Posted on 01/31/2014 11:47:48 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Britain could have lived with a German victory in the first world war, and should have stayed out of the conflict in 1914, according to the historian Niall Ferguson, who described the intervention as "the biggest error in modern history".
In an interview with BBC History Magazine, Ferguson said there had been no immediate threat to Britain, which could have faced a Germany-dominated Europe at a later date on its own terms, instead of rushing in unprepared, which led to catastrophic costs.
"Britain could indeed have lived with a German victory. What's more, it would have been in Britain's interests to stay out in 1914," he said before a documentary based on his book The Pity of War, which will be screened by BBC2 as part of the broadcaster's centenary season.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I think Germany winning WW 1 would have avoided WW 2. The Kaiser was far less imperialistic & evil than the Nazi’s. Had Germany not been financially decimated in the 20’s. Hitler would have never rose to power.
There is a new book out called “The Sleepwalkers. How Europe Went to War in 1914” by Christopher Clark. It is a detailed study of how European diplomats and government officials basically stumbled into the war. No one and no country comes out looking good, even less looking innocent. One of the most interesting parts of the book relate the political and economic advances of the Austrian and Slovak parts of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. It was an astonishingly modern state. It will probably be the definitive work on the subject from here on out. It’s available on Amazon and well worth the read.
We made pretty much these points in “Patriot’s History of the Modern World, vol. 1” The thing is, everyone, including the Brits, wanted the war. They were perhaps the least enthusiastic, but each nation saw advantages to a war, since none thought it would go on long. There is a good book on the German way of war that argues the Germany’s central position and lack of defensible borders dictated all strategy since Napoleon and emphasized the offensive.
The U. S. made a huge mistake getting involved. WWI changed the world for the worse in most every way.
It’s hard to imagine German dominance over France ending worse than the post-war history did.
Excellent summation.
1914 France was not benign. Germany would not have taken France as a new territory.
Second, France also should have stayed out of the Balkan conflict. France making a mistake is not good reason to follow.
The big error from which everything else flowed was the progressives’ “captive nations” fantasy. Many examples abound.
Who can doubt the the Turk knew how to sort out the Arabs? How can the Eastern European microstates compete with Germany and Russia? Even today, in the Western fantasy of a unitary, imaginary “Ukraine” within its present borders there is nothing but smoke and bloodshed.
We need an Emperor in Vienna, and a Sultan in Constantinople, along with a Czar in St. Petersburg.
And the Dodgers in Brooklyn.
Then, there will be peace.
What was the justification for a "Belgium" to begin with?
116,000 dead in less than 18 months.
!
It left a permanent scar on the British psyche: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQm3qfjhGB4
Evrerything you said is true and rational, but the powers that be insist that moloch be fed. Even now.
As bad as that sounds, it is roughly 1% of the overall death toll of that war.
Prof. Ferguson fails to address the Treaties in force in 1914 where Great Britain was a signatory.In a rewrite of history Great Britain gets the blame and the fun loving Germans get a pass.
Remember:-Letter from Kaiser Wilhelm II to the Emperor of Austria in the early days of the war, in which the German Emperor wrote:
“My soul is torn asunder, but everything must be put to fire and blood. The throats of men and women, children and the aged must be cut, and not a tree or a house left standing.
With such methods of terror, which alone can strike so degenerate a people as the French, the war will finish before two months, while if I use humanitarian methods, it may prolong for years. Despite all my repugnance, I have had to choose the first system.”
The Germans learned from Shermans march to the sea.
It’s slightly tangential but, per a book about the 1918 flu epidemic, if Wilson had remained healthy he would have been able to continue to deter France from vindictive terms imposed on Germany. He fell ill so France got their way, hence Hitler.
Of course, I didn’t post that as a comparison with the catastrophic losses of France and the UK. I’ve been to the public school chapels in London, I understand the scope of the disaster - a disaster that we are still paying for, IMO.
I was surprised that the waste of young American lives was so high in such a brief time, that’s all.
I would have loved to been a fly, or several flies, on the wall back then. It’s almost like someone was pulling the strings to get everything in place, then light the match so they could bring about that complete change in the world order.
Basically after that all of the major monarchies fell and we started this dance toward the One World Govt thing. I really truly wonder sometimes if the whole thing wasn’t orchestrated for exactly that.
Not exactly. At least by itself.
German suffered very nearly the same percentage losses, and seems to have been able to field an army of substance quite nicely.
I’ve a lot of respect for Mr. Ferguson, but this one is a little silly.
Since at least the Glorious Revolution of 1688, it’s been THE cornerstone of British foreign policy to prevent the Continent being dominated by a single power.
This is for the fairly obvious reason that Britain is an island. It’s historically been protected against invasion by its fleet.
The fleet-building capacity of the Continent, if united, was much greater than that of Britain. But as long as the Continent was divided, Britain could defeat any likely invasion fleet.
Unite the Continent, spend five years building a fleet, and the RN could be utterly overwhelmed.
Solution, prevent the Continent from uniting. Thus Britain’s traditional opposition to Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon and Kaiser Bil.
Except, of course, that Sherman did no such thing.
The notion that Sherman invented total war is really, really silly.
Read up on the chevauchées of the 100 Years War. Not to mention the 30 Years' War and most other early modern wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.