The French honed their skills at throwing down their weapons and waiting for the Brits to save them.
That’s grossly unfair. The French Army shouldered most of the burden on the Western Front throughout the war.
It’s not just unfair. It is an insulting lie.
Some good intentions did.
The League of Nations.
And the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.
However, there was arms control before WWI, and, as well as the “peace congresses” the Alfred Nobel (1833-1896) hoped to encourage with a prize.
Geeshie Williams’ dad wouldn’t have been killed and she wouldn’t have written The Last Kind Words Blues
There were some big advances in Medicine.
Plastic surgery was developed to rebuild some of the faces of hideously injured.
(some grim images here)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zxw42hv
Marie Curie developed a system to take X-ray technology to the battlefield that established radiography as a treatment.
Politically in the UK, there were some progressive developments.
Women got the vote (if they were over 30)
Unemployment insurance was introduced.
A limited form of health service was introduced.
Old age pensions were introduced.
State education was extended to the age of 14
A major housebuilding programme was started.
The experience of raising a huge army and re-organising industry to fight a major war led to the idea that this centralised management by the government should be extended in other areas of welfare.
These ideas were consolidated during WW2 and led to the foundation of the welfare state shortly after.
Much to the chagrin of Winston Churchill.
But that was all I said. After the war, after the carnage, after the disappointments, the old social order began to disintegrate. The war caused that re-shuffling of the classes.
Hindsight is the only sight I was alluding to.
(And, even in hindsight, you’re right that not everyone drew that conclusion. There were – hell, there still are – classists and monarchists and believers in the stability of strongly distinct social castes. WWI led to a greater role for small-d democracy worldwide, but certainly not to its universal or unanimous acceptance.)
I’ve read the big Truman biography, and it seems WWI was what got Harry off the farm finally. Apparently he would not have had to serve, being the 33-year-old breadwinner for his family after the death of his father, and he may have been happy being a farmer and small-time local pol for the rest of his life had he not embarked upon that great adventure. So it could be argued that it gave us Harry Truman as president eventually.
Presumably by “world” you mean N America.and Europe. Elsewhere WW1 only led to mord repression and Imperialsm.
and Blackadder Goes Forth.
I don’t know about that. I think the war more likely weakened imperialism than strengthened it. The combination of the colonizing states being distracted and weakened, the military contributions of the colonies, and all the talk of self-determination at Versailles led to the formation or strengthening of a lot of the independence movements that would eventually succeed after WWII. Some of them remained very active all through the interwar period and might have succeeded given another few years even without WWII happening.
Closer to home, the Irish independence movement was likely only able to succeed thanks to the British military’s involvement in the war. The war is also often seen as a watershed moment in the emergence of separate Canadian, Australian, and New Zealander identities and further movement towards independence in those countries.
Absolutely. It led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the collapse of the Russian Empire. It ended the Prussian/German monarchy also, and it led to increased democratization in Britain, France, Italy, and other places. You properly note the decentralizing influence on the British Empire, which didn’t collapse, but where the monarchy, already very weak, was further weakened.
Yes, there was the counter-revolutionary effect in Russia, Germany, and Italy, leading to the rise of new centralized totalitarian regimes, but that was a separate effect. Some writers have suggested that Revolutions are always followed by Counter-Revolutions.
(The U.S. is lucky, in that our “Counter-Revolution” went no further than the establishment of the Constitution. We could easily have had our own Bonaparte. Alexander Hamilton would have loved that role.)
In my opinion, Alexander Hamilton was killed by the man who wanted that role.
I would rather call them “second-stage revolutions”. Facism and National-Socialism, like communism, still rode in on the post-war wave of anger at the power structures and that a small d democracy was by far not enough to empower the common people.
The term Totalitarian regime does not do justice to the fact that all three movements had a very socialistic base ideal.
Also, the fear of this socialist spectre by the new democracies, is exactly what prompted most of the social improvements and laws.
The governments were still run by the ‘fat cats’ in society. It is highly doubtful there would have been any welfare states without the real threat of revolution.
Such as? The lovely benefits of Imperialism in Africa and the ME are rather apparent for all to see. Its strengthened imperialism outside Europe rather than weakened it. Made colonies where there were none. The Levant, Iraq, for instance.
Colonialism ended after WW2, and due to the support of the USSR, rather than because of WW1. One of the few positive legacies of the USSR.
Living in a Soviet satellite state with its secret police, tanks and gulags was better than living in the colony of an empire?
So, it was the existential threat from a rising tide of Bolshevism rather that Lloyd Georges’ promise of a country fit for heroes’ that drove social reform?
Socialism did not begin with the Russian revolution. It was a movement that was firmly established in the UK and had been bubbling away for many years. There were lots of Christian social reformers, the rise of organised labour unions. You can see it in reforms of the Liberal party before WW1 which was determined to undermine the power of the old aristocracy and improve the lot of the common man. It got a big boost from the huge expansion of the public sector during wartime and the Labour party was formed in 1918, which gradually took over from the Liberals.
Usually the outside threats lead to internal repression, not reform.
Good is a relative term - what some people consider good, others might consider somewhat less so.
With that caveat aside, I doubt Israel would have been founded as easily as it was if the Ottoman Empire hadn’t collapsed the way it did. While Zionist activity had already started under the Turks, it probably wouldn’t have been given the push it received without the British conquest and subsequent investment in the region. In my humble opinion, that’s a good thing.