WW1 - was it worth it?

[indierich06]

Thought I'd start a topic on this, seeing as it's nearly 100 years since the most devastating conflict in human history. TBH, I find it all absolutely fascinating - the BBC has been doing some brilliant documentaries about it recently too, Paxman's 4 part series and Max Hasting's 'The Necessary War' in particular were absolutely outstanding.

 

But was it worth it? Was it a war that needed to be fought? In my opinion, yes. It's tempting to look at the body count and say that it was all a tragic waste, and there's no question that it took a horrendous toll on every country that participated. But Germany and the Kaiser weren't going away and if we'd shied away from war in 1914, all we would have done is delayed a conflict for a few years and replaced it with one that we may have been completely incapable of winning. I'm proud to say that my country stood up to these tyrants. My great-great-grandfather died during the war and me and my dad recently received his personal effects and medals - we've had them all mounted and framed and they're proudly displayed in my dad's house, and one day I'll display them in mine becuase we should never ever forget the horror and sacrifice that these men faced IMO.

 

But what are everyone else's opinions? I know it's a very divisive subject, but as I said - I think it's an absolutely fascinating part of history.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Rich, spot on IMO buddy. What an absolute waste of human life, however sadly probably necessary due to some of the issues you have already outlined.

I also agree some of the programmes already this year about the First World War have been fascinating viewing, if a little sad to say the least

[Mark_w]

I think the terms of the Treaty of Versailles negate any positive impact the first world war may have had.

[Captain...]

It was a just and valid war, but the attitudes of those at the top that the men were just expendable pawns rather than human beings was shocking. The conditions of the war were horrific and the loss of life just unfathomable.

 

I still find the Christmas day football match incredible, and more inspiring than any act of bravery and aggression.

 

I also still find it incredible the number of lives lost after the armistice was signed. I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating the armistice was not signed at 11:00, 11/11. It was signed at 5:00am to come into effect at 11:

 

 

On November 11, 1918, Armistice Day, the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) on the Western Front in France suffered more than thirty-five hundred casualties, although it had been known unofficially for two days that the fighting would end that day and known with absolute certainty as of 5 o'clock that morning that it would end at 11 a.m.

[ADK]

Depends what you mean by "was it worth it". It was catastrophic for all countries involved and bankrupted Britain economically as well as costing so many lives. It didn't solve Europe's political problems either and laid the framework that would lead to Nazi Germany.

 

It was largely unavoidable though. Germany under the Kaiser was being belligerent towards Britain and the Empire. The German Navy had no business other than to threaten Britain. After Germany declared war on France and Belgium it would have been incredibly dangerous to allow them to occupy Belgium and France.

[indierich06]

I think the terms of the Treaty of Versailles negate any positive impact the first world war may have had.

 

The problem was that the 'victors' were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The war had taken a toll on those involved unlike any other conflict in human history and there was a real desire to see Germany severely punished, people were baying for blood. It seems to me that whatever happened with the Treaty of Versailles, there never would have been a positive outcome. If Germany hadn't been 'punished' so harshly, there would have been a massive public outcry, but the terms agreed upon in the end were completely unrealistic. I'm pretty sure a lot of the terms were for show and nobody actually expected Germany to fulfill them, but it was more to make sure everyone knew that Germany were being harshly dealt with. So I agree with you, but I'm not sure it could have been a positive process at all really.

 

It was a just and valid war, but the attitudes of those at the top that the men were just expendable pawns rather than human beings was shocking. The conditions of the war were horrific and the loss of life just unfathomable.

 

I still find the Christmas day football match incredible, and more inspiring than any act of bravery and aggression.

 

I also still find it incredible the number of lives lost after the armistice was signed. I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating the armistice was not signed at 11:00, 11/11. It was signed at 5:00am to come into effect at 11:

 

I think the naivety of those at the top was astonishing. They could be forgiven for their blundering at the start of the war - it was a war that was fought unlike any other - the first 'modern' war if you will and many of our best generals would never have experienced anything like it. But to carry on with the trench warfare tactics, using our troops as cannon fodder was not only unforgivable, it was incredibly poor tactically - surely when you see that something isn't working, you change your tactics and find something that DOES work? You don't just plough on regardless.

[indierich06]

Depends what you mean by "was it worth it". It was catastrophic for all countries involved and bankrupted Britain economically as well as costing so many lives. It didn't solve Europe's political problems either and laid the framework that would lead to Nazi Germany.

 

It was largely unavoidable though. Germany under the Kaiser was being belligerent towards Britain and the Empire. The German Navy had no business other than to threaten Britain. After Germany declared war on France and Belgium it would have been incredibly dangerous to allow them to occupy Belgium and France.

 

I suppose 'was it worth it' is a poor choice of phrase - becuase when you weigh up the loss of life to what was actually achieved by the war, then no - it definitely wasn't worth the price that so many had to pay.

 

I think 'was it neccessary' is better and IMO it certainly was necessary. There would have been a war with Germany regardless - we had the choice to meet them on the battlefield when we did, or wait for them to conquer Europe, gain Naval ascendancy, build a vast army and have little chance of beating them.

 

That's why I thought Niall Ferguson's 'The Pity of War' was quite poor. Yes, the loss of life and the repercussions it had were truly awful, but to say that we didn't need to fight that war is just absolute folly. The picture he paints of the Kaiser creating something like the modern day EU under Merkel is absolutely ridiculous. The bloke was unhinged.

[Guest MattP]

It stole what was possibly our greatest generation of men and it's something the country has never truly recovered from.

The impact of losing so many people from your society in such a short space of time is unforgivable, if anyone hasn't read Harry Patch's book, "the last fighting Tommy" then do so.

As sobering as it gets.

[bovril]

I think it was motivated by greed, power, royal-family-fueding and fading notions of imperialism and nationalism. As MattP said, it wiped out a generation of able, intelligent men and led to the rise of facism, communism and all those other drags.

This is not to disrespect the memories of those men who died, including the OP's great grandfather. They gave more for the cause than I could ever imagine and we should always honour their memory.

[indierich06]

It stole what was possibly our greatest generation of men and it's something the country has never truly recovered from.

The impact of losing so many people from your society in such a short space of time is unforgivable, if anyone hasn't read Harry Patch's book, "the last fighting Tommy" then do so.

As sobering as it gets.

 

Agreed, it was absolutely horrific and an unforgivable loss of life - and I think our high command should take as much blame for that as the Germans. It sounds like a bit of a contradiction, but the complete disregard for human life in fighting this war was disgusting.

 

I think it was motivated by greed, power, royal-family-fueding and fading notions of imperialism and nationalism. As MattP said, it wiped out a generation of able, intelligent men and led to the rise of facism, communism and all those other drags.

This is not to disrespect the memories of those men who died, including the OP's great grandfather. They gave more for the cause than I could ever imagine and we should always honour their memories.

 

No disrespect taken at all, I agree that the war, the toll it took and what it lead to was despicable. Thanks to the arrogance of a few, millions of men like my great-great-grandfather had to pay the ultimate price. 

[leicsmac]

It's sobering and provides food for thought that if you consider WWII as a direct corollary of WWI and count the Spanish Flu in too, over 100 million people died as a result of a limosuine driver taking a wrong turn.

 

Of course, all the interlocked alliances and agreements between the nations, as well as utterly incompetent command (as has been mentioned) was a factor once everything started, but it was that one event that was the spark.

 

Sometimes makes you wonder 'What If'?

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

Can any of us say if it was or wasn't? Who knows what would have happened if history hadn't took one fork in the road or another at any point. Guess all we can do is mourn the loss of life and move on.

[Captain...]

Can any of us say if it was or wasn't? Who knows what would have happened if history hadn't took one fork in the road or another at any point. Guess all we can do is mourn the loss of life and move on.

 

We can do more than that though, we can remember and we can learn, and we can do everything we can to ensure that nothing like this or world war 2 ever happen again. Very pertinent now with what that berk in Moscow is doing now in the Crimea, it cannot be allowed to descend into a european conflict, but we cannot let unprovoked aggression go unpunished.

[SOCCERROO FOX]

Can of worms well and truly opened up now

[indierich06]

Can of worms well and truly opened up now

That's what I was hoping for! Can't beat a good FoxesTalk debate.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

That's what I was hoping for! Can't beat a good FoxesTalk debate.

I suppose the are plenty of mass debaters on FT

[MC Prussian]

It's sobering and provides food for thought that if you consider WWII as a direct corollary of WWI and count the Spanish Flu in too, over 100 million people died as a result of a limosuine driver taking a wrong turn.

 

Of course, all the interlocked alliances and agreements between the nations, as well as utterly incompetent command (as has been mentioned) was a factor once everything started, but it was that one event that was the spark.

 

Sometimes makes you wonder 'What If'?

Well, you could go a little further back than that and say it was because the archduke and his wife insisted on seeing the injured that got hit by a grenade (in a car just behind the archduke's) earlier that day.

[Alf Bentley]

The impact of losing so many people from your society in such a short space of time is unforgivable, if anyone hasn't read Harry Patch's book, "the last fighting Tommy" then do so. As sobering as it gets.

 

I second this book recommendation. Patch is thoughtful not only in his recollections of WW1, but also about war in general. It's also very good how his WW1 experience is put in context with some description of his childhood/youth before WW1 and his life for the rest of the century - just a normal (if thoughtful and sensitive) bloke caught up in extraordinary events. I also read the book by Henry Allingham, one of the other last surviving veterans, but found that a lot less moving or interesting. There are various interviews with Patch on Youtube for anyone interested - an articulate man for one so old.

 

I regret the fact that I didn't get to talk more to WW1 veterans when I was growing up. I had 2 great-uncles who fought in WW1, 1 was shot in the buttocks (!) - and was then taken as a Japanese POW in WW2 (unlucky bloke). When I was a cub scout as a kid, we used to join the armistice day parades and there were plenty of WW1 veterans still marching then, but not much was ever explained to us about WW1. The message was more a traditional "respect their sacrifice" (without asking what it was, why they did it, whether it was necessary etc.). Of course, many WW1 veterans just didn't discuss their experiences, though - I think Harry Patch didn't say a word until he was about 100 years old! The only WW1 veteran I ever spoke to properly was this old bloke on my paper round when I was a teenager. He invited me in to see old photos of him in uniform a couple of times, but I suspect that I was too polite (and immature) to ask any sensible questions. I remember that, on my last day (the newsagent stopped doing deliveries), the old bloke was up early, waiting outside to give me a farewell tip. A few years later, he was accidentally killed during a burglary. That still has me welling up thinking about that 35 years later.

 

A couple of years back, while touring Belgium, I walked from Ypres to Passchendaele, a leisurely stroll that took me 3 hours, compared to the 3 years of hell that it took them in WW1. Very eerie, walking through the peaceful green fields. Very emotional, too, seeing all the graves inscribed "A soldier of the Great War, known unto God". I went along to the evening "last post" ceremony at the Menin Gate. It was very well attended; some visitors, but mainly locals, I think.

 

I don't know enough to say whether it was worth it. Maybe this centenary will stimulate me to read into that more - the build-up to WW1, I mean. I suspect that indierich06 is probably right - war would probably have happened sooner or later, so maybe better to have it sooner? His point about the pig-headedness of continuing with trench warfare when it was obviously causing a bloody stalemate is a good one. What would the alternatives have been, though? I don't think tanks were around until late in the war, aircraft were in their infancy and it would presumably have been difficult to negotiate an acceptable peace settlement... 

[Alf Bentley]

A couple of the best ever songs about WW1, no doubt familiar to some... Both written by Eric Bogle, I believe, though these versions are from the 1980s. In the Pogues song, the line "some day no-one will march there at all" has now come true, in one sense (no more veterans), even if people still march in commemoration. How long does it take for collective memory to become history, I wonder... Nobody marches to commemorate the Crimean War (1800s version!) or the Boer War, after all...

 

Pogues:

 

Men they couldn't hang (forward to about 1.00 if you're not bothered about the preliminary chat):

[Jon the Hat]

I think it wasn't in fact the bloodiest conflict in human history by a long way, although obviously still hoerrendous.  In terms of Britain the civil war killed a lot more of our young men.

[Lamby]

I think the terms of the Treaty of Versailles negate any positive impact the first world war may have had.

 

Imo this was one of the factors that started WW2 also, so while in a way you can say national pride was won during WW1, the underlying causes of WW2 were created.

[Mark_w]

Imo this was one of the factors that started WW2 also, so while in a way you can say national pride was won during WW1, the underlying causes of WW2 were created.

 

That was my point.

[l444ry]

Don't think the Germans would say they "started" it. More likely it was Alliances that got out of control. Generals and Leaders on all sides should be regarded as war criminals. This has to be the biggest waste of life in modern history.  

[Lamby]

That was my point.

 

I was making myself look smarter! Even though I did fail it at College, but ssh.

[Charl91]

I think it wasn't in fact the bloodiest conflict in human history by a long way, although obviously still hoerrendous.  In terms of Britain the civil war killed a lot more of our young men.

 

Only as a percentage. In terms of raw numbers, the Civil War is off by a long shot.