that Germany did for some 13
> years after that become the most powerful state in Europe.

I don't call that a flaw. The fact is, World War I had to be fought because of German aggression. The failure came at Versailles, where Germany was punished, but not properly demilitarised, and of course, as we know, in the 1930's Britain and France did not stand up to Hitler when it would have been easy, but left it until 1939.

>
> The sacrifice of millions of people actually brought about the
> rise of something far more sinister for which yet more people
> had to die in WW2. It's very easy to sit in an armchair and
> glibly justify so much death because it as you say put paid to
> German plans for expansion, but it is hardly justified and
> actually rather an expendable view of other people, not unlike
> the cynical view of humanity of National Socialism when
> stripped of all its noon-day promises. They too justified the
> deaths of millions for a greater purpose as they saw it. Like
> you the Nazis were also pseudo-intellectuals when they felt
> like it and inclined to casual rationalisations.

I'm not quite sure what you are accusing me of! The fact is that Germany started both world wars, and it would never be easy to defeat such a powerful nation, whether on the Somme or at Stalingrad. What is interesting is how closely Hitler followed the Kaiser's plan: a lightning attack on France through the Low Countries, followed by war on Russia. Unlike the Kaiser, he had the good sense to make Russia an ally, until the time came to attack in 1941. The German army came to within 41 kilometers of the centre of Moscow, so his gamble nearly came off. The Nazis' war aims were almost exactly the same as the Kaiser's , except that I don't think Kaiser Wilhelm was motivated by anti-semitism. But both the Kaiser and Hitler wanted to smash France and Russia, colonise Poland and the Ukraine, and build a huge navy to dominate Britain. If you think that would have been unacceptable, you cannot argue that WWI was not worth fighting.

>
> One of the reasons why we remember what is often called the
> sacrifice of the fallen is because war lacks sense and
> rationalism, not the clean political instrument you claim it
> is.

Again, you are accusing me of something I did not say. My point is that WWI did not happen by accident, as is sometimes said. It was a conscious policy decision of Germany to use the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to provoke war with France and Russia. If Britain had stayed out of the war, France would probably have fallen. Russia did fall. Germany would thus have been the dominant economic and military power in Europe, a power which had already built a navy second only to Britain's, and which made no secret of wanting to take the place of Britain as a major power. There was no way that Britain could not have responded to that aggression, if we had not fought them along with France and Russia in 1914, we would probably have ended up fighting them alone in 1920, just as we had to in 1940.

I feel sorry that our sacrifice in WWI is sometimes presented as futile, that it was a war fought for nothing. In fact, it was a war we had no choice but to fight, at huge cost. In many ways, we have never really recovered from it.

Well put. Cant argue with what you say. Except to add that had we renaged on our continental obligations and commitments and stayed out of the war, our standing internationally would have taken years to repair,especially if we had been seen to be benefiting from other nation's conflict. And as you say we would probably only have delayed our having to fight Germany, without the French on our side. We would have lost that one.

There are a lot of myths about the First World War: that it was fought for nothing - see above; that it caused the loss of a generation - not in Britain it didn't, as the casualty rate was around one in 12 of our combattants, and the birth rate was back to normal within a couple of years. Admitedly in France it took at least 30 years to recover; that it was seen as futile at the time - it was the unsatisfactory post-war years that produced the stream of memoirs condemning the conflict. There is very little evidence of criticism during the war or for years after 1918. Haigh wasn't seen as a butcher by his soldiers and was greatly mourned when he died. If things were considered at the time to be as bad as we regard them 90 years later,how is it that the British army emerged as the most professional of all the nations, was the only major contributer not to suffer crippling mutinies, and was capable of defeating the Germans on the field? The US had built up its forces, but had not played a huge part in the fighting by the time of the Armistice. Their numbers were of course very helpful in convincing the Germans that the game was up.

[quote]Don't do cut-n-paste debating, sorry no offence.[/quote]

Why not? I think it makes a debate clearer and lessens the chance of taking someone out of context. Because of this it actually shows care and courtesy.

[quote]Saying that there was ever a cause worth millions of lives is something I'd expect from somebody at school who didn't really understand anything about real life.[/quote]

So a cause like saving Europe's Jews from being completely exterminated wasn't worth the fight? I think it's you who has the schoolboy, back/white view, Keith. Sorry.