Michael Gove Makes Excuses For The First World War

[Simon_Jester]

How much power can you really give the electorate in a democracy like Britain, what with its rotten boroughs and media manipulation history?

I do not exactly know; are you familiar with evidence showing that the Government of 1914-18 felt no particular concern about being able to maintain popular support, or that they felt no need for it?

IMO at least as much as the German and French electorates, who were just as "democratic" as Britain was at the time...

I'm not disputing it- but I'm pretty sure that if there had been a mass popular groundswell demanding peace, the British government of the time would have been forced to listen in time. British politicians of the era showed too many concerns about raising votes; this was no longer the Britain of the Napoleonic Wars, and most power had shifted from the Lords to the Commons.

Granted, the government and media went to great lengths to prevent such a thing from happening. But the fact remains, Britain was not an autocracy. The British people as a whole cannot totally be absolved of responsibility for the fact that Britain remained involved on the Western Front long past the point where it stopped being to their advantage to do so.

My point here is simply that unless a given country is a military dictatorship, you cannot blame the military alone for the fact that a war drags on. You can blame the army alone for fighting incompetently. you cannot blame the army alone for fighting when and where they are told to, at the orders of a broadly representative government with broad public support- you must also blame the government and public.

[PeZook]

The Somme offensive took place mid-1916 though. I'm not a big WW1 strategy buff but I do know that by that point the war had been going on for two years and by that time literally millions of French, Russians and British (not to mention German, Ottoman, Austria–Hungarian, etc.) soldiers had died. From where I'm standing it's looking pretty insane for Haig to be appalled that his offensive into German lines cost tens of thousands of lives -- insanity after all being popularly defined as trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

You know what the single most insane thing actually was?

That after two years of nothing being gained except a massive pile of corpses, people still weren't ready to sit down and sign a fucking ceasefire. That's the thing that amazes me the most about WWI, more than all the tactical blunders and the amazingly stupid way it started, and that's the one line which Blackadder got exactly right: that the British would've been just as well off had they just stayed home and shot ten thousand of their own people a week.

[Thanas]

How much power can you really give the electorate in a democracy like Britain, what with its rotten boroughs and media manipulation history?

I do not exactly know; are you familiar with evidence showing that the Government of 1914-18 felt no particular concern about being able to maintain popular support, or that they felt no need for it?

No, they felt quite the opposite and they started warmongering over a decade before the war broke out. But even if there had been no popular majority for the war, I very much doubt that would have resulted in an anti-war Government simply for the reason of the political elite not wanting peace.

That after two years of nothing being gained except a massive pile of corpses, people still weren't ready to sit down and sign a fucking ceasefire. That's the thing that amazes me the most about WWI, more than all the tactical blunders and the amazingly stupid way it started, and that's the one line which Blackadder got exactly right: that the British would've been just as well off had they just stayed home and shot ten thousand of their own people a week.

Germany tried a ceasefire at the end of 1916. Woodrow Wilson then mucked it up with incompetent meddling, then the Allies stated demands which practically amounted to Versailles at an earlier time, which Germany then rejected.

[PeZook]

Germany tried a ceasefire at the end of 1916. Woodrow Wilson then mucked it up with incompetent meddling, then the Allies stated demands which practically amounted to Versailles at an earlier time, which Germany then rejected.

Yup. They should've just signed the damn ceasefire and be done with it, but the bouffons felt...I don't know what they felt. I'm sure continuing the war seemed like a good idea at the time, because those things always do, but it still looks insane and bloodthirsty from our perspective.

Really, a Versailles in 1916 would've been a great victory ; A Versailles in 1918, after killing off a high percentage of your young men and spending your economies into the ground...yeah. Good job there, chumps! Great triumph. Much power. Wow!

Compared to that a white peace in 1916 would've been an immeasurably better proposal.

[Siege]

You know what the single most insane thing actually was?

That after two years of nothing being gained except a massive pile of corpses, people still weren't ready to sit down and sign a fucking ceasefire. That's the thing that amazes me the most about WWI, more than all the tactical blunders and the amazingly stupid way it started, and that's the one line which Blackadder got exactly right: that the British would've been just as well off had they just stayed home and shot ten thousand of their own people a week.

Exactly right. I'm halfway toward believing it was the Russians who had the correct idea in 1917: give all the fuckers responsible a taste of their own medicine by putting them against the wall. See if they like being machinegunned for a change.

I also question the extent to which the electorate can be held accountable in Britain when its government passed things like the Defence of the Realm Act that muzzled newspapers and forbade criticism of the war, imprisoned anti-war activists, implemented an absurd "business as usual" policy and generally engaged in a scary amount of bullshit to keep the full disastrous scope of the war from the public. The electorate cannot make an informed decision when its government is deliberately lying to it. That on top of questions regarding how truly democratic Britain even was at the time: women couldn't vote, for one, and I doubt that the colonial troops had much of a say in the matter either. To me it looks suspiciously like (surprise) an out-of-touch elite of rich white men decided the proles ought to be bleeding and dying for their empire.

[Thanas]

I also question the extent to which the electorate can be held accountable in Britain when its government passed things like the Defence of the Realm Act that muzzled newspapers and forbade criticism of the war, imprisoned anti-war activists, implemented an absurd "business as usual" policy and generally engaged in a scary amount of bullshit to keep the full disastrous scope of the war from the public. The electorate cannot make an informed decision when its government is deliberately lying to it. That on top of questions regarding how truly democratic Britain even was at the time: women couldn't vote, for one, and I doubt that the colonial troops had much of say in the matter either. To me it looks suspiciously like (surprise) an out-of-touch elite of rich white men decided the proles ought to be bleeding and dying for their empire.

It gets even scarier than that. Look up the Naval crisis and see how bloodthirsty the entire British press already was - in 1906/8. You had articles published that would make Karl Rove and his "SADDAM WMDS" look comparatively sane, such as "Germany can totally destroy our fleet and land a 100.000 troops within a few days, we need to go to war and copenhagen them now", with people like Jackie Fisher openly lobbying for it. Think of the US Chief of Staff standing in front of the capitol demanding they go to war RIGHT FREAKING NOW and you get the picture. Heck, even the Times from that time reads like a propaganda mouth piece.


@Pezoook:

I am pretty sure they felt the following:
- signing even a white peace means Germany de facto wins the war. Their higher population and economy allowed it to replace losses easier plus there was little to no war damage to Germany at this point. Within ten or twenty years Germany would have been the most powerful nation, something which France and GB were not willing to accept. Especially with the Hochseeflotte still active...
- Germany would have retained Elsaß-Lothringen, which the French could not accept after the propaganda effort
- A white peace would have allowed Germany to complete the Baghdadbahn, which meant the British supremacy in the east would be seriously threatened.

Also, considering they believed that Russia would still be in the fight and thus they would win and therefore loot Germany to pay for the war (a plan that did not work in 1918+ but which had worked for Germany in 1871)...well, you get the picture.

Not how ethical people would think, but if you are a cold-blooded strategist who thinks in terms of prestige and influence.....yeah.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Im not sure you can really judge Britain alone as "failing" in getting involved. We got involved because of a treaty to protect Belgium. If we had just backed away and said "nope, doesn't concern us" that would hardly have been a "success" unless looking at it in hindsight.

[Thanas]

Im not sure you can really judge Britain alone as "failing" in getting involved.

Nobody said that, did they?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Im not sure you can really judge Britain alone as "failing" in getting involved.

Nobody said that, did they?

Simon did:

So there is also the other failed duty- the duty of statesmen (and, in a democracy like 1914 Britain, the electorate) to accurately weigh the costs of war, compare it to the cause for which the war is being fought, and decide whether or not to pursue war. In this duty, too, you can make a case that World War One Britain failed*... but in that case the failure is not on the part of the generals, unless you think it should be common that military officers refuse to fight on behalf of the state in whose armed forces they serve.

Given the ideas everyone held about the war and how short it would be "we'll be home for Christmas" and so on) and given Britain's treaty to protect Belgium, I don't see that the British government "failed." Obviously in hindsight it was a monumental cockup and Britain bears a good chunk of the blame for helping foster the diplomatic conditions which led to the war, but that is in hindsight, which it really isn't fair to use to judge the leaders of the time.

[Thanas]

I don't think he was talking about the British exclusively and if you note we also discussed the German failure etc. I don't want to put words in his mouth but from what I remember from previous discussions Simon believes everybody is at fault here.

That being said, from private comments or diary entries it is quite clear that everybody knew that sooner or later the System would blow up (especially high placed people) but nobody did anything for fear of losing prestige and influence.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don't mean to suggest that's what Simon said, I was addressing his point that you could "make a case Britain failed." Like I said, there's plenty of blame to go around and no one nation can be said, absolutely to be responsible.

[Simon_Jester]

Given the ideas everyone held about the war and how short it would be "we'll be home for Christmas" and so on) and given Britain's treaty to protect Belgium, I don't see that the British government "failed." Obviously in hindsight it was a monumental cockup and Britain bears a good chunk of the blame for helping foster the diplomatic conditions which led to the war, but that is in hindsight, which it really isn't fair to use to judge the leaders of the time.

The failure was more in terms of failing to recognize

I don't actually think Britain was wrong to enter the war per se; they had a sufficient cause for war in the invasion of neutral Belgium alone. I do think that the British government did a very bad job of counting costs effectively once the war had begun.

This is separate, however, from any question of prewar jingoism- a severe fault in the Edwardian political establishment that is also a failure of duty, because being responsible about what wars you promote is important too.

I don't think he was talking about the British exclusively and if you note we also discussed the German failure etc. I don't want to put words in his mouth but from what I remember from previous discussions Simon believes everybody is at fault here.

Every power which participated in WWI can reasonably be criticized for at least one, usually several, cases of downright stupid decisions, and/or illegitimate actions.

Not every power involved was wrong to decide to fight the war as such, and not all powers made equally serious botches of it once they did decide to fight. But all powers can be criticized for the bloody and inept way they handled military strategy, at least to a degree, and most can be criticized for having sought out the war in the first place.

It would be farcical to blame Britain for the war though, since Britain was the last of the great European powers to join the war in the first place.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Given the ideas everyone held about the war and how short it would be "we'll be home for Christmas" and so on) and given Britain's treaty to protect Belgium, I don't see that the British government "failed." Obviously in hindsight it was a monumental cockup and Britain bears a good chunk of the blame for helping foster the diplomatic conditions which led to the war, but that is in hindsight, which it really isn't fair to use to judge the leaders of the time.

The failure was more in terms of failing to recognize

I don't actually think Britain was wrong to enter the war per se; they had a sufficient cause for war in the invasion of neutral Belgium alone. I do think that the British government did a very bad job of counting costs effectively once the war had begun.

This is separate, however, from any question of prewar jingoism- a severe fault in the Edwardian political establishment that is also a failure of duty, because being responsible about what wars you promote is important too.

I agree with that, I just wanted to clarify things. Thanks.