Reasons to be cheerful

[LMcD]

I agree with you about the financial consequences, however, I am sure most people would agree that there was no rational alternative to declaring war on Nazi Germany in September 1939. I know that you are not claiming there was EH.

Would be interested to discover (again, not from you necessarily) why allowing a militaristic German Empire dominance over Europe would have been Britain's best option in 1914 though.

I never dreamt that my relentless cheerfulness (I'm thinking of changing my User Name to Pangloss) would trigger (yes, I know ...) a discussion on the origin(s) of the First World War!
(That's merely an observation, by the way, not a complaint).

[oddoneout]

I never dreamt that my relentless cheerfulness (I'm thinking of changing my User Name to Pangloss) would trigger (yes, I know ...) a discussion on the origin(s) of the First World War!
(That's merely an observation, by the way, not a complaint).

Strange are the ways of thread diversion...

[Ein Heldenleben]

I agree with you about the financial consequences, however, I am sure most people would agree that there was no rational alternative to declaring war on Nazi Germany in September 1939. I know that you are not claiming there was EH.

Would be interested to discover (again, not from you necessarily) why allowing a militaristic German Empire dominance over Europe would have been Britain's best option in 1914 though.

I’m not a big fan of counter factual history. The origins and causes of the first World War are so complex that we can’t say what would have happened had we reneged on our commitments to Belgium. However I do think that there was a collective mishandling of the various conflicts flaring in 1913 / 14 and we could have played our hand better.
There are revisionist historians who think we should have stayed out of WW2 and they are not all nutters. I don’t think for a second we should have reneged on our Poland commitment . It was evident after the Czecho debacle what the Nazis were up to.
One thing we haven’t realised is that we didn’t “win” WW2 . The Americans and Russians did ( the latter at a terrible price). The US extracted a big price for their support of us in WW2 and yet we still talk of a “special “relationship.
As far as the future is concerned I’m of the opinion that admitting the Baltic States to NATO carries the risk of backing Russia into a corner and I don’t think we have anything like the military capacity to do much about it if the try an incursion. Luckily for us the Poles do. Does it all sound eerily familiar ?

I think it was Smittims who described our decision to enter WW1 as “disastrous. “In economic terms it was. But the consequences of not doing so could have been both economically and militarily disastrous. Perhaps even defeat or a very unfavourable armistice. Defeat and invasion very unlikely given the strength of the navy but who knows how these things pan out.? I think throughout WW1 German arms production significantly exceeded ours and unlike WW2 there was little means of destroying it.That plus a bigger population usually means subjugation.

oh yes reasons to be cheerful - there are plenty!

[Historian]

I’m not a big fan of counter factual history. The origins and causes of the first World War are so complex that we can’t say what would have happened had we reneged on our commitments to Belgium. However I do think that there was a collective mishandling of the various conflicts flaring in 1913 / 14 and we could have played our hand better.
There are revisionist historians who think we should have stayed out of WW2 and they are not all nutters. I don’t think for a second we should have reneged on our Poland commitment . It was evident after the Czecho debacle what the Nazis were up to.
One thing we haven’t realised is that we didn’t “win” WW2 . The Americans and Russians did ( the latter at a terrible price). The US extracted a big price for their support of us in WW2 and yet we still talk of a “special “relationship.
As far as the future is concerned I’m of the opinion that admitting the Baltic States to NATO carries the risk of backing Russia into a corner and I don’t think we have anything like the military capacity to do much about it if the try an incursion. Luckily for us the Poles do. Does it all sound eerily familiar ?

I think it was Smittims who described our decision to enter WW1 as “disastrous. “In economic terms it was. But the consequences of not doing so could have been both economically and militarily disastrous. Perhaps even defeat or a very unfavourable armistice. Defeat and invasion very unlikely given the strength of the navy but who knows how these things pan out.? I think throughout WW1 German arms production significantly exceeded ours and unlike WW2 there was little means of destroying it.That plus a bigger population usually means subjugation.

oh yes reasons to be cheerful - there are plenty!

I agree with your analysis re. the First World War, but would add that one could make a powerful argument for a negotiated peace from 1916 onwards.

Similar agreement with most of what you write about the Second World War. Yes, we could have stayed out, watched Nazi Germany win and then...

It could be argued that Britain's main achievement could be seen as 'not losing' but without that it is very likely that the USA would have stayed out of Europe (although not a war in the Pacific) and Russia would have been defeated. Britain (and her Empire) were important to the ultimate victory, but less so than the US and USSR.

In terms of (First World) war production, Britain was much more efficient than Imperial Germany, especially once the Naval Blockade began to bite, aided by winning the war against the U-boats enabling huge imports from the USA and elsewhere.


Apologies for leading this thread further away, but I couldn't resist. However, another reason to be cheerful is that we are still free to discuss History, albeit not very often on Radio Three any more, rather than accepting an imposed/approved government version.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is there anything that 'explains' taste? I have no answer to the question. My tastes are definitely personal to me, but not unique to me. I don't think 'taste' is completely arbitrary, something you're born with, hence "stuck with".

I was just watching a YouTube performance of Mozart's oboe quartet and the performers were obviously enjoying it. I don't understand why some people feel too intimidated to go to a classical concert while others are unfased by an unfamiliar experience and continue to behave unselfconsciously as they would at a pop concert, others go to listen and observe, curious to discover what it's all about.

"Taste" is a very big and varied subject if we take into consideration perspectives such as "good" and "bad taste" and compare such with immediate impact which, as reactive expressions to disgust common to humans and other species show, is pretty much involuntary. Between reactions of disgust and bliss come various degrees from dislike to pleasure, with detached incomprehension of the kind I had on first hearing Webern in a separate compartment. The sliding in-between scale of values is probably where nobbling of some kind takes place in any acceptability/non-acceptability continuum of values. It took me until the 1960s - my teen years - to overcome my external socially implanted disapproval of pink as a colour for male attire. Excluding visceral disgust personal maturation takes account of more than immediate taste-responses, judgement-wise, if one is a "true music lover" in the sense of a lifetime spent following up on an immediate capture - quite possibly one's first-ever response to a "gateway" work. One's love-interest then spreads out from that positive initial experience to take externals into considerations. But if music, or any other aesthetic area, was at the periphery of ones concerns, taste would be of secondary importance in any case, surely?

[LMcD]

oh yes reasons to be cheerful - there are plenty!

Went for a walk, sat and watched the sea (pretty calm, probably a Force 2 breeze) sparkling in the sunlight, bought a bottle of cheap, cheerful plonk at the corner shop on the way back home....

[Ein Heldenleben]

Went for a walk, sat and watched the sea (pretty calm, probably a Force 2 breeze) sparkling in the sunlight, bought a bottle of cheap, cheerful plonk at the corner shop on the way back home....

Cycle ride by sea on cold calm day with thin sun…failed to buy Prosciutto at local Co Op

[smittims]

After yesterday's storm we have wall-to-wall sunshine and halcyon calm here today. I strolled down to ALDI at sunrise to get my milk. Billy is sunbathing on the shed roof dreaming of 3pm when he comes in for his whiskas and go-cat. .

[oddoneout]

Took advantage of sun, blue sky and almost no breeze to get some weeding done in the garden. The contractors aren't working on the new estate nearby today so I was able to hear the birds properly.

Pleasure it is to hear iwis the Birdès sing

A robin was keeping a beady eye out for interesting titbits I might be unearthing, but isn't yet bold enough to pick them up while I am close. A mole has moved into the veg patch, fingers crossed it moves on before I need to sow or plant anything.

[smittims]

I think the first world war could have been prevented by skilful diplomacy. And I agree with Bertrand Russell that if Britain had stayed neutral Germany would have won a quick victory as in 1870. I don't think they would have conquered either France or Russia, but left it at that, and Britain would still be in a strong position . When the autumn stalemate set in Germany proposed peace which was rejected by the British government, and this happeend again after the debacle of 1 July 1916.

Of course there was much that was wrong with pre-1914 Britain. But a good start had been made, by a government advocating sick pay, old age pensions and public ownership of the utilities, which, a s Tony Benn pointed out , put them 'well to the left of New Labour'. Many thinking people , Leonard Woolf for instance, who were adults at the time strongly believed that we were entering an enlightened age. But it was chiefly the post-1918 economic continuum that I was referring to as the 'disastrous' consequence of 1914, plus of couyrse,the loss of life,the deaths of so many able intelligent young men who would have been in senior positions by the 1930s, and the shortage of fathers which led to so much juvenile trouble. . .

[Serial_Apologist]

Cycle ride by sea on cold calm day with thin sun…failed to buy Prosciutto at local Co Op

Are you intending prosciuting?

[vinteuil]

The origins and causes of the first World War are so complex that we can’t say what would have happened had we reneged on our commitments to Belgium. However I do think that there was a collective mishandling of the various conflicts flaring in 1913 / 14 and we could have played our hand better.
nty!

... I think Christopher Clark provides a good summary of how we 'sleepwalked' in to the Great War -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers:_How_Europe_Went_to_War_in_1914

.

[LMcD]

Are you intending prosciuting?

Did this happen in East or West Ham by any chance?

[Historian]

I think the first world war could have been prevented by skilful diplomacy. And I agree with Bertrand Russell that if Britain had stayed neutral Germany would have won a quick victory as in 1870. I don't think they would have conquered either France or Russia, but left it at that, and Britain would still be in a strong position . When the autumn stalemate set in Germany proposed peace which was rejected by the British government, and this happeend again after the debacle of 1 July 1916..

Thank you for this. However, I hope you will forgive me if I point out that it's not quite the same as your initial point about Britain staying out of the war in August 1914. Most people would agree that much more could have been done to avert the July Crisis of 1914. However all the major continental powers were gearing up for war in the firm belief that they would win: thus a European war at some point in the next few years was highly likely.

Russell, despite the moral high ground of his pacifism, is not a reliable guide to the war aims of Imperial Germany. Germany's dilemma was that they felt encircled east and west by hostile countries growing in power and strength. Imperial German strategy relied on defeating both France and Russia swiftly: there would have been absolutely no point in defeating France and then ending the war. British neutrality would have made German victory much more likely, hence leading to German domination of Europe and putting Britain in a very difficult position. Once France and Russia were involved I don't think Asquith and Grey had much choice.

I would agree that the failure to reach a negotiated peace long before 1918 was a disaster.

However, that's merely my point of view and again steers us away from the OP so I will try to rein myself in now...

[oddoneout]

Did this happen in East or West Ham by any chance?

Genoa I couldn't tell you. Would Serrano?