"Well, the freedom of Alsace and lorriane"
Eh? At the time, Alsace and Lorraine were a part of Germany proper (not invaded by the Germans)-- they weren't invaded by the Germans b/c they were already within Germany! A&L have sort of been a "border frontier" ever since Charlemagne's time, with a Frankish population of mixed cultural identity-- I had to write a term paper on A&L for a world history class, and it's a fascinating place.
Actually, Alsace and Lorraine were German (HRE) until French King Louis XIV decided to invade them while Germany was preoccupied fighting off Turks in the 17th century-- an act of treachery against Christian allies under siege that still rankles Europe today (not just in Germany). After that they changed hands umpteen times but still culturally, very Frankish/Germanic. (I was there 5 years ago on a week-long business/pleasure trip and the kids generally spoke German. They spoke French too, it's not that they "didn't consider themselves Frenchmen" but they seem to have a Frankish identity, and the fact that Louis XIV pulled his little caper during a period when the rest of Europe was unifying against a Turkish invasion-- it doesn't exactly reflect well on the French monarchy especially in Alsace, which I guess is a reason it's bicultural. Much like Brittany, but since Alsatian kids can attend German universities, there's a lot more incentive for them to maintain it, it seems.
"and [freedom of] belgium"
I don't really buy the "freedom" argument here-- if freedom for oppressed peoples was so important, what about the freedom of the Congolese who were brutalized under King Leopold? Or the Irish, who initiated a 5-year struggle for freedom against the British in 1916? (Let alone us Indians, who were gunned down in a river of blood by General Dyer right after WWI.)
" to prevent Britian as a trading power collaspe" {sic}
I don't buy this either-- Kaiser Wilhelm was a knucklehead, but he and the Germans in general went out of their way to make sure Britain and British trade weren't harmed. He wasn't Nappy pushing a Continental blockade, the war began because of a bunch of boneheaded little conflicts in the Balkans and quickly escalated out of control due to the alliances. What was that Bismarck said? The Balkans not being worth the loss of a single Pomeranian soldier? (He was right.)
"it was not a needless war. "
Actually, seems like even the most pro-British historians these days say it was a needless war, a disaster for Britain that it's never really recovered from. Britain was the superpower at the time and the world's biggest creditor, but Britain was also still a young empire at the time-- they hadn't really hit the big time until Nelson's victory around 1800. In comparison, the Spaniards and Portuguese had many centuries at the top of the totem pole (since before 1500 until the 1800's), despite not having nearly the scientific sophistication of Britain-- long enough to really implant themselves and experience a "slow decline" during which they continued to benefit, unlike the British Empire that fell apart abruptly at its peak.
WWI drained the UK so badly that it wound up deep in red ink, its manpower mowed down at Gallipoli and the Western Front-- for what? A total waste. I'm not at all saying this in a pro-imperial sense (in India we don't have the fondest feelings toward the Empire), but I still sympathize with the poor young guys sent to do the fighting. And WWI was totally needless for Britain-- had they avoided it, or negotiated an early out, they'd still be leading the world today and founding the world's major institutions. Instead, the Americans wound up taking over from a broken and bankrupted Britain (though looks like China's about to take the reins for good, the way America's plummeting).
I'm not saying the Central Powers were all sweetness and light either, they certainly had their own nastiness-- but it seems like the sheer efficiency and industrialization of Germany led Britain to go to war for the simple reason that they were worried about price undercutting by a competing Continental power in their markets.
And I'm sorry, but that's a pisspoor reason to send off the flower of British youth to get mowed down by machine guns-- it reeks of the same corporate sycophancy (send guys killed so the bankers and CEO's can get more profits) that's plaguing us today. Obviously, Britain didn't expect they'd suffer so much from the carnage, they probably figured it'd be just a few months of fighting, but the circumstances of Britain's war entry just reek of narrow and monumentally stupid thinking on their leaders' part.
reply
share