"In its wake, empires toppled, monarchies fell..."

I am reading an excellent, if tragic, book at the moment- Sir Martin Gilbert's The First World War: A Complete History. Since I began on the fourth day of this month, the world's last surviving veteran from the First World War died. How fitting that she was British. Also found in France, since I began to read this book, was a German trench from 1918, well preserved. You can see a gallery of fascinating images here.


It saddens me greatly that it is almost one hundred years since the Great War began, and I cannot exactly explain why. Perhaps it is because the one hundredth anniversary of the start of it all means conclusively that this War is no longer an experience in the life span of the majority of people, something through which they lived. It is in ever present danger of fading away from the collective memory of our countries; once it fades away, once people  begin to forget that those names on the memorials actually were names of real people- men and boys who had hopes, dreams, plans, loves, and who gave it up for God, King and Country- what will it mean for us as a nation, as the English speaking peoples? Once we have forgotten, will we ever truly once again remember? As a person with whom I am slightly acquainted said, with the death of the last veteran in the entire world, this war has really gone down to the history books. 


But perhaps too I am saddened by this thought because it means we are just one step further away from the world as it was before the Great War. Every step we take, every single day, down this bitter road of history, we take one step further away from the Christian Britain that was so much better than that of to-day. To be sure, it was not perfect back then, and compared to the Victorian era (in Britain primarily), the years leading up to the First World War saw a lessening of standards and a loosening of the hold of Christianity on the people, and society itself. The war did not cause Britain to begin to turn from those standards and values, but it was a, if not the, catalyst for it happening so soon and so quickly. Still, it was a good sight better than what we've got now. If you even simply look at the fact that largely the immorality that did occur took place behind closed doors and in secret, you'll see that society itself was at large better in those days. One might call them hypocritical- preaching one standard and practising another behind closed doors. But the behind closed doors bit is the key to what I am saying: those who wanted to commit immorality knew that they had to keep it a secret and do it after dark for the very reason that society would condemn them and their actions as wrong. Society, then, accepted that there were indeed moral absolutes and standards, and they came from Christianity. To-day, however, it is entirely another matter. I think it might be true to say that the roles have reversed: those who keep the moral absolutes are the ones on whom the censure comes. It is no longer those who commit sin and immorality who face society's disapproval, but those who wish to live to that higher moral standard. And one must go further than simply saying society accepted the need and the fact of these standards, for indeed, society is made up on individuals: men and women, boys and girls. Therefore we must logically say that if society pre-War held those standards, then so did the men, women, boys and girls who, collectively, formed society. But the coming of War was what changed it all: and not just the Christian nature of Great Britain and her Empire was touched. One cannot almost put it better than the text on the back cover of the book:

It was to be the war to end all wars, and it began at 11:15 on the morning of June 28, 1914, in an outpost of the Austro-Hungarian Empire called Sarajevo. It would end officially almost five years later. Unofficially, it has never ended: the horrors we live with today were born in the First World War.

It left millions-civilians and soldiers-maimed or dead. And it left us with new technologies of death: tanks, planes, and submarines; reliable rapid-fire machine guns and field artillery; poison gas and chemical warfare. It introduced us to U-boat packs and strategic bombing, to unrestricted war on civilians and mistreatment of prisoners. Most of all, it changed our world. In its wake, empires toppled, monarchies fell, whole populations lost their national identities as political systems, and geographic boundaries were realigned. Instabilities were institutionalized, enmities enshrined. And the social order shifted seismically. Manners, mores, codes of behavior; literature and the arts; education and class distinctions-all underwent a vast sea change. And in all these ways, the twentieth century can be said to have been born on the morning of June 28, 1914.

The Great War changed the face of Europe forever. Very few of the previous European Monarchies and ancient Houses survived the War. Although not European, Britain was one of the only ones to retain her own system of government- the constitutional monarchy. And if it looked that any of the others of these monarchies did stand the test of war, most were in fact, not form. The Prussian Monarchy ended in 1918, and with it came the end of the vast amount of other Germanic states as monarchies: the small kingdoms and princedoms. The Russian Tsar was overthrown, and this began the multiple decades of the Russian people suppressed by communists.  The Austro-Hungary monarchy ended in 1918, and the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire died with it as well. 


Whatever consequences resulted because of the ending of all these monarchies and the monarchical system in most of Europe (and I personally hold to the belief that it was ultimately a bad thing), the Great War changed things irrevocably. For one thing, it allowed the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.


I do not yet know all the intricate ins and outs of how Hitler attained power- although I believe it was through the normal democratic processes of votes and elections. I do believe, however, that if the First World War had not occurred, the Second World War would most likely not have either. For one thing, if the First World War had not occurred, no doubt all the smaller German monarchies and princedoms would not have been abolished and consolidated into one larger German Republic, as is what did happen. Had these monarchies remained, if a man such as Hitler did arise, it would have been considerably harder for him to attain power, even if he was democratically elected. I think there is another reason, and it is thus:

Britain and the British Empire, not to mention France and most of the rest of the Allied countries, were tired from war. Our national treasure and life blood had been expended, amounting into the hundreds of thousands along the various multiple fronts on which we fought. Our best and brightest young men had fought and died- and while not in any way meaning to belittle the ultimate and painful sacrifice paid by all those who fought the Central Powers, the future British leaders and statesmen were not there to lead Britain through the 1920s and 1930s, and pre-WWII (if war would have happened even without the Great War happening), because they were some of the first to die in the First World War. This left something of a vacuum of wise leaders.


Therefore, when you look at the overall scale of casualties, however, and more specifically, the British number, which is into the 900,000s, you do not have to wonder too hard at why the British peoples chose to see if they could stop Hitler through alternate means, opposed to that of stopping him by war. These means included appeasement- which in the 1930s one must remember was not a word with a bad connotation. However, I believe that if Hitler had of been contained properly, by military might, before he began his annexing of various surrounding European countries and the like, he could have been stopped and war prevented. However, Britain was tired of war, and still slowly recovering from her great losses. The peoples, who had suffered much, did not want war. When it came, they threw their all into it, mind you, but leading up to it, they were hesitant to attempt to contain Hitler via armed forces because of that through which they had gone in the Great War. However, truth be told, I cannot blame them, and in fact, I would no doubt have been one of those who cheered in those days right before the war, when Chamberlain came back from Munich, and promised peace in our time. I figured out one day that if I was alive back in the days right before the Second World War, and especially if I was an adult in, perhaps, my late twenties to mid thirties, I would have no doubt have either had a father, brother, uncle, cousin, or friend either killed or wounded or enlisted during the Great War. If so, I would have experienced the hardships, and indeed, horrors of it, through anyone that I knew who survived the war. I would not have wanted another war, and while there were some who did not want appeasement, I believe I would have been one of the ones who would.


So, one must ask, given all the carnage and destruction, was the Great War worth it? Was it wrong to enter it, to fight? Was it wrong for Britain and the Dominions to fight the Central Powers, to send their young men to fight the Hun? 


One must examine the causes to understand and be able to answer that question as best as they can, and this I will attempt to do below, although I will try not to be a bore. (I fear this post is already of some length). As hard as it is to admit, for someone who is a great admirer of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, the fault, or perhaps, the instigator of the war, was the grandson of Queen Victoria, the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II (in a nutshell, Victoria's eldest daughter, the Princess Royal, married the Kaiser's father, Fredrick III, and in 1888, their son Wilhelm II came to the throne). After coming to the throne, Wilhelm II dismissed Bismark, who was the Chancellor and more moderate in his views, and began to pursue his own path of foreign policy, which led shortly thereafter to making Britain and France rivals, and ultimately enemies. One other consequence of the Kaiser's foreign policy was that Germany supported the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the crises of July 1914 (when the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated by a Serb dissident. Please understand that at this time Serbia was part of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian empire). If I recall it correctly, Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia, and Serbia replied that they would agree to all of the ultimatum's demands, and to what they would not agree, they asked that it be taken to the international courts. I think the thing to which they did not agree was having Austrian police act within Serbia). However, Germany urged Austria to reject this and go to war with Serbia, which they did. Germany also told Austria that they would support Austria no matter what the Austrians did- Germany's statement is related to a blank Cheque, and rightly so. Austria felt that she had the power to go to war with Serbia, so, as history goes, she did.


Soon after the Austrians went to war with the Serbs, other European countries quickly joined sides. Russia supported Serbia and was allied with France, to name just one. Russia and France were also friends with Britain, together they formed the Entente, and they would later become the Allies and fight the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, etc). At this moment, from a British perspective, I think this was just another one of those European wars, although of course watched with great care. However, it soon blossomed into something much larger, when Germany invaded France... by way of Belgium. In 1839, Britain was among the larger European powers that signed a treaty, promising to protect and defend Belgium's neutrality, if she should be invaded or otherwise violated. When, in 1914, Germany marched through Belgium, (and indeed, occupied it, deported her citizens, and did more than simply march through it, as they first said), Belgium's neutrality was thereby violated, and since it was a matter of honour, Britain sent an ultimatum of their own to Germany. (I wished we still lived in a day when a clear cut ultimatum was sent to a belligerent country, detailing not only what we wanted them to stop, but also exactly what we would do if they didn't agree and stop their actions!) When Germany refused the ultimatum, we declared war. 

So, was it right? Fundamentally, I think so.  This treaty with Belgium was old, that to which we had pledged ourselves. Our pledge was not a hastily given one, but one of some years and standing. It was a matter of honour, and I think it was the right thing to do. It is unfortunate that the war quickly stagnated into trench warfare that killed so many and did not really accomplish much by way of ground conquered. And perhaps it is a bit rich for someone like me- so far removed from the actual war, and one who cannot properly comprehend the horrors into which our forefathers so valiantly entered, and through which they went- to actually say so. No doubt as I read and understand more, I will gain a deeper appreciation of this the Great War. I think I have already, and it is not entirely comfortable, given how horrible the war was, and how much death came about as a result- as a result of honour.


One might say it was a misplaced sense of honour, but with that, I would not agree. It is true that we were not, overall, fighting for something as tangible as the end of Nazi-ism, such as that in the Second World War (or what it would come to be, if that were not our original reasons for entering into the fray. I think, however, it was). We were not fighting to keep Europe free from an evil tyrant, although the Kaiser was not exactly the most pleasantest of chaps to have hanging about, to be sure. We were fighting for something that is a bit more intangible: honour. And sometimes we have to make terrible sacrifices in order to be honourable and to fulfil that which we have promised...

In the end, was it a necessary war? No, I don't think it was. Not at the heart of it all. It did much more damage, and little good. It changed the world irrevocably. And yet I find it fascinating, in an odd sense.