It's worth making some distinction between the German war ministry and the Kaiser, is it not? The war ministry likely did want war with Russia, but the Kaiser sure as hell did not. Not only were he and the Tsar close friends, but he was ultimately a romantic who believed in Christendom, and was more interested in fighting non-Europeans (see his reaction to the Russo-Japanese War). A similar dichotomy emerged on the Russian side. Since the French Revolution, monarchs across Europe started losing real power, to the point where wars were more a decision of petty politicians and bureaucracies than theirs. Unfortunately, this remains the case today.
Nonsense! We made a system of alliances, which included France, because we recognised France as having lost her power, and used her as a lever against the growth of German economic and political power.
The Normans where invited by the exiled king of Leinster ! Rather stupid thing thing to do invite the most aggressive warlike people in Western Europe to your home 🤦♂️
@@michaelpalmer4387 It’s not just hindsight it’s about being objective and realising you lost your power as a king Inviting powerful warlords to your former territory is an act of stupidity brought on by blind Greed Power and Revenge It’s a pity for Ireland that Diarmait Mac Murchadha wasn’t knifed by the then high king instead of getting to England.
Germany was made up of 79? city/states and principalities before unification Italy was made up of 7? (Kingdom of Naples, Rome, Puigdemont etc) I think they both became states in 1871.
Hitchens is slightly misleading over the Franco/Prussian war 1870 "Out of which we stayed". It was France that declared war on Germany, Britain had no obligation to join France. Austria and Italy would have joined France but Napoleon III refused to allow Papal Rome to be claimed by Italy.
It's a funny old game war, we've -humans- have be at it for years. I mean what would we do without a good old regular dust up, knocking each other stupid, then going home to breed a few more canon fodder and back at it again. Lovely stuff life......anybody watching up there in the blue yonder must be having a great time betting on the next war and the winner......Humans?. You couldn't make us up.....
Oh, and all this time I thought that the encouragement for people to have families, the Catholic Church and Islam opposing birth-control was so that the capitalists could have an abundant supply of workers in order to keep wages and working conditions down and working hours long and all the time it's been to provide cannon fodder for the next war. Well, maybe it's a combination of the two.
The threat to Britain from Germany was largely economic. They had already overtaken the UK and, like the USA, were starting to leave Britain In the dust. I think this explains an awful lot of Britain's involvement in world war I.
Patrick Pearse, like Rupert Brooke, was deeply influenced by Romanticism and other stupid ideas. The mumbo-jumbo spouted by Brooke - the sweet red wine of youth and all that, was the same as the idiocy spouted by the sexually immature and socially awkward Patrick Pearse. Both screamed and cajoled the same romantic, nationalist non sense - just for different national causes. Before we point out anything, we have to remember the extraordinary set of circumstances which led up to 1914 and one of its darling children - the 1916 Proclamation. Take one thing away and the world may be a very different place. Add to the what ifs - what if Austria-Hungary never marched into Bosnia in 1908? What if the Ottoman Empire had not fallen to pieces? What if there had been better telegraphy and telephony and better functioning diplomacy? No senile or grouchy leadership? What if, what if??? This was not an inevitable war. Nor was the Easter Rising an inevitable solution to the UK's inability to be constitutionally flexible. Of WWI's off-spring, what if Pearse had been born developmentally and intellectually normal and not (likely) suffering from Asperger syndrome? Hitch is right to point out questions - but he should remember that you don't do it with WWI because it's bloody incomprehensible. People are scared of some countries because people like to be scared and have someone to blame. It's as true for the Irish as it is for anyone who sees Russia's hand in all kinds of shenanigans.
Those are some interesting comments, but can one man, be it Pearse, Hitler, Ghandi etc. really have that much influence on great masses of people, or are they more or less riding some kind of wave which wells up beneath them the origins of which are almost impossible to trace? I don't know, frankly, but rightly or wrongly I've never bought the idea that the second world war wouldn't have happened without Hitler. It may have happened differently, but most of the tinder was laid by events totally beyond his control before he came along. Best wishes all.
@@richwilliam3378 If there had been no Hitler the war in Europe may not have happened in 1939 but by then Japan had already started war with China on 7th July 1937.
Yes the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand should have been an internal police matter given that Serbia was then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was as though the assassination of JFK was blamed on the state of Texas by the US Federal Government so the USA declares war on the state of Texas. Texas has an alliance with Britain so Britain then declares war on the US. France has an alliance with the US so it declares war on Britain, and so on it goes... Also "shenanigans" - isn't that an Irish word? lol
The German Declaration of War on France 1914 was a pack of lies - and the invasion of Belgium was directly opposite of this island and was a direct threat to this island. The German elite academic and political was also open that their aim was WORLD domination - even in 1914. The idea that the Prime Asquith or Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray were warmongers is horribly wrong. Asquith and Gray passionately wanted peace - even the German Ambassador in London understood that it was the GERMAN government that was to blame for war. As for calling Sir Henry Wilson "infamous" - he was a kind man who died heroically, fighting with only a ceremonial sword against two IRA murderers armed with pistols. You need to apologise Mr Hitchens - both for your statement on the British Liberal government in 1914 and your personal "infamous" statement on Sir Henry Wilson. There was no chance of Britain "not participating" in the First World War - because GERMANY forced it upon us.
French troops were already in Belgium as early as 31st July 1914. Gray was leading a perfidious agenda and they were there with British acquiescence. Yeah whatever .... Germany is, was, and always will be, the ultimate villain. Putin next.
To claim that Sir Edward Gray was following a "perfidious agenda" is a despicable lie Sir. And the German Declaration of War upon France was a tissue of lies. As for the idea that Germany would have let Britain carry on as a fully independent power - that is utterly absurd.
Paul Marks lol... You really believe whatever suits your worldview..one which somehow believes in a kind and knowledgeable British government.. Lol.. The story of yr man drawing his sword on his killers is a prime example.. Not true, just a tabloid lie of the times.
@@morisan42 The British Empire has been on the decline since WW1. My house was built just before WW1 but was remodelled in the 1920s in the California Bungalow style popular at the time. After WW1 there was a backlash against Britain within its Empire and a turn towards the USA expressed in part by the aforementioned architectural style. That began to wane in the 1930s.
@@kiwitrainguy Yeah, the first world war dealt huge damage to the british ego, for sure. The giving up of territory happened after the suez crisis, as it became clear britain was no longer strong enough to maintain its empire alone.
