# Was WWII neccessary for Britain ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427 "2010-08-16T17:20:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/41 "2010-08-20T19:40:00Z")
As I said, other countries played a part in the build up. But it was Germany that invaded. Had Germany not launched the Schlieffen Plan, it seems unlikely Britain would have gone to war, for example. France would probably not have launched an independent attack. Russia might have (though I don’t buy Norman Stone’s analysis here), but I would think it would have been a localized war over Serbia. Other countries were absolutely involved, but I’ll stick by the idea that Germany started the whole shebang, and, had they not done so, there would have been no “world” war one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/42 "2010-08-20T19:48:02Z")
[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I) are the events leading up to WWI: > [@](#): > > ``` > * June 28, 1914: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is assassinated by Serbian irredentists. > * July 23: Austria-Hungary, following their own secret enquiry, sends an ultimatum to Serbia, containing several very severe demands. In particular they gave only 48 hours within which to comply. Whilst both Great Britain and Russia sympathised with many of the demands, both agreed the timescale was far too short. Both nevertheless advised Serbia to comply. > * July 24: Germany officially declares support for Austria's position. > * July 24: Sir Edward Grey, speaking for the British government, asks that Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, "who had no direct interests in Serbia, should act together for the sake of peace simultaneously."[31] > * July 25: The Serbian government replies to Austria, and agrees to most of the demands. However, certain demands brought into question her survival as an independent nation. On these points they asked that the Hague Tribunal arbitrate. > * July 25: Russia enters a period preparatory to war and mobilization begins on all frontiers. Government decides on a partial mobilization in principle to begin on July 29. > * July 25: Serbia mobilizes its army; responds to Austro-Hungarian demarché with less than full acceptance; Austria-Hungary breaks diplomatic relations with Serbia. > * July 26: Serbia reservists accidentally violate Austro-Hungarian border at Temes-Kubin.[32] > * July 26: Russia having agreed to stand aside whilst others conferred, a meeting is organised to take place between ambassadors from Great Britain, Germany, Italy and France to discuss the crisis. Germany declines the invitation. > * July 27: Sir Edward Grey meets the German ambassador independently. A telegram to Berlin after the meeting states "Other issues might be raised that would supersede the dispute between Austria and Serbia.... as long as Germany would work to keep peace I would keep closely in touch." > * July 28: Austria-Hungary, having failed to accept Serbia's response of the 25th, declares war on Serbia. Mobilisation against Serbia begins. > * July 29: Russian general mobilization is ordered, then changed to partial mobilization. > * July 29: Sir Edward Grey appeals to Germany to intervene to maintain peace. > * July 29: The British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen, is informed by the German Chancellor that Germany is contemplating war with France, and furthermore, wishes to send its army through Belgium. He tries to secure Britain's neutrality in such an action. > * July 30: Russian general mobilization is reordered at 5PM. > * July 31: Austrian general mobilization is ordered. > * July 31: Germany enters a period preparatory to war. > * July 31: Germany sends an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt military preparations within 12 hours. > * July 31: Both France and Germany are asked by Britain to declare their support for the ongoing neutrality of Belgium. France agrees to this. Germany does not respond. > * August 1 (3a.m.): The King of Great Britain personally telegraphs the Tsar of Russia. > * August 1: French general mobilization is ordered. > * August 1: German general mobilization is ordered. > * August 1: Germany declares war against Russia. > * August 1: The Tsar responds to the king's telegram, stating "I would gladly have accepted your proposals had not the German ambassador this afternoon presented a note to my Government declaring war." > * August 2: Germany and The Ottoman Empire sign a secret treaty.[33] entrenching the Ottoman-German Alliance > * August 3: Germany, after France declines (See Note) its demand to remain neutral,[34] declares war on France. Germany states to Belgium that she would "treat her as an enemy" if she did not allow free passage of German troops across her lands. > * August 3: Britain, expecting German naval attack on the northern French coast, states that Britain would give "all the protection in its powers." > * August 4: Germany invades Belgium according to the modified Schlieffen Plan. > * August 4 (midnight): Having failed to receive notice from Germany assuring the neutrality of Belgium, Britain declares war on Germany. > * August 6: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia. > * August 23: Japan, honouring the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, declares war on Germany. > > ``` How anyone can arbitrarily declare that it was all (or even mostly) Germany’s fault is, frankly, beyond me. -XT ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/43 "2010-08-20T20:12:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > How anyone can arbitrarily declare that it was all (or even mostly) Germany’s fault is, frankly, beyond me. > > -XT Do you feel Britain would have become involved in a war with Germany (particularly a land war) had France not been attacked, in particular via Belgium? Take Britain out, and its a very different war. I’m not certain that France would have attacked Germany had Germany made very clear it was not looking to invade France/Belgium either. If that is the case, then the war, if one would have happened, would have been a Russian/Serbia vs Germany/Austro-Hungarian affair. And, moreover, had Germany not been pressuring the Austrians, its not certain they would have been so provocative towards the Russians. I don’t and never have thought it was all Germany’s fault. Mostly is probably fair, given that I am British, and British involvement was proximately caused by German actions. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/44 "2010-08-20T20:32:06Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Do you feel Britain would have become involved in a war with Germany (particularly a land war) had France not been attacked, in particular via Belgium? [/QUOTE] Do you feel that Germany would have invaded Belgium had Russia not mobilized for war on the boarder? Or had France declared they would not honor their treaty obligations to Russia and stayed neutral? Or…or…or… The entire European alliance system was at fault for WWI. They had all been mobilizing to fight it for decades before the first shot was fired. It wasn’t Germany’s fault. It wasn’t France’s fault. It wasn’t the UK’s fault. It was ALL of their faults…those bloody minded Europeans were at fault. So, trying to fix blame after the fact and use punitive measures against those who just happened to collapse first was the height of folly. But then, we ARE talking about Europeans, so there you go. > [@](#): > > don’t and never have thought it was all Germany’s fault. Mostly is probably fair, given that I am British, and British involvement was proximately caused by German actions. Well, it’s understandable why you would see things the way you do. You have to realize that the perspective changes, however, depending on which country you happen to have been brought up in and raised and most importantly taught in. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/45 "2010-08-20T20:39:45Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@xtisme](#): > > > > How anyone can arbitrarily declare that it was all (or even mostly) Germany’s fault is, frankly, beyond me. > > > > -XT > > Do you feel Britain would have become involved in a war with Germany (particularly a land war) had France not been attacked, in particular via Belgium? > > Take Britain out, and its a very different war. I’m not certain that France would have attacked Germany had Germany made very clear it was not looking to invade France/Belgium either. If that is the case, then the war, if one would have happened, would have been a Russian/Serbia vs Germany/Austro-Hungarian affair. And, moreover, had Germany not been pressuring the Austrians, its not certain they would have been so provocative towards the Russians. > > I don’t and never have thought it was all Germany’s fault. Mostly is probably fair, given that I am British, and British involvement was proximately caused by German actions. Given all the mobilization, the war would have started somewhere even if the Germans hadn’t immediately invaded. I doubt the Germans had any expectation that the British would agree to their violation of Belgian neutrality for an attack upon an ally. Now the question is whether the war would have spread anyway if the initial attacks happened in the Balkans, given the web of alliances. I rather thought it would, because no one expected the war to be as brutal as it turned out to be. We in the US and UK were taught through movies and such that the Germans were the bad guys, which was strengthened because they actually were in the more familiar second war. Since the Austrian empire dissolved, no anger was directed to them. The Germans were hardly blameless, but the whole situation was unstable. That’s why Barbara Tuchman’s **The Guns of August** is so thick. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/46 "2010-08-20T22:00:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The entire European alliance system was at fault for WWI. They had all been mobilizing to fight it for decades before the first shot was fired. It wasn’t Germany’s fault. It wasn’t France’s fault. It wasn’t the UK’s fault. It was ALL of their faults…those bloody minded Europeans were at fault. So, trying to fix blame after the fact and use punitive measures against those who just happened to collapse first was the height of folly. But then, we ARE talking about Europeans, so there you go. I think that Germany did have a larger than average share of responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914. Germany was the only country that was seeking a general war at that time. Austria-Hungary wanted a war to keep its ethnic minorities quiet and strengthen the Hapsburg regime but it only wanted a limited war in the Balkans. None of the other powers wanted a war at all that year. But Germany looked at the strategic situation and realized its position was weakening with time. France would not be reconciled with Germany as long as Germany held Alsace and Lorraine. Russia had recovered from 1905 and was in the process of modernizing its economy and its military - it would be a much stronger opponent within a few years. Britain was growing closer to France. Germany’s allies, Austria-Hungary and Italy, were growing relaitvely weaker. So Germany looked ahead and decided that there was going to be a war at some point and that every year that passed increased Germany’s chances of defeat. So they might as well start the war as soon as possible. Preferably over some cause involving their allies as that would ensure their full support. So when Austria-Hungary got into a dispute with Serbia, it suited German interests to push it towards a general war. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/47 "2010-08-20T22:00:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Do you feel that Germany would have invaded Belgium had Russia not mobilized for war on the boarder? Or had France declared they would not honor their treaty obligations to Russia and stayed neutral? Or…or…or… Possibly but not certainly, I agree. Russian mobilization was a provocative act (though undertaken in response to provocation from Germany and A/H), but I think you will agree actual invasion is more of a _causus belli_ than mobilization. > [@xtisme](#): > > The entire European alliance system was at fault for WWI. They had all been mobilizing to fight it for decades before the first shot was fired. It wasn’t Germany’s fault. It wasn’t France’s fault. It wasn’t the UK’s fault. It was ALL of their faults…those bloody minded Europeans were at fault. So, trying to fix blame after the fact and use punitive measures against those who just happened to collapse first was the height of folly. But then, we ARE talking about Europeans, so there you go. I agree and never said otherwise. Blame is everywhere. But Germany has the lion’s share. Everyone packed the keg full of explosives, but it was Germany that lit the blue touch paper and retired. > [@xtisme](#): > > Well, it’s understandable why you would see things the way you do. You have to realize that the perspective changes, however, depending on which country you happen to have been brought up in and raised and most importantly taught in. > > -XT Definitely. But I was saying more that _ **Britain’s** _ involvement was the fault of Germany. And without Britain’s involvement the war would have been quite possibly over by Christmas. OK, that’s not definite, and I don’t think Paris would have fallen in 1914 as the BEF wasn’t that involved in the Miracle on the Marne, though had done excellent work slowing the Germans down (as did the Belgian army). However, a French collapse in 1916 had the British Empire not been involved is IMHO a likely outcome (presuming the French had actually participated - I think an Eastern war could have been a definite possibility). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/48 "2010-08-20T22:01:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think that Germany did have a larger than average share or responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914. Germany was the only country that was seeking a general war at that time. > > Austria-Hungary wanted a war to keep its ethnic minorities quiet and strengthen the Hapsburg regime but it only wanted a limited war in the Balkans. None of the other powers wanted a war at all that year. > > But Germany looked at the strategic situation and realized its position was weakening with time. France would not be reconciled with Germany as long as Germany held Alsace and Lorraine. Russia had recovered from 1905 and was in the process of modernizing its economy and its military - it would be a much stronger opponent within a few years. Britain was growing closer to France. Germany’s allies, Austria-Hungary and Italy, were growing relaitvely weaker. > > So Germany looked ahead and decided that there was going to be a war at some point and that every year that passed increased Germany’s chances of defeat. So they might as well start the war as soon as possible. Preferably over some cause involving their allies as that would ensure their full support. So when Austria-Hungary got into a dispute with Serbia, it suited German interests to push it towards a general war. For the record, the post you quote isn’t mine and is the opposite of what I believe. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/49 "2010-08-20T22:04:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Given all the mobilization, the war would have started somewhere even if the Germans hadn’t immediately invaded. I doubt the Germans had any expectation that the British would agree to their violation of Belgian neutrality for an attack upon an ally. Now the question is whether the war would have spread anyway if the initial attacks happened in the Balkans, given the web of alliances. I rather thought it would, because no one expected the war to be as brutal as it turned out to be. > > We in the US and UK were taught through movies and such that the Germans were the bad guys, which was strengthened because they actually were in the more familiar second war. Since the Austrian empire dissolved, no anger was directed to them. > > The Germans were hardly blameless, but the whole situation was unstable. That’s why Barbara Tuchman’s **The Guns of August** is so thick. That’s Norman Stone’s argument certainly, but I don’t fully buy the mobilization required war argument. I certainly don’t buy the mobilization required total war argument. And Russian mobilization certainly didn’t require the invasion of neutral Belgium. I don’t see Germany as particularly the “bad guys.” The way the Great War is taught in the UK is a wonderful topic and probably worth its own thread - the “Lions led by Donkeys” concept was pretty standard when I was taught it (I’m a big defender of Haig). ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/50 "2010-08-21T20:59:10Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > Given all the mobilization, the war would have started somewhere even if the Germans hadn’t immediately invaded. I doubt the Germans had any expectation that the British would agree to their violation of Belgian neutrality for an attack upon an ally. Now the question is whether the war would have spread anyway if the initial attacks happened in the Balkans, given the web of alliances. I rather thought it would, because no one expected the war to be as brutal as it turned out to be. > > > > We in the US and UK were taught through movies and such that the Germans were the bad guys, which was strengthened because they actually were in the more familiar second war. Since the Austrian empire dissolved, no anger was directed to them. > > > > The Germans were hardly blameless, but the whole situation was unstable. That’s why Barbara Tuchman’s **The Guns of August** is so thick. > > That’s Norman Stone’s argument certainly, but I don’t fully buy the mobilization required war argument. I certainly don’t buy the mobilization required total war argument. And Russian mobilization certainly didn’t require the invasion of neutral Belgium. > > I don’t see Germany as particularly the “bad guys.” The way the Great War is taught in the UK is a wonderful topic and probably worth its own thread - the “Lions led by Donkeys” concept was pretty standard when I was taught it (I’m a big defender of Haig). Could you give me a reference(regarding Haig)? I’ve read “Mud, Blood and Poppycock,” and Ranulph Fiennes’ spirited defence in “Captain Scott” regarding the series of British victories in 1918, but “Lions led by Donkeys”, as you say, seems to be the consensus. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/51 "2010-08-22T01:12:28Z")
"If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia’s expense… "For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe: England… “To gain England’s favor, no sacrifice shoudl have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition.” - Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, Munich Great Britain and the United States could have avoided the Second World War. I am glad we did not. The empires conquered by Germany and Japan would have been the most evil the world has ever known. At least another six million Jews would have been killed. The Slavic countries would have been gradually depopulated and resettled with people from the Germanic countries. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/52 "2010-08-22T02:04:15Z")
WW2 was necessary for _everybody_. Every so often, such evil gets perpetrated that it is necessary not just to destroy the evil, but most of the _good_, in the world to get rid of it. It’s just punishment on humanity for being…human. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/53 "2010-08-22T02:11:42Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > WW2 was necessary for _everybody_. Every so often, such evil gets perpetrated that it is necessary not just to destroy the evil, but most of the _good_, in the world to get rid of it. It’s just punishment on humanity for being…human. You are speaking from the perspective of caucasian and keep in mind that in 39, no one imagined the final solution. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/54 "2010-08-22T02:23:35Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > > > WW2 was necessary for _everybody_. Every so often, such evil gets perpetrated that it is necessary not just to destroy the evil, but most of the _good_, in the world to get rid of it. It’s just punishment on humanity for being…human. > > You are speaking from the perspective of caucasian and keep in mind that in 39, no one imagined the final solution. It was all necessary - to someone. Intellectual ferment in Europe had reached a point that would threaten any totalitarian regime ever again; therefore, Europe’s democratic movements had to be eliminated. The depression in the USA had released populist sentiment and reform that would have kept the country a 5th-rate military power if it had not been stopped by militarization. Japan had enslaved all of Asia it could, with no one either willing or able to turn her aside. Things were in such a mess that it was necessary to destroy most everything to save any of it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/55 "2010-08-22T18:15:14Z")
> [@Damfino](#): > > Could you give me a reference(regarding Haig)? I’ve read “Mud, Blood and Poppycock,” and Ranulph Fiennes’ spirited defence in “Captain Scott” regarding the series of British victories in 1918, but “Lions led by Donkeys”, as you say, seems to be the consensus. A good starting point is John Terraine’s The Smoke and the Fire: Myths and Antimyths of War, 1861-1945. ---
**Author:** ![Damfino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Damfino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damfino)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427/56 "2010-08-23T12:34:07Z")
Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-wwii-neccessary-for-britain/550427.md?page=2)