Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 04. 2014
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/ev...
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 15th April 2014.
The First World War is not called the Great War for nothing. It was the single most decisive event in modern history, as well as one of the bloodiest: by the time the war ended, some nine million soldiers had been killed. It was also a historical full stop, marking the definitive end of the Victorian era and the advent of a new age of uncertainty. By 1918, the old order had fallen: the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had been destroyed; and even the victorious Allied powers had suffered devastating losses. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. And yet barely two decades later, the world was again plunged into conflict. Little wonder then that historians still cannot agree whether Britain's engagement was worth it.
For some, the war was a vitally important crusade against Prussian militarism. Had we stayed out, they argue, the result would have been an oppressive German-dominated Europe, leaving the British Empire isolated and doomed to decline. And by fighting to save Belgium, Britain stood up for principle: the right of a small nation to resist its overbearing neighbours.
For others, the war was a catastrophic mistake, fought at a catastrophic human cost. It brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of Nazism. We often forget that, even a few days before Britain entered the war, it seemed likely that we would stay out. H. H. Asquith's decision to intervene changed the course of history. But was it the right one?
No one should've fought in the Great War.
+Mounted Czarina It allowed countless nations to regain their independence. I'm glad those filthy empires slaughtered each other
"those filthy empires" were also home to cultures that GAVE us a reformation and renaissance. you wouldn't be on a computer network if it weren't for them.
the Islamic empire kept slavery right up to the century.
Mounted Czarina
They actually weren't that bad by 1914. The Great Powers had come a long way in social and economic development, and the tragedy of WW1 is that it led to far worse outcomes than would have happened had the empires been allowed to proceed along the trajectory they were on. Their colonial empires would have gotten their independence much more slowly with a lot less bloodshed and a lot more democratic evolution than what happened after their rulers left in a hurry.
ya fuck serbia who cares
I grew up in an era (1970's) when British Television used to be like this debate, you once had a great many shows that were about discussion, debate and social inquiry ... look at your TV guide today and ask yourself where the dumbing down disconnect finds its origin ...
+Rikitocker Now its over should who was responsible for the causes of Bruce Jenner's transformation. Bread and Circuses my friend. Divert us from the real world.
+Rikitocker Totally agree with you ................ I am afraid of having nightmares of city people buying houses in the country or abroad ( the horror ) and the mention of antiques or assorted tat gives me the shakes.... ;-)
+Rikitocker
Use the internet??? i.e how you got here?
+Rikitocker Ditch the telly. Get a free-thinking mind-set & you wont look back.
THE BRITISH IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR, TO ROB THE OIL FROM THE OTTOMAN AND TO ROB THE AUSTRIAN
HUNGARIAN EMPIRE. THE END OF THE OLD CATHOLICS FOR THE ANGLICANS. THANK GOD FOR CRICKET AND FAIR PLAY AND LIBERALISM. THE GREATEST BLESSING THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.
The argument she made that Britain went into the war to protect the rights of small nations... meanwhile in Ireland.
@EvropaAeternvm No, Ireland took advantage of Britain being in WW1 (1914-1918) to carry out the 1916 Easter Rising, knowing that Britain was in a weaker position than usual. Britain did not protect the rights of small nations, which was said in the debate. Ireland was a small nation that Britain oppressed and brutalised. The Irish civil war started in 1922 and lasted for just under a year. It would not have happened without the consequences of the 1916 Rising. Furthermore, many of the 1916 Irish "heroes" were protestant, I say heroes because they are celebrated as such, so it's not accurate to say Protestants and Catholics wanted different things. One thing is for sure: the majority of Ireland wanted the right to self-determination.
@EvropaAeternvm The point of my original message, to which you replied, was that Britain’s claim to protect the rights of small nations was hypocritical, given its treatment of Ireland. What you say about the treaty is true, but the debaters argued more that Britain had a moral duty to fight against Germany in WW1 on the basis of protecting small nations because they are small, which I reject in light of how it treated Ireland.
I also stand by what I said in my response, that it is wrong to suggest that all Protestants were against home rule and all Catholics were for it. There were also moderate and radical factions within both groups, and some Protestants supported Irish nationalism and some Catholics supported the union with Britain. More accurately put, it was about Nationalism vs. Unionism. Ireland took advantage of Britain’s involvement in WW1 to stage the Easter Rising in 1916, which was a rebellion against British rule led by a group of republicans who declared an independent Irish Republic. Thus, it was in Ireland's interest for Britain to participate in WW1 as it eventually led to the majority of the island becoming a republic and finally gaining freedom from Britain’s oppression.
In a way, I understand your point of view, but I disagree with some of your assumptions. Ireland was not a homogeneous nation that was part of Britain, but a diverse and divided one that had a long history of resistance and struggle against British rule. It was, technically speaking, part of the UK, not Britain, and without having a say in the matter of its "membership". The majority of people in Ulster may have opposed self-determination, but they did not represent the whole of Ireland. The sectarian divisions were not the only factor that influenced the Irish question, but also the economic, social, and political ones. I think we should acknowledge the complexity and diversity of the Irish situation, and not oversimplify it.
Even if we say that Ireland was (technically) a part of the UK (and not Britain), simply stating that is a controversial and disputed claim that ignores the long history of Irish resistance to British rule and the distinct cultural and national identity of the Irish people. Ireland was not fully integrated into the United Kingdom, as it had a separate legal system, a separate parliament (until 1801), and a separate church (until 1871). Ireland also had a different economic and social structure, with a predominantly rural and agrarian population that suffered from poverty, famine, and oppression.
I want to reiterate that implying that the Irish question was mainly a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics is a misleading and reductive explanation that overlooks the political and economic factors that shaped the Irish struggle for independence. The religious divide was not absolute, as there were some Protestants who supported Irish nationalism, such as Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet, and some Catholics who opposed it, such as Daniel O’Connell and John Redmond. The religious divide was also influenced by the unequal distribution of land, wealth, and power between the Protestant Ascendancy and the Catholic majority.
@@MVK123You are 100% spouting facts. I'd say your Irish.
Indeed, the very idea!
@conorboy99 😂 I was thinking the same, as they never once referred to the Republic of Ireland as "Southern Ireland", which a lot of us in Britain do. It's just something Irish people shake their heads about and get on with, they notice it but it doesn't ruin their day 😅. And anyway I think dear old Donegal would beg to differ!
I’m not sure how you can pick out evil and benign empires in 1914, but I agree with those that argue that absolutely nothing could have been a worse outcome of Britain’s decision to join the war than what actually happened.
I don’t think you can easily say that without consideration as to the second and third order effects of a Germany holding control over Central Europe. Now it could well have been a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars where the British were secure behind their Navy and the French in command of Europe - the two unable and, probably unwilling, to meet the other on their territory.
Even with that outcome, the point MacMillian makes about an oppressed Belgium is a fair one to consider more broadly - just what exactly happens when an all powerful force occupies another country, potentially for decades.
Look at what happened in Spain with the French - yes notionally they had won but the suffering of Spain by the terrorizing of the French went on for years! The French too suffered greatly losing many troops to disease and counter-insurgency. The suffering wasn’t just on the battlefields though there were plenty, it was also felt by the oppressed masses squashed under the French thumb.
Would Germany be so different? Would they not also have to oppress, displace and likely kill hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and civilians all to its own gain, a necessary gain in order to remain powerful and to remain in control of its won territory.
And then what of a powerful Germany at least somewhat at peace in Europe - would that be enough for their generals? Would that status quo not eventually become dissatisfactory?
My point is the suffering would have dragged on for decades on all sides. Once powerful nation states unable to meet Germany on the battlefield but too proud to fully acquiesce clashing with the unspent might of the Kaiser’s military. It is inevitable that another war would be fought anyway, perhaps not in Central Europe, but that the happy Kaiser sitting atop his mountain of gains (and suffering/ oppression) wouldn’t eventually either have wandering eyes, or be displaced in favour of someone who did, is just for the birds.
Power begets power and the more power, the more oppression and suffering must be ground in the mill to pay for it.
I don't remember allies doing Rape of Belgium and unrestricted submarine warfare.
@@dynamo1796 a key part of the "Spanish Ulcer" was the defence of the Lisbon area, where Wellington commanded construction of fortifications that prolonged the war and won time for the command of the seas to enforce a blockade and break the Continental System. From that base armies could later maneuver and undermine the French occupations.
Finance was behind the alliances which checked and eventually defeated Napoleon, but cutting the French from lucrative colonies was backed up by British forces engaged directly.
There were reasons why Napoleon didn't just sit tight but over reached and lost multiple times entire armies.
It is just a lack of imagination that prevents you from seeing worse consequences than the 1914-18 war, there are reasons why British strategy was for a balance of power in Europe and the industrialisation of Deutschland and technological advancements were rapidly changing the level of threat, should France & Russia be defeated.
The bottom line is that the Kaiser was jealous of the British Empire, sought gains through naval and military means, land transport technology had made continental resources realisable. He saw no dangers in giving the Austrians a blank cheque, despite knowing of the Russian commitment to Serbia, France's to Russia and the British Empire to the French and the neutrals that were created as buffers between the great powers.
WW1 was a failure of deterrence and imagination, but doing nothing would not have appeased the hungry victorious wolf, the logic of conquest leads to yet more.
No matter the horrors of fighting war in a distant field, fighting in your own, while people starve is far worse.
I'm amazed that Britain managed to amass an empire when you look at their ludicrous campaign in Crimea in the 19th century, not to mention 'First World War Generalship', which is a byword for inhuman automatons sacrificing an entire generation just because they had to do what they were told....presumably the mercenaries working for the East India Company, the Hudsons Bay Company and the like were more enlightened, even if half their wealth came from selling opium like communal garden Cali Cartel drug dealers.
9:20 The chairman stopped the first speaker saying “it’s already 11 minutes”, but this video stamp is only 9:20, INCLUDING the long opening remarks by the chairman himself! The chairman needs a digital watch. 😂
This really annoyed me, it’s just so unfair. The first guy didn’t get to make half the points he could have. He even called the chairman out and said “really 10 minutes?” Because he KNEW there was no way he had been speaking for that long. How did no one else there realise the chairman was wrong? He obviously wasn’t timing it properly. Such a small thing but it really niggled me, can’t call it a fair debate when you give one candidate twice as long as the other lol
moderator "it's been 11 minutes"... 9 minutes on the video including 2 minutes of introduction. get a new watch dude.
Seven, eleven what's the difference, this a history debate, not math(s).
@@Hi11is cuz the guy didn't have time to finish his argument. wtf duh
@@cspike9061
I'm sorry, I was being flippant. Yes I agree, he had clearly prepared an appropriate amount of material to cover in the allotted time and was flustered when he was interrupted with so much unsaid. I would have liked to have heard his presentation as it seemed more on-point than the others.
@@Hi11is yeah. not a great debate either. they just called each other crazy. not much historical fact tossed around. too bad.
The moderator is a Remainer who wants us to stay in Europe and is not opposed to break the rules to achieve it.
For all of the countries of Europe involved in this war, the real tragedy was the huge number of people lost to death, injury, or illness. Suicides and early death after the war were also staggering in number. Essentially Europe managed to wipe out multiple generations due to the multiplier effect of this war. Then they had the stupidity to commit to another war just a little over a couple of decades later.
Including the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides committed by the Turks under the Ottoman banner.
@@apobaltayan4869 armenian spotted
Not to mention the "Spanish" flu, (the last pandemic) which came home on troop ships.
@@davidfisher8882 In spite of the name "Spanish flu" it most likely originated in the U.S. The first known case showed up in Fort Riley, Kansas.
@@nvlarcht Turkish Nationalist spotted.
The side saying they shouldn't have gone to war was stronger
The chairman should probably have his clock checked. When he said Dominic had talked for 11 minutes it had just been around 7 minutes.
There is a certain irony in the notion that Britain of all things cared for the sovereignty of small nations.
possumGFX. Britain like all other occupiers/Empire authorities treated their own small people (read poor) with as much disdain and lack of concern as they did the small nations themselves. It was never a nationalist things it was always and always will be an exploitational thing. I guess it has always appeared to be just a little more acceptable when forced upon you by your own kind eh!? It must have been of tremendous comfort to the victims of exploitation, savagery, slavery, mistreated that it was people of the same religion, same colour, using the same language, same tribal label as themselves bringing that misery down on their heads.
I guess the serfs/lower rungs of British society were so much more grateful it was the British aristocracy/power mongers who was the cause of their ills than if it were the Romans/Normans/Nazis/Moghuls/Spanish/Dutch etc empires bringing it to their door. Is there an irony there also.
That exploitation gene is still there BTW - take a look around the world. Not called colonialism too often nowadays but the end result is the same for the poor buggers being chewed up by it. My more recent ancestors were Irish and English miners and farm labourers wonder what they would have to say about it all eh?
possumGFX it was an honour issue. If you want other treaties to last or to be made then you keep up you end of all of them even if some have forgotten about them which will give nations no reason to distrust you.
Not to mention that the British Empire was the first country to ever make use of mass interment camps i.e concentration camps, during the Boer Wars..
AlexanderHL Wrong. Mass internment camps have been around since history was first written. The first to use them and call them concentration camps were the Spanish. The US were the second to use them then the British used them.
How about you, instead of acting like a bookish fool, use your common fucking sense. People have been concentrating problems populations in particular geographic areas since the Classical Era.
The saddest thing of all wars is that unlike the politicians, the people who actually die from the wars often had no decision-making power over the war.
The politicians children should be in the front line of any conflict - there would be a lot less fighting
@@elastotec173 Not sure about other nations, I've not been able to find that information, but in Britain, they very much were.
@@elastotec173 Most if not all of Kaiser Wilhelm's sons were fighting. One son was wounded at the Battle of the Frontiers in 1914, one was in the navy, one won the iron cross at Verdun. The British PM (Asquith) who reluctantly voted for war, lost his eldest son on the western front in 1916. Theodore Roosevelt's (though well out of office by 1917) lost a son who was shot down om 1918 (the other son died in Normand'44). Ludendorff's son was killed in 1918. Prince Georg of Bavaria was at Ypres and Arras and his brother Prince Konrad also served on the front line in the cavalry on the eastern front.
Yes, the people who got invaded especially. Do you think the Ukrainians had any choice about whether the Russians invaded their country, when the Russians were occupying their towns, raping their women and murdering their citizens, was anybody there asking "Why do we fight?" That is an insane question to ask in my opinion. The question of "why do we fight" is usually asked of people who are far away from the conflict, it isn't asked of the people who are in the middle of it!
That's only partly right, because the British prepared for the war while voting Liberals (instead of classic conservatives). It were those, who had aquired the right to vote only shortly. Yes, the others could not say no.
There's no way they gave Dominic Sandbrook his 10 minutes
Time was called at 5 minuites 50 seconds, with 'over run' He got 7 mins 30 seconds.
He looks at his watch immediately when he sits back down. What an amateurish performance from the chair.
The first speaker could not have been at 11 minutes in at 9 minutes in to the video
Which begs the question, what tid-bits of truth about Germany were cut out ???
@@SuperChoronzon Try reading 'The Bad War' by M S King, bit hard to get a copy (maybe too much truth in it) but well worth a read. The first and the second world wars were brought about for very different reasons than we are told.
@@stevenkettle4439 Not a book I'm aware of, but shall take note good-sir(written it down) and thanks for the tip.
Oh, I'm well aware that those wars are not as we've been told, similarly most wars prior to the 20th century going as far back as, well "recorded history" most likely. Especially those concerning the major European nations, and the formation of the USA...all linked to same agenda.
Hopefully enough of this info gets to as many people as possible, especially those who are young and considering a military career. They need to be told...
*You ARE NOT fighting for your Country, you're fighting for the banksters*...
it's that simple !!!
anyways,
best regards Steven,
Paz.
The first guy got screwed out of at least three minutes.
true :-D
Yeh I noticed that. Harsh. Bad chairing
One of the most insightful debates I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching. Thank you!
These are some Great speakers! I find myself constantly shifting between views after every speech.
Also a very intelligent and well educated audience i might add. Most of the questions were very well thought and i really appreciated the higher caliber of discussion seen here.
The first speaker had less than 8 minutes.
So Germany's empire building equals militarism, yet the british empire as a whole wasn't a sign of militarism?
No. Germans are 'Huns'. Brits are, "jolly nice chaps".
The British kept no standing army. It's an odd brand of militarist who bring courts and the English language everywhere they go, introducing democratic parliaments, sanitation, etc. I agree there was a militarist component, but no comparison to Germany operating land armies in Belgium.
aswell as about the naval race question .. OFC it's germanies fault that britain turned against them .. how DARE they challenge the undisputable lead of britain's navy ?! britain HAD to move against them ..
@@TheyCalledMeT - Illiterate chimes in ... sad.
@@johnsmith1474 soo .. the country/empire which invaded and puppeted FAR MORE countries than ANY empire in history of mankind including eveything existing after its downfall .. is the peaceful savior and a country which didn't want to silently stand in the shadows of that empire is a violent agressor? sure thing dude .. sure thing ..
German speaking here ;)
First of all, a wonderful and insightful debate, fought with passion and good arguments. I'm certainly amazed about all the quotes and facts that were put forth almost spontaneously. More of that!
Secondly, I find it striking that both sides argued to only consider what the cabinet would have known but not what the cabinets frame of mind was. So we are urged to make a decision with 1914 information but with 21st century thinking? "Fighting to preserve the empire" was mentioned, yet the panel didn't really exam how Great Powers think as opposed to countries in the 21st century. And the British Empire very much was a classic Great Power of the era of empires in 1914.
I'm both interested in history and in historic strategy games and I can tell you: if I was playing the British Empire in 1914, not fighting would have meant to preserve resources, yes. But it would have also meant to fall behind relative to my rivals. And that is exactly how Great Powers think - and it would have been akin to "losing the game" for Britain. Whether Prof. Charmley personally thinks himself that this is a vital interest is beside the point. In the minds of the cabinet it surely was of vital interest.
We did hear arguments about whether Germany would have been capable to control all of the new territories that the "shopping list" called for and I think no one today nor back then in the cabinet could have known. But Germany was already growing stronger FASTER than the British Empire without winning the war. Not entering the war would have meant betting on the fact that Germany's power growth will be slower than the British IRRESPECTIVE of whether Germany wins or not. That seems a tall order to me. On the other hand, France and Russia couldn't keep up with Britains power growth. If they could be used as "pawns" to spend Germany's resources, the road to (continued) world domination for Britain (let's not pretend only the Germans wanted world domination) was at least still open. Open is better than continuing to lose.
In my assessment, Great Power thinking played a large role in the minds of the people and especially the leaders of all important nations of that time, including Britain. If we think, that the deliberation in the cabinet was 60% fighting for Belgium out of principle and 40% loss of life, than we severely underestimate national chauvinism on all sides of the channel. I'd guess it was more like: at least 40% Great Power thinking, at most 40% loss of life and at most 20% fighting for Belgium. And that explains, why even Mr. Hastings and Mrs. MacMillan would vote for the motion if Belgium wasn't attacked. It was not about Belgium. Belgium only pushed it beyond the tipping point. It was a patriotic and empathic deliberation of the loss of life vs strategic deliberation fueled by national chauvinism (Great Power thinking). And national chauvinism won - as it did in all the participants of the war irrespective of whether they had strong socialist movements. And it continues to fuel conflicts in the world right into the present day.
Thus, I think that if we replayed 1914 thousands of times, in the overwhelming majority of replays the British would join the war. As an armchair historian put in the shoes of the British cabinet in 1914, I concur. Even if there was the prospect which became true, that all of Europe fell into the abyss together.
Thanks for reading my thoughts :)
The Liberal British wanted the war and supported Serbia and Russia in their efforts against Germany and Austria, that's why they had established hidden war plans, which were hidden from the British public and also from Germany! Belgium is a Germanic country, which was parted only because of Protestantism in the independent Netherlands (including Belgium) from the Reich. The (Conservative) British guaranteed Catholic Belgium's independence from the Netherlands, because of the Hundred Years war between Britain and France, alongside with Prussia&Austria against French annexation. The (Conservative) British feared a loss against Anti-Conservative France and especially a blockade like under Napoleon I, that's why Belgium exists only because of Britain as a independent entity, not their own will. It's funny that modern history says, that the British steps in for "small countries". Belgium was neutral in itself, there is no need for Britains to guarantee that ever. The Germans entering Belgium in WW1 would not have made Germany to restrict British goods to enter Germany and Europe via Belgium. Also, the Germans only did this after the Russian mobilisation, because France and Russia were allied! The (Liberal) British were in the Entente Cordiale, which restricted France seizing British colonies. The (Liberal) British claimed to have their security interests breached after Germany's deployment of troops against France in Belgium, but couldn't define it til today. (They had their war plans established.) It was merely about the Liberals power (against Conservatives) in Inner-British politics and the fear of losing the colonies against the French, Russians or Germans (if the latter seized French colonies in a defeat of France). The British had the Splendid Isolation before, what was nice short-term for trading with colonies, but very bad against world-wide threats against those colonies, which started around 1900 shortly before the World War. (Against France, against Russia, supporting Japan, later against Japan and to keep the US alongside.) So, that's why the British stumbled in a war against Germany and lost their colonies later and were totally dependent on Russia and France (long-term). That fact was tried to get supressed by the "Great Liberals" and later Churchill ongoing, even if their country got infiltrated by Anti-British Socialists as early as 1910 until the fall of the Soviet Union. The British were very focussed on the sea, and also feared the rising German Navy, but also the rising USA and the US trading unrestricted with Germany and Europe. That's why the British lobbied hard to get the USA on the side of France, knowing they won't repay their debts by Americans, what helped after the World War to sustain a harsh Versaille treaty, failure to get Inter-Allied debts paid to the US and much trouble in the Great Depression, and the make-believe for the USA to support French and Britain Imperial ambitions as well as Socialist Russia to get repayments from the past.
The British pretty much blew it back then for whole Europe. The British public was deceived back then from the ruling party, yes, but the voters decision and the act to go to war was knowingly bad in 1914. But the British aren't responsible only, also the Italians were blind and thought unrealistic promises would work out for them after a victory. (Gave rise to Fascism after WW1.) Or the development of Czechoslovakian or Yugoslavian ethnopluralistic states (supported by Britain and Russia) and Poland (back then) had no sustainability, but British paid militaries and dependence only. So they added up in supporting Britains reckless behavior, because it weakened Germany.
The British didn't fought Germany because of it's strength and not as a classical power. That's why they were in a Alliance. And not to stay "in the game", but for very bad diplomatic reasons.
Yes, and your logic is based on classic realism in international relations. That also means that the fight for "values" as in defending Belgian neutrality is more or less an excuse or at best the welcoming occassion for British entrance into the war but certainly not the reason.
Amazing debate. The education, the way arguments are discussed. Congratulations from Mexico! Wish my people were open and willing to talk polemic topics with such quality of information, intellectuals and FACTS. I've never imagined that kind of question and the consequences of the "ifs".
Those people are not open.
Look up "Corbett Report WWI conspiracy" or "Rhodes-Milner Roundtable Group".
There was a lot of rhetoric and the fantasy land emotional appeal of isolationism which ignored the reality of allowing a great power to gobble up another. The Mongol conquest of Moscow tragically instilled a brutal exploitative system of ruling, which still inspires the abusive exercise of corrupt government seen today.
East Europeans have first hand experience of imposed settlements and the weight of history shows hegemony leads to abuse of power, an Imperial Germany had no Gladstone moderating itself with the liberal ideals of the English philosophers.
The mistake was not deterring war by being clearer about the alliances, the legalistic loophole argument in the guarantee to Belgium is the kind of thing that encourages aggression, because mutual defense treaties must be credible. There's no accident that the Russians aided Trump to power, a man who showed even in the 80's before the collapse of communism a lack of understanding of the strategic US interests in NATO and peace in Europe. I am sure you're aware how he slanders Mexicans and the way the USA uses economic power to force advantageous trade deals and military power to undermine democratic developments in the Americas its commercial interests don't like.
To be clear the British trading empire between colonies and far flung destinations needed to trade with continental Europe, so the British always balanced against the strongest European power, it was a vital interest even if the public never understood that.
Britain? *NONE* of the participants should have fought in WW1. Particularly not Germany.
Correct. All parties were manipulated into war by banksters.
And like a French General said of the WWI peace treaty, "This is not a peace treaty. It is a 20 year armistice!" That treaty set the stage for WW2 and anyone with a lick of sense knew it!
@@uhlijohn French occupation of the Rhineland ruined Germany's ability to pay back their unfair reparations. Akin to pointing a gun at a child. Well the kid grew up angrier and more violent than we realised.
Swordz Man - their payback for Martin Luther.
The Balfour Declaration was the result of a "gentleman's agreement" in which Zionists promised to bring the U.S. into WWI on the side of Britain if Britain promised to facilitate their goal of creating a Jewish state. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis played a key role, and a hidden Zionist wrote the final draft. israelpalestinenews.org/wrote-balfour-declaration-world-war-connection/
The argument in the affirmative mentioned several times that "Britain went from the biggest creditor to the largest debtor" but never mentioned to whom the title was lost to. I think it would have helped strengthen his argument. The real winner of WWI was the United States. They won by staying out of it for the most part and emerging the largest creditor in the world. NYC replaced London as the center of international finance. By the time the US joined everyone was exhausted. Had Britain done the same she could have become even more powerful.
> The real winner of WWI was the United States.
Except for the US dead and wounded. You "forgot" that. And the civilian production stolen for war. War destroys production.
Exactly.. America was the real winner in both world war and soviet union in ww2( even soviet union lost nearly 26 millions citizen but in exchange they gained many territories and influence in eastern Europe unlike America didn't get any territory). And last.. The real winners are British and French colonies as they escaped British and French slavery.
i agree with the U.S had gotten a lot of money by being country that sold weapons to both nation so in other words europe basically paid for U.S to become a global superpower .
British leaders were thinking of swooping in late, letting France take the brunt of it.
The United States would've still overtaken Britain as the dominant global power. Even before the War, the United States was on the verge of overtaking the entire British Empire put together economicly and and Industrially. The naval act of 1916 made clear the United States would've become the dominant naval power by the mid 1920s.
I figure without WW1 you'd end up with a War between the United States and Britian in 1928 which would've been worse for Britian than both World Wars combined. The United States would've simply swamped Britian with mass production, built the navy it built between 1940-45 and starved the British Isles into submission while cherry picking parts of it's Empire ... Canada, the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands.
With or without World War 1, there was no way Britian and even it's patch work and under developed empire could complete with the United on any level after 1920. It was only due to isolationism that the United States refrained from taking on the status of being the most powerful nation on Earth after WW1.
The only chance that Britian had of holding onto a significant part of it's Empire would've been to have allowed a degree of Industrialization in that empire. By the start of the 20th century, it was merely a paper empire on a map that was highly inefficient, backwards and impoverished. The United States used mass production and it's more streamlined Industrialization to displace the British and European model with the American system. The two world Wars only sped that process up. By 1950, the United States would've been the undisputed Superpower even without the 2 World Wars due to it's more efficient and streamlined Industrialization and economy.
Britian was finished by 1900 and it's Empire was on borrowed time.
When you look at the state of Britain today, and also what the state of western Europe is today,then I'd have to say two world wars have not done any of the western European nations,or Britian any favours.
I would like to see these historians debate "The Hittite Empire should not have fought in the Battle of Kadesh."
Finally someone brave enough to ask the real questions 😤
Athens may not have been given the choice. Do you mean she should not have pursued hegemony?@@Winston.S.Churchill
The 1st speaker was given 6 minutes and told to hurry up as he had actually taken 11mins! wtf
+Dan Green That's what i was thinking. The time keepers stupid.
+Ceejay The timekeeper is Edward Lucas who is biased and against the motion
+Dan Green Indeed. That was pretty blatant.
+Dan Green Indeed. That was pretty blatant.
+Dan Green he says it was 11 en was really only 6
The first speaker was cut off too quickly, he was extremely interesting.
They all had same amount of time allocated 😂
He was close to being fractaly wrong
Very interesting
@@neddevine7692 did u mean counter fractaly wrong?
@@Realliberal LOL, in retrospect... yes. I probably should've stated just like that.
A guide to listening :
•-(2:08) Dominic Sandbrook, historian (aye to the statement: “Britain should not have fought in WW I”);
•-(10:25) Max Hastings, historian (nay)
•- (19:47) John Charmley, historian (aye);
•-(29:55) Margaret MacMillan, historian (nay).
As an Irishwoman, it is difficult to listen to much of this debate without being able to counter statements about the rights of little nations, the indignation at the invasion of Belgium by the Germans, the pillaging of Belgium by Germany, all the while facts about the devastation of my own little nation by Britain over a period of 700 or more years tangle and snarl my mind like dark spectres.
Someone in the debate mentioned that in excess of 6,000 Belgians (out of a population of about 7.5 million) had been killed by Germany on this unthinkable invasion. Alongside a figure of anywhere between 200,000 to 600,000 Irish (out of a population of about 2 million) slaughtered by Britain's much cherished Oliver Cromwell, this does seem almost incidental―rather more like a very bad year on the roads. Or a tenth of British deaths in the first year of Covid.
I know that, nowadays, just as Brits should not "mention the war", we in Ireland are not supposed to mention the famine of 1845-1850. But it is difficult to overlook the fact that British landowners were exporting shipload after shipload of food grown on our little island by their Irish serfs while one million of our eight million people, many evicted by their Anglo Irish landlords, lay in ditches, dying of starvation and being eaten by scavenging dogs, and another million people emigrated to avoid such a horrendous death.
In this debate, there was mention of commonwealth countries whose people fought alongside Britain in the Great War. There was no mention of the tens of thousands of Irishmen who joined the British Army, driven to this by the need to feed their families in a country stripped of all its assets by its imperial neighbour.
No place at the table for this little nation.
Thank you. Finally some true perspective.
It is to the credit of Irish people that they do not detest the Brits even more than they already do. 😑
That's very much it. Britons remain blissfully blind to their own faults but then harp about what the Romans, the Vikings, the Germans and the Americans did to them for decades and centuries. It's not just the war they don't want to mention, it's entire segments of their history they keep in the closet to show off the more glorious ones.
@dannytallmage2409 the beer in both countries are good but the Irish win on poets novelists and dramatists !!
It seems many Irish have a one sided negative view of Israel.
Azza terrorists used boys as human shields.
Liberal pc Irish encourage the Palestinians to be victemcrats.
Think of the justification of the abusive husband syndrome.
.. There must be a reason for his violent rage.
Arab tribal waring mindset is self perpetuating.
It's double standard. Intolerant Irish liberals puts a high definition microscope on Israel while ignoring the horrible atrocities of the surrounding mideast countries.
Israel used knock knock bombs to warn that a destructive explosive old follow.
Terrorists fire missles from schools.
Materials from western Europe for Palestinian schools are re-directed to build tunnels for purposes of murdering Jewish families.
Be a truth seeker.
The first guy only had 8 mins
The person timing majorly messed up, telling the speaker he’d been talking 11 minutes when it had only been 7.
yeh noticed that
Thought the same, absolutely cut short which was a pity as he was strong
Radley2612 what?
The first man into WW1? Bloody bad luck! ; (
The Kaiser offered peace without territorial gains or compensation about 6 times and it was refused....that says it all..
True but then the Dulles brothers would not have been able to asset strip Germany. Which is what it was all about.
@Darren Hughes WW1 was the beginning of the end for Great Britain.
@Jonas Pell "Utter nonsense lie"
How so? That clearly is what the Entente did after the war, so it seems like you ought to provide a measure of evidence to back up your assertion.
@Jonas Pell The USA made money selling weapons breaking the neutrality and watching the Europeans kill each other. France, GB, and the USA eliminated the German industrial power. Bismarck united Germany, and it became a strong industrial competitive power with some 10 nations sharing borders with Germany. That could not be tolerated.
@Darren Hughes They would have rounded Britons up into concentration camps same as they did to 5M Russians, 6M jews and god know how many other non catholics, which is actually who funded and handled Hitler...who was a Jesuit. And you all know it, stupid traitors.
So what was the point of the conference ?
Not a word about Churchill's role as a warmonger.
In WW1, hadn't really head about that, if your talking WW2, he was definitely not warmongering there, he saw Hitler for who he really was, I'm saying that b/c people back then and somewhat now as well call/called him a warmonger for WW2. So inform me of his warmongering role in the first war, I knew he was First Lord of the Admiralty back in 1914, he was fired for the Gallipoli fiasco in 1915, then became Minister of Munitions
Oh, there you are, I wondered where the usual idiot was.
Churchill is a sacred cow to most brits. Even tho he was arguably massively responsible for both world wars and ultimately the decline of the UK
From a purely British perspective (which I may not truly have as an American) I would say that it was in Britain's best interest to stay out of the war. The Great War lead Britain down a path that inevitably resulted in the loss of its empire and the end of its status as a great power. If it had stayed out of the war, it could've taken up America's role as the creditor of the warring powers, gaining quite a large sum of money, and possibly keeping its empire intact for much longer. Not saying this is best for everyone, but just from a British perspective.
Germany and the United States had already surpassed the UK economically and industrially.
They had, and there was realistically no way any European nation could surpass the U.S. However, the British would've been able to retain their empire and, as a major creditor of the war, could've built their economy quite a bit with the money they gained while Germany threw its back into a full-fledged war against France and Russia.
Marek, I may be wrong about this, but I think the B. Crown, from the time of Victoria's later reign, to present, has kept its financial wealth separate from the financial needs of the nation. I suspect that they, by many indications, were shrewd enough to move their wealth generation from the more obvious location connected to "Empire", formally, to more unseen methods. For example, they are the controlling stockholders in Archer Daniels Midland, the largest food company worldwide, & in the Bank of California (I have a personal friend who was VP-Venture Cap., SE Asia, who told me about the bank), and MANY other large entities, worldwide. They simply moved the location of wealth, and the method, to some degree. They have very unsafe centralized MONOPOLISTIC control of power in many central areas of provision for mankind, globally. Their power did not decrease with the formal Empire's decline; it mutated ----powerfully and with as big a footprint as in days of old.
Yep, that's right. AND, as well, without England in the war, then Germany could have dispensed with Russia without sending Lenin back to Moscow, with the horrendous fallout that that is continuing to generate. Germany would not have invaded England, I suspect. That wasn't Germany's strategic design.
@MrCrowsy I don't know of any evidence that Blair is a liar. Perhaps you do?
I believe the two separate debates should have been had:
1) Should Britain have fought knowing what they knew in 1914?
2) Should Britain have fought knowing what is known today?
Exactly that.
It is possible to find out the answer to 1) but it wouldn't be interested to most people as it is sifting through a lot of boring documents what people knew then.
Answer to 2) would be fascinating - we need to create alternative scenario what would happen - but they would never agree on what the result would be.
@@goshky i dont know, pretending that a historical person had a time machine sure is fun but i dont think it will be very productive
2) is quite an absurd question to discuss and consider to begin with. To quote Putin: "If a grandma had balls she would be a grandpa".
@@user-mb3dx5fl9f I cannot agree. This is a thought experiment that we do it all the time. In fact a failure to do so might make one make the same decision again in the future that with hindsight we might realize wasn’t the way to go in the first place.
I understand that UK was fighting against Germany . As, if Germany had won ww 1 and captured France, Belgium and other part of Europe then it would have treated UK same like America treated Cuba . So it makes completely sense for UK soldiers to sacrifice their life for their country. But I can't understand why Australian, Canadian and Indian were sacrificing their life for UK.. Only dumb and idiots would have fought on UK side or may be for money.
This is one of my most loved debates. They used wonderful guest opponents that gave striking opening speeches and thought filled arguments to push their positions on the subject. I for one would need weeks to ready for either side of this debate and I'm a poor example of an armature. Thank you both sides.
Very interesting conversations. Both points of view are fascinating.
Herzlichen Dank für diesen sehr ausgewogenen und instruktiven Vortrag!
For: Dominc Sandbrook [02:08] to [10:18]
Dr. John Charmly [19:47] to [29:40]
Against: Max Hasting [10:25] to [19:46]
Dr. Margeret McMillan [29:56] to [40:22]
Dr. Albert Schram I have seen on a few occasions where in these debates that the speaker either cuts short those he disagrees with and gives greater length to those whom he agrees with. Another example in this one.
That should be in the description
@@alfiesimm5011 ?? I can see only seconds difference. I made this index for my students to have quick access and skip the introductions.
The problem being that you have two generalists for and two specialists against. Hastings and McMillan have written well-received books on the Great War; they bring more to the argument than attitude.
@@steveparadis2978 This is a valid point in this specific case, however, in general a generalist historian (like myself) can still present a well-documented and reasoned point of view which is a bit more than "attitude".
Brava, Bravo. What wonderful impassioned debate. If only there were more of this calibre !
My great-grandfather (mother's paternal grandfather) emigrated from the UK to the west coast of Canada in 1912 with his wife and seven children. When 1914 came he immediately got on a train (at his own expense), and a steamer (also at his own expense) to get himself to the Admiralty in London, presented his Royal Navy Reserve commission and asked for a suitable commission. He was given command of a minesweeper and served till 1918 at which point he returned home to his wife and children and got on with his life until his death in Britain in 1936 where he had travelled to witness the coronation (the one that never was) of King Edward VIII. While there he caught pneumonia and was buried in his home town.
My point is that what he did 1914 despite the size of his family was NOT considered the least unusual. That's why my son is named for him today. He was an inspiration to the whole family and was and remains admired to this day. THAT was how people then thought about their country and their duty to it.
Quite interesting points of view - especially as a viewer from Germany. You do not hear those kind of thoughts over here. Thanks for this one!
Cause you lost!
@@calidude1114 witty retort. You must be proud...
We should never have fought WW1. There would never have been a Hitler or WW2 if there hadn’t been WW1. So sad. Such a stupid war.
What do you hear over in Germany? I'm genuinely curious.
@@longandshort6639 I'm not saying it was inevitable, but the sad reality is that World War I was a very very likely scenario
"That can't be 10 minutes?"
"Eleven minutes."
- Video is at 9 minutes something seconds.
He got the floor @2:30 didn't start talking until @2:39 The stole 3+ minutes from him.
Dirty tricks or honest mistake?
Tricky mistakes
JRMCNEA Why'd they do that?
But surely you must have thoughts one the arguments? They are eloquent speakers. What they said must be more important than 60 seconds here or there. Isn't that the issue here ?
As a belgian, first of all thank you for saving us. But then again, its somewhat bitter that our country was used as a battlefield for a conflict from the bigger countries surrounding us. My region in West flanders was erased.
It was about the ancient old struggle between Germans and Romans (back then the Romans, later the French) during the First World War and to some extent, during the Second World War. The Germans fought for all Germanic-speaking people in both wars.
Historians say that both wars were a war between France and Germany, especially the first one. And in a broader sense, it was a war of the French against Germanic-speaking Continental Europe, similar to the time of Napoleon. France was THE nation in Europe for 300 years, constantly producing conflicts.
@@rb3058 Austrians started WWI. The french are not to blame for that one.
@@vladibalan historians all over the world are not your opinion. One main reason for WWI was the French alliance with Russia (encirclement of Germany), which must be seen in the context of French revanchism, because in 1870 they lost Alsace-Lorraine - a territory with 98% German-speakers in 1914. I recommend reading articles and books of the Australian-British historian Christopher Clark.
@@rb3058 Some historians have some opinions, others have opposing opinions. Much like this videos. But there's objective truth. You can believe what you want, but Austro-Hungary declared first the war, even when Serbia bent over backwards to get a peace. That's a fact. You can try mental gymnastics if you want...
@@vladibalan "Some historians have some opinions, others have opposing opinions." - NO. Regarding WWI thats not true. Only a few events are as well researched as WWI. There is relative consensus among historians worldwide regarding the causes of WWI. Moreover, you do not understand the difference between long-term causes and short-term causes, which are distinguished in science. A short-term cause (occasion) is always relatively irrelevant in the end. It is usually just the straw that breaks the camel's back. Around 1900, it was clear that the great war was coming.
Britain didn't invent the concentration camp. The Spanish did during their war in Cuba before the British.
Britain may have invented the _term_ 'concentration camp', but their camps - though hardly laudable - were a very different thing from the Nazi death camps with which we associate those words. Their purpose as the name implies was to _concentrate_ the civilian population - so that they would not be able to support Boer fighters - and there was not a deliberate intention of harming them. The deaths in them, sad though they are, were the result of poor management rather than policy, and nowhere near the Nazi scale.
A guy named Saul invented a similar type of camp for the new heretics called “Christians” before he was famously knocked off his horse by an epileptic lightning bolt on his way to Damascus and insisted that his name was P-P-P- Paul when he woke up. He then directed his persecutional energies elsewhere.
@@paddymeboyYou can post case justify it all you want but it was still a systemic rounding up of people where people, women and children, were left in dire conditions, undersupplied and unsanitary. Many of these people had no relation to the Boer fighters but because they didn’t know who was assisting them we rounded up civilians anyway. We shouldn’t have even been there, Britain invaded countries all over the world and raped them of them of their resources. We were on par with the Nazis if not worse as our kill count far exceeds the number of people killed in their death camps so please god don’t try underplay their horrific acts including the concentration camps in Britain.
@@nostrildamusmctavish5542Better call Saul (I didn't read what you said I just saw the name Saul)
Sadly the English did introduce the concentration camp during the Boer war and treated the people as badly as the Germans did - I am of English descent and know history - It is just one of many shameful parts of english history
How could that first guy have been talking for 10 minutes when we were only 9 minutes into the clip and the chairman spend several minutes announcing what was gonna happen?
The chairman messed up a bit there :D
Perhaps an imperfect time keeping device?
@@CuFhoirthe88 Just an incompetent timekeeping chairman. Sandbrook was robbed. Not that I agree with his case.
@@MatthewMcVeagh Been a little while since I watched this. I feel like I could guess Sandbrook's side based entirely on his name, but remind me anyway; he's pro-war right?
@@CuFhoirthe88 No he was anti.
@@MatthewMcVeagh Huh, I shall have to watch again to find the shot.
Take a drink every time someone says “counterfactual”
i died
It's the most important word & concept in language, with several billion who can read & write, and opinions on the present & future based on those of the past, we have several billion revisionists all trying to write their own history.
What should I have? Strong whiskey? Extra Stout?
@@giupiete6536 You're right, drink is the most important word.
Take a drink every time someone proposes a drinking game and you'll _really_ become sloshed.
Agreed, Britain should have stayed out. France still refusing to pay a penny on war loans is proof enough that it was a thankless task keeping them free of being a German colony.
This is an excellent debate ..I’ve watched it a number of times ..it makes you sit and consider your own position which is a testament to the quality of the contributors.
Kaiser Frederick III shouldn't have smoked
Kaiser Wilhelm I was not a war hawk in spite of his flamboyant rhetoric. His warnings against the "Yellow Danger" sound again today and again they are the preparations for taking China apart. The strongest impetus for war came from the British foreign secretary Grey. The aim of his group was to stop the economic rise of Germany (see Christopher Clark: Sleepwalkers, the title tells a different story than the content).
@@knightalexius593 I think you are right
This is a brilliant discussion format. 🍀👍
Thank you very much.
Great discussion and questions.Does Max Hastings come out of this debate well? The panel certainly knows more about 1914 than I do!
Mr Chomley further states that Great Britain didn’t come into the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) to help the French so why help them in 1914…completely ignoring the fact that the French declared war on Germany in 1870 (yes, they were goaded into it, but that is irrelevant). In 1914 it was the Germans who attacked the French…something that Wilhelm had long dreamed of. Mr. Chomley seems to have only the facts at hand that are convenient.
Enjoyable and informative 10/10
"War is a racket."
General Butler
"Tennis, anyone?" - Humphrey Bogart
The German Emperor did not want war (when there was information that Britain would stay out of the war, Wilhelm II ordered that the German general mobilization be stopped causing a heart attack of the Supreme Military Commander Moltke) in contrast to Grey and Poincaré. Grey wanted war against Germany to stop its economic rise. Churchill was jubilant when the decision to intervene had been taken.
I think this was a brilliant debate and I really learned a lot.
Of course not. But that's like saying the Vandals "shouldn't have" sacked Rome. The Vandals didn't care and the British ruling elite still don't. See Ukraine and Europe.
Given Britain’s centuries old policy of maintaining the balance of power in the continent, could a conflict with an increasingly powerful Germany really have been avoided?
While Britain trampled over half the world?? So it was okay for Britain to colonize Africa and India but not for Germany to potentially take over Europe?? Why not?
@@chuckcribbs3398
I wasn’t discussing right or wrong here, so you’re off on a tangent.
From a pragmatic point of view England simply could not allow any one power to maintain hegemony over the entire continent. It would have left the country isolated and it’s supply lines vulnerable. This explains the 100 years war and the conflict with Napoleon, Hitler and Germany under the Kaiser.
Autodidact 1965 except Germany wasn't a hegemon yet, and we know with hindsight they didn't plan on any real territorial change at the begining. Ww1 was not a war that was going to massively change the balance of power in Europe.
Furthermore britian's role in hegemonic conflicts was mostly 1 of money supplier. It largely stayed out of the conflicts untill the end. A role they abandoned in ww1, and 1 taken over by America for that war and ww2.
If Britian really wanted to follow its past tradition, it should have stayed out of the war, atleast at the begining.
Britain was dragged in as Germany had attacked Belgium which Britain guaranteed. It didn’t want to be apart of the war as it was happy not being involved.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I don't trust any imperial power to remain conservative and moderate with their post-war goals. Just look at how horrible Brest-Litovsk was; you can't tell me that GB's participation in the war was one of the sole reasons that happened. It would be nice if all wars were avoidable, but it's just not realistic. I'm very certain that Nationalism still becomes a driving force of the 20th century, and GB inevitably loses its empire to a swell in nationalistic pride in the commonwealths and other imperial holdings like India and Egypt.
Not to get to alternate history fanatic here, but even without GB in WWI, WWII is going to happen. Maybe with different players on different sides and different pieces, but it's still going to happen. Communism is going to blow up across continental Europe regardless of GB, and the Tsar will be replaced by the Bolsheviks. Maybe we avoid Fascism and Nazism, but are faced with a massive Communist crisis instead.
There is no happy ending for GB where they avoid the loss of many brave and courageous men, they just save one generation to damn another.
“The poor old Ostrich died for nothing”
Well, Archie Duke was hungry after all
Really great debate
Excellent debate!
Nobody should've fought in this war. Too bad almost everyone at the time was too blind to see the unfolding nightmare ahead of them.
That’s true. My grandmothers two brothers were killed, my grandfathers brother was killed and my grandad was very lucky to survive.
I have a postcard in my kitchen of a young soldier in uniform crying. Saying “young men have to die because old men in smoke filled rooms couldn’t come to an agreement.”
Failed politicians again!
What a joy experiencing, and 'blast from the past' remembering something called a legitimate *DEBATE*
Sir Edward Grey told the French Ambassador that Britains public would never fight to defend Serbia but they may be talked into fighting for Belgium
So all small countries aren’t alike are they 😉
A clique in the cabinet and military were determined to take us to war to stand with France come what may
This debate just makes me immensely proud to be British.
Sure, you 've got the Prima Nocta, the Boer wars where you created the concentration camps, the Amritsar massacre, the creation of the conditions for WWI, the signing of the despicable 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler, which made him feel he could do whatever he wanted in Europe and therefore then invaded Poland, Operation Pike, according to which, British and French bombers operating from Turkey would bomb the USSR oil refineries in Caucasus so that the Red Army would run out of oil so that Hitler could continue uninterrupted the slaughter of the Soviets, (The West has the nerve to say that Operation Pike was due to Stalin having signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, conveniently "forgetting" to say that the Pack was signed in 1939, i.e. AFTER the 1938 Munich Agreement, in other words, even mad mad Stalin was the last one to sign any sort of "treaty" with Hitler). And at then of all this, you have Churchill advocating to the Americans to drop the first nuclear bomb, where? On Moscow. Al that is without going to your most recent "glory" days, i.e. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, etc.
@@nomayor1 right???
@@nomayor1 I think you're envious of Western Civilization. "Proud to be British" is generally associated with engineering innovation, progress, education over superstition and industry. It has very little to do with military conquest, adventures abroad or Gunboat diplomacy. Even the British lead in the abolition of global slavery doesn't figure much in this sentiment.
@@sierrawhiskey5155 I shall remind you what Ghandi said when they asked him what he thought about "western civilization". His response was: "I think it would be a great idea". Soon after the Brits got kicked out of India.
@@nomayor1 Evolution begets oppressive behaviour, it's in our nature; the judgement should be a matter of comparison. Civilization is perhaps a measure of how successfully the culture moderates nature. Western civilization has achieved this better than most. The Left lure in the gullible with their fallacious argument that they will deliver a perfect Utopia and that it is reasonable to judge against that.
Once the British left India the Partition put an end to any myth of an inherently genteel Oriental culture. The recent antics of Buddhists in Sri Lanka further confirm this.
the first guy got shut up because they didnt like the truth
It seems to be like that!
I would listen to him than rest!
Please elaborate, I trust your judgement and these supportive comments seem genuine.
He got the first glass clink at 6 minutes, another at 7 which addled him (since I'm sure he had timed his opener on many rehearsal occasions), and then got booted at 8 minutes, when he was scheduled to speak for a full 10 minutes! Very unfair!
Thought it was an honest mistake
Communication is the key to avoiding war.
In 1914, everyone thought that was it was going to be a quick war, that it would end by Christmas. That’s something that I don’t recall anyone bringing up in this debate. The closest thing I heard was whether or not Britain at the time thought the war would be a stalemate or not.
Because that's a popular myth. There's evidence many in government understood it would be a long drawn out war and that in the UK for example our war industry was tiny because the BEF was small and we wouldn't be able to fight a major offensive until 1915 at the earliest because we didn't have the shells.
Battleplans are always perfect to garantee a quick and glorious victory....... till the first shot and then it goes pearshape.
It's because it invalidates the entire premise of the argument. It looked like a fairly simple defensive war against an upstart revisionist power, and the strategic stalemate rendered by new technologies was an unanticipated challenge for either side. Moreover, I don't think enough is made of how sunken costs increasingly meant that the war could not simply be stepped back from. Each side needed to force the total capitulation of the other to pay its war debts, meaning that a face-saving peace was not an option.
FuuuckOffff except it doesn't because the "over by Christmas" thing was not something actually believed by the governments, well not the British government anyway.
The entante knew that Germany was strong. It wasn't dismissed as some upstart empire by any of the entante powers.
And the British specifically were actually warning about the nature of modern warfare being a slow drawn out affair (due to their experiance against the boers in South africa, which was trench warfare and a slow grind where even the might of the British empire had to grind down a bunch of farmers with no industry over several years of fighting. The British military and government understood very well Germany would be even harder. Haveing a well trained, well equipped, large military. Its army had more modern equipment than the entante and was larger than the entant at the begining of the war). Its why the small BEF did better than the french in 1914. Despite being much smaller. They alone knew somewhat what modern warfare looked like.)
So no they didn't avoid it becuase it undermined their arguement. They avoided it because no serious discussion about britian's choice at the time should mention it.
@@FuuuckOffff It's such a sad thing because evidently there would be ceasefires for Christmas.. that would sometimes continue for a bit longer than originally agreed. The reluctance of the particpants to return to "normal."
Well neither should France Germany or America have ever fought in WWI
When your friend and his 8 month pregnant wife is assassinated, I want you to sit there and act like nothing is wrong too.
It could be argued Germany and Austria and some actual moral justification for fighting.
@@lord2529 when you friend is killed and you decide to invade a whole country for the action of 1 man. Then you're crazy
@@creolito9600 When that one man is the leader/ future leader of a country, I want you to defend the person responsible with your life.
@@lord2529 even when it risks general European war?
The first speaker Dominic Sandbrook was short-changed by three minutes.
It’s a real shame that was an outstanding opening statement
the chairman was just being merciful
His name was Sandbrook wasn't it?
@@hywelgething4943 You're right. I have modified my original post.
I wold have voted yes, that Britain should have stayed out of WW1.
We should have joined the Central Powers in 1914.
Britain's policy has always been to oppose a united european continental power. When it was France that dominated, it was against it; When after nearly ten european coalitions against it, it became Germany, Britain switched.
And for crying out loud, stop explaining historical events EXCLUSIVELY with moral arguments ! The taking of alsace lorraine was not just separating french populations from each other; It was a breach of France's natural frontiers, already disadvantaging the french in the Sedan area, that simply couldn't stay.
Then France should of not declared war on Germany. During the 1800s the German states were constantly under threat by the French.....they had every right to grab that area as a buffer.
NJtuber88
I'm curious to see what "rights" those are:
Every state is a threat to its neighbours and/or their interests. France and Prussia in particular were no exceptions.
It's as much a buffer as Northern Ireland is. it's a bridgehead.
Anyway, i don't see how the debatable points you made are relevant on discussing UK's policy and the oversimplification in explaining of geostrategic decisions.
Alsace and Lorraine had sizable German populations, the "French natural frontier" was Napoleon's concoction, one that Britain was happy to fight against at the time...
canicheenrage 'Seizing' an area is perfectly OK, as long as a majority of the people are for it (or at least neutral, in other words couldn't care either way).
If taking people, dividing them up, or annexing lands leads to discontent, it is obviously wrong.
Why would anybody advocate measures of short-term gain (aka 'land-grabbing'), if such measures lead to long-term instability? (widespread hate, civil unrest, and potential for war)
As long as the people who live on the lands don't object, who the f*ck cares what the 'establishment' or the 'elites', think?
NJtuber88 didn't Germany declare war on France
first guy was short changed by 3 minutes...
Yeah 😣
Took u a while
Quite confusing that Hastings ensists that the Kasier would impose a peace similar to breast-litovsk. Because the Kasier did not have de-facto leadership in 1918, Hindenburg and Luddendorf did. Luddendorf himself being notably more autocratic, as well as the famine issue by 1918 required a seizure of Ukrainian grain.
They didn’t, they call this a period of military dictatorship because civil law was subordinated to the military. The emperor held plenary power when it came to using military directives, and both Ludendorff and Hindenburg required the emperors approval.
The people dying in the war are not the people in charge and responsible for the war.
The people debating the war are not the people who will fight the next war.
It is amusing to debate, it is less amusing to lose one's family and one's comrades.
If war was democratic and stripped of propaganda, how many wars would be fought ?
oh i think you are wrong. i think the toffs will be running for cover,when the working men have the balls to kill some of them, so we wont wait on the english to do it. cowards.
This question is only valid in a world in which EVERY side votes in some Democratic process whether or not to go to war.
As is so well put in a famous WW1 Novel, "Give them all the same food, & all the same pay, & the War would be over & done in a day."
The self-proclaimed "elite's" don't go to war. They send other's to suffer & die for their bloated arrogance & vainity posing as ambition.
we are taught to hold grudges, by school systems, MSM, etc. Grudges and Greed are fraternal (non-identical) twins that make wars possible.
TULSI 2020!
No more brothers wars.
This was utterly absorbing and tremendously fascinating.
Only took you a 100 years to figure that one out…
None of the great powers anticipated the slaughter.
misterjag Why did England blame Germany for starting WW I? Germany did not start WW I. Why was Germany forced to sign such an unfair war reparations agreement? It led to WW II. Germany had legitimate land claims prior to WW II. Poland was unreasonable in not negotiating transportation rights concerning Danzig and the Poles were slaughtering German speaking people on newly annexed Poland areas.
@@thomaspick4123 Why did England blame Germany for starting WW I? Germany's black cheek maybe?
@@thomaspick4123 What was unfair about reparations? You have forgotten that the retreating Germans deliberately devastated the French lands they had been occupying during the war, e.g. flooding mines. It would cost France an enormous amount to repair the damage, it was not unreasonable for the Germans to pay reparations for the damage they caused.
@@harmlessdrudge The reparations were meant as a punishment for starting the war. Germany didn't start the war. It started in the Balkans. It involved the Serbians and the Austro-Hungarians. Then the Russians got involved. Then the Germans. Then the French. Then the English.
@@patrickoxford682 Isn't the real point that Germany was the main player on the losing side? Reparations are never paid by the victors.
Haven't heard English accents like this since Star Wars A New Hope.
Haven’t been to England then, I see.
You'd prefer them to sound like the Swedish Chef????
@@georgemorley1029 I live in Cumbria haha
Other than Ms. MacMillan’s educated Canadian, all of these gentlemen are at least RP, if not U, -speakers.
I have in real life, and I am from Iceland.
When you look at Britain today, you have every right to be proud of your past, and to strive for a high future, but for Gods sake don’t keep on as things ARE.
I like how the Second Gentleman on the left argues that the war ending in 1914 would have been different than what happened when the war ended in 1918 but then insists on an argument that the French recovered from the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) by 1875…as if circumstances (financial and political) in 1875 were no different than 1914 or 1918…. The difference of the four years between 1914 and 1918 was significant, but the difference between 1871 and 1914…43 years…was not. And on a separate note, the Kaiser had plans in 1905 to attack the United States (without provocation) by positioning his warships off the coast and shelling New York City. No one should fight ANY war…if only that would include nations led by people like Kaiser Bill and more recently V. Putin.
An interesting debate that unfortunately leaves out some relevant historical details. The railway between Berlin and Teheran that would have cut out the British intermediary, the French and British investments in Russia and so on. Without these layers, I believe it is a reduced version of what it could have been.
They told the first speaker he'd been going for 11 minutes when it had been less than 7.... how bizarre.
Obviously, the chairman was becoming uncomfortable with the ‘off message’ historical truths being highlighted.
This is a great debate despite it being serious there’s comedic moments
The cost was not worth it ! Britain should have stayed out of it.
Britain was the strongest World power before the War. They lost this status after the War. Therefore I can understand that one could think that not fighting would have been better. But what is missing is that Britain _became_ the strongest World power by fighting _a lot_ of wars, to keep the balance of power in Europe and to defend their own interests.
It is not the story of a peaceful country that built an empire out of trade and peace, wasting their position because of joining a useless war. It is the story of a country becoming a World power by fighting battle after battle, that supposedly should have withdrew from one specific war because we know _now_ that it will be a very costly endeavour.
Knowing everything we know now, I can understand the debate. Without knowing that it will be the bloodiest war in history, there is no debate. To withdraw from international agreements, to tell Germany that they could take Belgium even if Britain publicly told that they would defend their neutrality, to tell the World that Britain will not interfere to protect their interests elsewhere because they do not want to fight the Germans, would have meant to lose any sort of power outside the islands.
Britain was the strongest World power before the War. They lost this status after the War. But they would have lost it the very moment they would have accepted Germany invasion of Belgium and invasion of France without interferences.
I fully agree!
Not really . The empire would largely have been unaffected on account of British superior naval power .And there were no treaties in place that guaranteed British military support for France or Belgium or Russia if the Central Powers attacked them . German militarists sought to make a pre-emptive strike against their continental enemies that would render those armies useless for the forseeable future . To go on a counter factual historical journey : they would have achieved this aim fairly quickly , the result being a certain degree of economic and military dominance of central europe by Germany that was unsustainable and only temporarily staved off the forces of liberalism and democracy in both Germany and Austria . Without WW1 those countries would probably now resemble the UK (ie constitutional monarchies ). The Romanovs would have likely soldiered on for a while longer , although the tsar would probably have been forced to abdicate in favour of one of his relatives in 1914 . No Bolshevik revolution , no wipeout of European monarchies , no Hitler, no WW2 , no holocaust , no cold war . Of course going too far with hypothetical history is dangerous . But if we accept that Austria ,Germany and Serbia (and Russia up to a point) were ultimately responsible for initiating a localized European war , and that Britain was responsible for turning it into a global conflict drawing it out for over four years - then we have to accept that the awful consequences of that fateful decision were not worth the sacrifice .
By 1922 Britain France and Italy had partitioned the Turkish middle east and now all the oil resources were in their control without having to leave big armies in the area ?
WWI was pound for pound the most pointless war ever fought.
My great grandfather who fought in the 1st wwar said Britain should not have got involved. He and many soldiers did not like Churchill and said he was a warmonger er.
WW keep different region of us weak, so the strong walks out after the war to rule us. Just follow the money and war benefited organizations of those wars.
The Balfour Declaration would like a word with you.
There’s literally been a war over a bucket
@@SuperBigwinston Should your great grandfather's opinion be the deciding factor in our view of Churchill?
The perfect hindsight lectures
One thing is certain: Britian's involvement in WW1 deprived it of a whole generation of young men. If those men had survived they would have been a tremendous asset for progress, and they would have sired the next generation to carry on.
That remark could be applied to all the countries in Europe.
@@leonidasthermopylae3378 sort of but not quite. British and German heads of state were cousins. Germany originally wanted to have better relations with Britain while Britain wanted to avoid continental affairs. Britain, unlike continental countries, had the option to stay neutral. If Britain revoked its guarantee on Belgium, it could have not only avoided the war but also benefitted from it like the Dutch.
@@sasi5841 Britain has always made sure that there not a single power who rules europe. Besides the UK had an agreement at the time with Russia. The UK had no other choice.
I believe they were the first ’lost generation’ of many to follow.
They had to die to reduce the amount of white people in Europe while also lining the pockets of jews
Artillery had hugely improved; along with Maxim's machine guns were ready to kill millions.
And barbed wire, logistics, railways and medical systems!
Nobody should have fought in the First World War. As Upton Sinclair pointed out, the First World War was the responsibility of the Arms Merchants, and not for the last time.
Nobody should have fought in World War I. The only ones with a possible claim were Austria and Serbia, and they should have resorted to diplomacy.
These people only talk about british lives, but do not talk about indian troops who died in india.
I must say I am quite dissapointed with this debate. Max Hastings repeteadly accuses Germany's civil government not to be in control of its military, and uses that as an example as to why eventhough German civilians probably had the highest quality of life in Europe the country itself was a country that needed to be dealt with. However, every time he is reminded of the fact that Grey had made an alliance with the French and Russians behind the parliament's back, he sweeps it under that carpet saying it was not Britains finest hour but what can you do. The same happens when somebody in the audience reminds them that the British massacred over 30.000 civilians in the boer wars. Once again, according to Mas Hastings that was a detestable incident, but nothing as evil and bad as the German massacre of 6.000 Belgian civilians.
He consistently gives out of context quotations about German high figures, most of them expressed during moments of crisis or high tension. If only he provided some of the things the French and Russians, or even the British had said over the years, people would get a full picture.
They contrinuosly portray the tripple alliance (or what was left of it) as an offensive move rather than the defensive one it really was in light of what had happened during the Morrocan crisis.
The British military did make plans with the french, but parliament refrained from watching all that, after all they had the blanket of "No commitment" over their heads!
"German massacre of 6.000 Belgian civilians"
6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country, and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.
There are different types of "Historians " some hard working who will dig for facts for years, and publish.
Others (Lazy ones) write a book and quote 10-20 books/authors who they have referred to and do no new research.
Historians who grew up in War time and let the propaganda /parental/ personal experiences', and not facts influence them.
Max Hastings is the "establishment historian" Factual,researched but with a biased slant towards his country of birth.
having dealt with published historians this tends to be my experience.
Germany's industrial capacity was seen by GB as a threat, as at that time, the pound was declining because too much emphasis had been put on banking.
It's all about banking and profit, not about morality and chivalry .....
and it was not germany that ended the empire or was it russia ..... the government of the united states destroyed the Empire.
@@whitephoenixofthecrown2099 called the Eisenhower doctrine
Always has been the case. Nations and leaders bank on the facade on morality and the greater good whenever it suits their agendas. China is using those exact same arguments for its colonial expansion today, and the book in which they are using as a guide was written by the British and the Dutch.
And Germany is still the major power on the continent which is not surprising given its location size and industrial engineering capacity.
Britain should have stayed well away from conflict in 1914
Also, Germany was leading in many important sciences of that time like chemistry and in the use of electricity. Quality of steel products was excellent.
Britain had lost or came close to loose her leadership worldwide in
many markets.
This whole argument doesn't make sense. Before the war, Britain was the de-facto superpower and they were comfortably ahead of Russia, France the USA and anyone else. Germany was the country that put that status quo in danger more than anyone else. The Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine had spent the last 15 years having an arms race against each other. Also, if Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (the original triple alliance) took on France and Russia, there's a very good chance that they'd emerge victorious. So with one war Germany could have established herself as the largest power in continental Europe and could have taken with treaties some of France's colonies and that posed significant danger both to British colonies but also to British commerce and the Royal Navy. The German fleet was still less powerful than the British one, but also far more powerful than the French Navy. Now imagine such a powerful fleet suddenly having bases at former French held territory. Britain was the power that most benefitted from retaining the status quo and thus it made perfect sense for them to fight against the rival that threatened to topple said status quo. So Britain had many good reasons to want to shut down Germany.
4:15 "We should have given Europe to the Kaiser so we could have kept our morally just Empire." (not the exact words.)