Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War

The video script begins with an introduction by the chair, who thanks the audience for attending what is noted as one of the most well-attended events. The chair sets the stage for a debate on the topic of militarism and miscalculation, particularly in the context of Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The chair clarifies that the debate will not focus on the origins or blame of the first world war, nor will it delve into alternative histories. Instead, the focus will be on the motion that Britain should not have fought in the first world war. The chair introduces the panelists, including Dominic Sandbrook, a historian, columnist, and broadcaster, and outlines the format of the debate, which includes opening speeches, audience participation, and voting on the motion.

Dominic Sandbrook opens the debate by arguing against Britain's involvement in the first world war. He presents a case based on historical facts rather than emotion, asserting that Britain's participation was a grave mistake due to the high human cost, including over 700,000 lives lost and many more soldiers returning with severe disabilities. Sandbrook also discusses the broader economic and political consequences of the war, such as Britain's shift from being the world's biggest creditor to a major debtor, the loss of its global economic and financial dominance, and the eventual loss of the Empire. He argues that Britain should have remained on the sidelines and allowed the continental powers to resolve their conflicts without British intervention.

The speaker continues to challenge the idea that Britain's involvement in WWI was a moral crusade, countering the notion that Germany posed a significant threat to European civilization. He discusses Germany's relatively small army size compared to France and Russia, and its democratic advancements, which were more progressive than those in Britain at the time. The speaker also addresses the complexities of the alliances and the nature of the countries involved, such as France's militarism, Russia's repressive regime, and Serbia's aggressive nationalism. He concludes by suggesting that the consequences of Britain's involvement, including the Russian Revolution, the rise of Stalin and Hitler, and the Holocaust, were dire and that the war was fought for naught.

Sir Max Hastings begins his speech by addressing the myths and legends that have arisen around the historical event of 1914 and the outbreak of WWI. He counters the argument presented by Dominic Sandbrook, suggesting that the war was not a 'bad war' in comparison to WWII, which is seen as a 'good war'. Hastings argues that while the war was a colossal tragedy, it was necessary to fight due to the threat posed by Germany's militarized autocracy. He emphasizes the importance of Belgium's neutrality, which Britain was committed to defend, and the moral responsibility to protect small nations like Belgium from aggression. He also discusses the potential consequences of a German victory, suggesting that it would have been disastrous and that Britain's participation was crucial in preventing such an outcome.

John Charmley, a professor of modern history, argues against the idea that Britain could have or should have remained isolated from the events leading to WWI. He challenges the notion of 'splendid isolation' and the belief that Britain could have maintained its balance of power without intervention. Charmley discusses the complexities of British foreign policy and the strategic decisions made during that time, suggesting that the perceived threats and interests were not as clear-cut as often portrayed. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the historical context and the actual decisions made by political leaders, rather than relying on simplified or revisionist interpretations of history.

Margaret McMillan, the warden of St Anthony's College Oxford, discusses the global implications of Britain's decision to enter WWI. She emphasizes the importance of considering the historical context and the perspectives of those who had to make difficult decisions at the time. McMillan argues that Britain's involvement in the war was not just about preserving the balance of power in Europe, but also about defending the rights of small nations like Belgium, which was invaded by Germany. She also highlights the moral responsibilities and the sense of defending a way of life that motivated Britain's decision to join the war. McMillan challenges the idea that the war was fought for democracy or a liberal international order, asserting that the motivations were more complex and multifaceted.

The debate continues with a focus on Britain's national interests and the principles at stake during WWI. The speakers argue that Britain's involvement was not just about defending the Empire or financial interests, but also about upholding international law and the rights of small nations. They discuss the moral responsibilities and the strategic considerations that influenced Britain's decision to enter the war, emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical context and the motivations of the political leaders at the time. The speakers also address the counterfactual scenarios and the potential consequences of Britain's non-intervention, suggesting that the outcomes could have been even more disastrous for Britain and Europe.

The discussion delves into the question of alliances and Britain's historical stance on isolation versus engagement in European conflicts. The speakers explore the complexities of Britain's relationships with other European powers, particularly Germany, and the strategic decisions that led to Britain's involvement in WWI. They examine the arguments for and against isolation, considering the potential outcomes and the impact on Britain's global standing. The conversation also touches on the role of key political figures and the influence of public opinion on Britain's decision to enter the war.

The speakers engage in a detailed examination of historical perspectives and the use of counterfactuals in understanding Britain's involvement in WWI. They debate the validity of counterfactual scenarios, which involve speculating about historical outcomes that did not occur. The discussion covers the potential consequences of different decisions, such as Germany's victory or Britain's non-intervention, and the impact these might have had on subsequent events. The speakers also address the limitations of counterfactual reasoning and the importance of grounding historical analysis in factual evidence.

The conversation turns to the legacy of WWI and its aftermath, with a focus on the political, social, and economic changes that occurred in the wake of the war. The speakers discuss the collapse of European empires, the rise of new nations, and the emergence of extremist ideologies such as communism and fascism. They also consider the long-term impact of the war on global politics and the lessons that can be drawn from this period of history. The discussion highlights the complexity of understanding historical events and the importance of considering multiple perspectives and outcomes.

The script concludes with a summary of the debate's final points and the announcement of the voting results. The chair highlights the key arguments made by both sides and encourages the audience to reflect on the implications of Britain's involvement in WWI. The voting results show a significant shift in opinion, with a majority of the audience ultimately believing that Britain should have fought in the war. The chair commends the participants for a well-fought debate and acknowledges the importance of revisiting and reevaluating historical events.