The Reason for British Involvement
The British fought in the First World War because there was a serious
threat of the whole of Europe being overrun by the Germans. A German Europe would have operated on the German model of a state ruled by a small imperial clique with the German system of regulatory justice and control (similar to the Romano-Dutch system of modern Europe). Eventually Britain would have fallen to the pan-European German empire and lost control of its national destiny. Britain would have been transformed from a relatively laissez-faire society where people were allowed wide latitude in their speech, beliefs, behaviours and activities to a Germanic model.
Who started the war
There can be no doubt that the Germans started the First World War. The clearest indication of who might have been planning a real war is the size of the armies in 1914, just before the start of the war.
British: about 200,000 - 300,000 available for the European theatre of war, including reservists.
French: about 4 million
German: about 4.5 million
Russian: about 5.9 million.
So it was not the British. The French, Germans and Russians all had plans for war. But who started it?
In the post war period it was fashionable amongst historians to claim that the war just happened as a result of a dangerous set of alliances. This story came to an end in 1961 when Fritz Fisher, a German historian, was given access to historical archives in East Germany. Fisher's views are now widely accepted. As David Kaiser puts it "Few historians would now deny that Germany bore substantial responsibility for the conflict; ...."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWarmies1914.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_World_War_I
The aftermath of war
The most notable aftermath of the first world war was the Russian revolution and the conversion of some of the International Socialists in Italy and Germany into National Socialists.
It is seldom mentioned that Mussolini was a leading communist in 1914 but as a result of the anti-war stance of the party he formed a national socialist break away group, the Fascists. Notice that Italy turned to National Socialism without the stimulus of reparations - the argument that reparations created National Socialism is an attempt to blame the West for Nazism.
Hitler rose on a similar trajectory. In July 1919 he was employed to spy on The German Worker's Party but within 6 months was chief of propaganda for the group, probably still taking government money. The party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis). By 28th July 1921 Hitler was party leader.
The net effect of the war was to create instability which led to the rise of the "strong men of europe": Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. Dictators preaching socialism ruled much of Europe. Although socialists always say that their own socialism is utterly different from these tyrannies the people in these countries believed they were becoming socialist.
It has become fashionable to blame Nationalism for the first and second world wars. It is ironic that it was actually the internationalism of German expansionism that caused the first world war and Russian-German expansionism that caused the second world war. It was only the nationalism of the French, British and Americans that stopped global government.
The fascists and nazis were originally economic socialists and differed from the communists in their nationalism. This split is the origin of Internationalist Postmarxism which is now the political philosophy of over a third of the British population (see Postmodernism, poststructuralism and postmarxism) and a greater proportion of Europeans. Postmarxism differentiates itself from the evil nazis by being "anti-racist", which is code, in this context, for anti-nationalist. It is the rise of Postmarxism that defines the politics of today. Postmarxism favours regulation (political correctness, an end to laissez-faire), centralised government and internationalism such as a united Europe run by Germany. The Germans should have just waited (See The European Civil War).
The modern view
It can be difficult for modern British people to understand the British involvement. It is probably true today that freedom of speech is regarded as an opportunity to hurt the feelings of others, the Common Law is regarded as inferior to Romano-Dutch regulation, laissez faire is an excuse for discrimination and exploitation and that sovereign control of the nation is negotiable. We have come to accept that every step towards a regulated society can be justified. However, in 1914 the British held personal and national freedom as sacred. The modern Briton does not understand that there is a serious flaw in postmodernism: those who stick to their beliefs will move the consensus culture towards their ideals.
Modern cynics may say that Britain was as bad as all the other countries, I will not argue with this because the important truth is that I knew many people from my grandfather's generation and know that they were people who believed in the freedom of the Englishman and this is why they accepted the war. That Britain might have been as bad as other countries or an oppressor etc. etc. is a non-sequitur in the discussion of why the British accepted involvement.
The British fought in the First World War because there was a serious
Who started the war
There can be no doubt that the Germans started the First World War. The clearest indication of who might have been planning a real war is the size of the armies in 1914, just before the start of the war.
British: about 200,000 - 300,000 available for the European theatre of war, including reservists.
French: about 4 million
German: about 4.5 million
Russian: about 5.9 million.
So it was not the British. The French, Germans and Russians all had plans for war. But who started it?
In the post war period it was fashionable amongst historians to claim that the war just happened as a result of a dangerous set of alliances. This story came to an end in 1961 when Fritz Fisher, a German historian, was given access to historical archives in East Germany. Fisher's views are now widely accepted. As David Kaiser puts it "Few historians would now deny that Germany bore substantial responsibility for the conflict; ...."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWarmies1914.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_World_War_I
The aftermath of war
The most notable aftermath of the first world war was the Russian revolution and the conversion of some of the International Socialists in Italy and Germany into National Socialists.
It is seldom mentioned that Mussolini was a leading communist in 1914 but as a result of the anti-war stance of the party he formed a national socialist break away group, the Fascists. Notice that Italy turned to National Socialism without the stimulus of reparations - the argument that reparations created National Socialism is an attempt to blame the West for Nazism.
Hitler rose on a similar trajectory. In July 1919 he was employed to spy on The German Worker's Party but within 6 months was chief of propaganda for the group, probably still taking government money. The party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis). By 28th July 1921 Hitler was party leader.
The net effect of the war was to create instability which led to the rise of the "strong men of europe": Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. Dictators preaching socialism ruled much of Europe. Although socialists always say that their own socialism is utterly different from these tyrannies the people in these countries believed they were becoming socialist.
It has become fashionable to blame Nationalism for the first and second world wars. It is ironic that it was actually the internationalism of German expansionism that caused the first world war and Russian-German expansionism that caused the second world war. It was only the nationalism of the French, British and Americans that stopped global government.
The fascists and nazis were originally economic socialists and differed from the communists in their nationalism. This split is the origin of Internationalist Postmarxism which is now the political philosophy of over a third of the British population (see Postmodernism, poststructuralism and postmarxism) and a greater proportion of Europeans. Postmarxism differentiates itself from the evil nazis by being "anti-racist", which is code, in this context, for anti-nationalist. It is the rise of Postmarxism that defines the politics of today. Postmarxism favours regulation (political correctness, an end to laissez-faire), centralised government and internationalism such as a united Europe run by Germany. The Germans should have just waited (See The European Civil War).
The modern view
It can be difficult for modern British people to understand the British involvement. It is probably true today that freedom of speech is regarded as an opportunity to hurt the feelings of others, the Common Law is regarded as inferior to Romano-Dutch regulation, laissez faire is an excuse for discrimination and exploitation and that sovereign control of the nation is negotiable. We have come to accept that every step towards a regulated society can be justified. However, in 1914 the British held personal and national freedom as sacred. The modern Briton does not understand that there is a serious flaw in postmodernism: those who stick to their beliefs will move the consensus culture towards their ideals.
Modern cynics may say that Britain was as bad as all the other countries, I will not argue with this because the important truth is that I knew many people from my grandfather's generation and know that they were people who believed in the freedom of the Englishman and this is why they accepted the war. That Britain might have been as bad as other countries or an oppressor etc. etc. is a non-sequitur in the discussion of why the British accepted involvement.
Comments