by Sam Fowles
The “balance fallacy” in the commemorations of the First World War means we forget the real reason millions died.
“There are two sides to every story and this is my side. The true side.” said Emma Stone at the beginning of the (highly underrated) teen comedy “Easy A”.
The mantra that “there are two sides to every story” is embodied to a fault in the anniversary coverage of the First World War. This is dangerous. January’s controversy about the origins of the war has been smoothed over with references to “complexity”. Every mention of tragedy is mitigated by the platitude that “no one” was expecting the nature of the war. Apparently it was no one’s fault.
Except that it was. To say that the slaughter was senseless and some were more to blame than others isn’t to ignore the complexity of diplomatic and military history. Sometimes history is not balanced. Sometimes the merits of one side of the argument so monumentally outweigh the other that the imbalance must be acknowledged.
In a History Today blog in January I said that the study of history is the search, not for truth but, for understanding. But the belief that the sun orbits the earth does little to advance one’s understanding of the solar system.
Understanding history is important because history is inherently political. Imagine historians agree that “A happened, therefore B action was taken and C was the catastrophic result”. The next time A happens we, as a voting public, will be understandably skeptical of anyone who suggests doing B or of anything suggested by the people who suggested B in the first place.
This creates a problem for those original decision makers (or their political descendants) who don’t wish to lose power. Or if doing B again remains in the interests of certain powerful groups despite its catastrophic consequences for society in general.
There’s a fable amongst lawyers about the Harvard Civil Procedure professor who tells his students: “If the facts are on your side argue the facts, if the law is on your side argue the law and if neither the facts nor the law are on your side bang your fist down on the defence table and make enough noise until everyone forgets you’re in the wrong.” If you want history to forget how you screwed up, create enough contradictory accounts that it looks like a debate with “no right answer” rather than a cataclysmic failure of judgment. Create legitimacy with noise rather than academic rigour.
The First World War is just such an issue. Naomi Klein argues that to understand suffering we should look for who benefits from it. Whether or not the First World War was inevitable, it was not necessary for Britain to intervene. Britain had ignored guarantees identical to that (to Belgium) which its leaders insisted must be honoured. Germany, France and Russia had fought each other multiple times over the preceding century without the need for Britain to intervene.
Similarly it is simply wrong to say that no one could have predicted the slaughter. The American Civil War and Crimean War both saw dynamic tactics lead to thousands of deaths in the face of modern weapons (it shouldn’t take a genius to reason that if the bolt action rifle could cause such damage then to try the same thing against machine guns would be suicide). Indeed Bertrand Russell was eloquently describing the dangers at the time.
So who benefitted from Britain’s involvement in the First World War? Those with a financial and political interest in Britain’s status as a world power. This was certainly not the majority of British people. The wealth of empire was effectively controlled by a small elite. But those with an interest in maintaining the effective monopolies that were the result of Britain’s policy of excluding other states from swathes of Africa and the Middle East and those who’s political legitimacy rested on maintaining their status as leaders of empire had much to lose from staying out of the war and much to gain from sending others to fight. For their political and commercial gain over a million of their own people died.
This is not to say that there is some sort of conspiracy or cover up. Reality is more subtle. But members of an elite see their interests lie in obfuscating the historical record of a time when that elite (with different members) failed. So they write conflicting accounts. If these happen to rely more on xenophobia and exaggeration than actual history it doesn’t matter.
This is important because nothing has changed. We may not have seen the sheer scale of the devastation of the First World War repeated recently, but the issues remain the same. Financial and political elites still sacrifice the interests of the majority for the benefit of themselves. Sometimes this means war (180 killed in Iraq so that KBR and Dick Cheney’s Halliburton can make millions), sometimes it just means local misery (David Clapson starving to death so David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith can get to votes of Daily Mail readers). Forgetting history may not doom us to repeat it but misunderstanding it surely will.
Sam Fowles is a researcher in International Law and Politics at Queen Mary, University of London and the University if Sydney. He blogs for the Huffington Post and tweets at @SamFowles.
Tags: class, first world war, history, law, Sam Fowles
Um, Naomi, when you say: “Britain had ignored guarantees identical to that (to Belgium) which its leaders insisted must be honoured. Germany, France and Russia had fought each other multiple times over the preceding century without the need for Britain to intervene.”
…I wonder if you could perhaps quote which similar guarantees Britain had ignored between 1815 and 1914 and perhaps, apart from the Franco-Prussian War and the Crimean War, which other conflicts had seen Germany, France and Russia embroiled with each other?
Also worth noting that no government, with the possible exception of the USA, profited from the First World War – the British most certainly didn’t. As to the elite sitting out the war, might be worth your having a look at the social composition of the casualty lists from the War – the upper classes suffered their share and more of the deaths.
My apologies, Sam, of course.
Actually there’s 3 sides to a Story, one persons ,the other persons,and the a truth,as aleya, when the truths different too the way sam sees it, he ignores it,
History is just one damned thing after another.
Fowles is right to say that Britain need not have entered the War, by doinf so the congflagration spread worldwide and the colonies then had to become involved.
The War could have been kept to the mainland of Europe and been over in a few weeks.
And we don’t learn any lessons from it.
Many internationally renowned historians have, for many decades, researched and written about the the 1st world war, its protaganists and its causes, but fear not dear readers of Labour Uncut, all is now revealed and the culprits are………those fucking Tories again. Well would you adam and eve it governor.
You need an in depth knowledge of the geo-political landscape of the time and relationships within those countries and regions. You need to understand the nature of war and the strategies and tactics employed. you have neither.
Your arguement boils down to the rich using their power and influence to retain their interests and this equates somehow to benefits reform and the accusation that Tories are murderers.
Probably the most tenuous drivel you’ve written yet oh wise one.
It always surprised me that Queen Victoria’s family seems to get off Scot free for the causes of WW1. That perceived slights and jealousy amongst the cousins had a significant input can hardly be refuted.
I would believe a word of this article if it was reasoned and rational.
BUT I quote: “ Financial and political elites still sacrifice the interests of the majority for the benefit of themselves. Sometimes this means war (180 killed in Iraq so that KBR and Dick Cheney’s Halliburton can make millions), sometimes it just means local misery (David Clapson starving to death so David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith can get to votes of Daily Mail readers)”
No mention of Tony Blair’s part in going to war on Iraq. No mention of Tony Blair becoming a multi millionaire following that.
Such an omission is so obvious and partisan that it degrades the entire article to below the level of a schoolboy’s political rant. At least a schoolboy could attempt to be reasonably impartial and thorough in his analysis.
I’m not sure whether I’m more appalled by the article or by the claim that Sam Fowles holds a position at the University of Sydney (well, that’s what I’m assuming is meant by the ‘University “if” Sydney’). QMUL of course has never cared about things like ability or integrity, but I’ve always respected Sydney.
“I said that the study of history is the search, not for truth but, for understanding.”
Pompous rubbish. History is based on finding the facts, and then interpreting them. You can’t ‘understand anything based on falsehoods, which is what this article is mostly based on.
‘Whether or not the First World War was inevitable, it was not necessary for Britain to intervene. Britain had ignored guarantees identical to that (to Belgium) which its leaders insisted must be honoured. Germany, France and Russia had fought each other multiple times over the preceding century without the need for Britain to intervene.’
That is a gross misunderstanding, possibly deliberate given the tone of the article, of the reasons why the guarantee was there in the first place and the actual reasons why it was honoured. Britain’s best interests are served by the continent not being dominated by one power, and by having ready access to the channel ports of France and Belgium to trade with the continent. That was why Belgian neutrality was guaranteed by Britain. But even if it had not been, it is inconceivable that Britain could have stood by and allowed the conquest of France and Belgium by an aggressive, expansionist and highly militarised state (Germany) which had begun to build a lifestyle and economic that, like the Napoleonic system of France, could . If they had tried to ‘stay out,’ the likely result was that they would have been forced to try and fight off a German invasion on their own, without allies and without a significant land army of their own. There would only have been one outcome to such a war, regardless of myths about the strength of the Royal Navy.
Where you are slightly closer is with this comment:
‘Similarly it is simply wrong to say that no one could have predicted the slaughter. The American Civil War and Crimean War both saw dynamic tactics lead to thousands of deaths in the face of modern weapons (it shouldn’t take a genius to reason that if the bolt action rifle could cause such damage then to try the same thing against machine guns would be suicide).’
There were British observers at Gettysburg in 1863 who did indeed make exactly this point. Kitchener, an experienced soldier, made it as well. Not just Bertrand Russell, but also Lloyd George (of all people) warned of the dangers. That people refused to listen is due to the emotional nature of the ‘rape of Belgium’. The ferocity of the German assault and the fearful destruction that was wrought turned pacifists into furious belligerents. That it later became forgotten in the lengthy horror that unfolded should not cause us to forget why people were so willing to fight at the start.
‘So who benefitted from Britain’s involvement in the First World War?’
Pretty much everyone in Europe apart from the Germans, whose fault it was anyway. Living in a Prussianized colony would have been a terrible disaster for them. (I have not forgotten that due to the economic turmoil the war caused, many later ended up under Fascist or Communist dictatorships. To say that many of these were still not as bad as a Europe-wide Kaiserreich is not to denigrate the sufferings of the people of Europe in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.)
‘Those with a financial and political interest in Britain’s status as a world power. This was certainly not the majority of British people. The wealth of empire was effectively controlled by a small elite.’
Actually, I think you will find that a great majority of the British people depended on the Empire for cheap food (Canada) cheap raw materials (Africa) and captive markets (India) for their jobs and their dinners. That they did not have a ‘fair’ share of the wealth is a different point – but since it could be argued, by your logic at least, that it was stolen anyway that hardly matters.
‘But those with an interest in maintaining the effective monopolies that were the result of Britain’s policy of excluding other states from swathes of Africa and the Middle East and those who’s political legitimacy rested on maintaining their status as leaders of empire had much to lose from staying out of the war and much to gain from sending others to fight. For their political and commercial gain over a million of their own people died.’
Very few of the political or economic elite benefitted from the war. In fact, many of them lost out substantially due to loss of markets, loss of labour and above all loss of family. Your point is utterly absurd. Nobody in Britain ‘willed’ World War One. Indeed, many of the industrialists were anxious to stay out of it and try to sell material to both sides.
‘But members of an elite see their interests lie in obfuscating the historical record of a time when that elite (with different members) failed. So they write conflicting accounts.’
And you, as a member of an agenda pushing elite, fail to see the irony in that comment? Ah well.
The simple fact is that the First World War happened at the time it did and in the way it did because Germany needed to gain money and territory to support itself, and it planned to get it by force – an old trick. That is why it declared war on France, when it did not have to, and invaded Belgium, when a more direct route would have taken its army via Lorraine. That is why Germany was blamed for the war in 1919 – because it was largely its fault. That’s not to say it couldn’t or wouldn’t have happened some other way, but bearing in mind the far greater tensions of the Cold War never flared into open conflict in over fifty years because both sides held back, such avoidable mistakes are clearly defined and should not be obfuscated by dishonest ideologues.
I used to teach university courses on the First World War. If somebody had handed this rubbish to me as an essay, I would have given them a zero and advised them not to study history, on the grounds that ideologues with agendas are the very worst sort of historians.
Finally, and as an aside, you should know that this is disturbingly similar to much Nazi propaganda of the 1930s when they were trying to persuade Britain that there was no need to interfere in their putative second European war. It didn’t wash then and it doesn’t now.
Ah, poor editing on my part:
‘which had begun to build a lifestyle and economic that, like the Napoleonic system of France, could ‘
should read:
‘which had begun to build a lifestyle and economic system that, like the Napoleonic system of France, could only be sustained by plundering the resources of other states.’
As nobody said at my school, ‘Festina lente!’
what was the name that Michael foot gave to those who didn’t want our peoeple to suffer the hoorors of the 2ns Wolrd war, he called tem appeasersd it’s similar now to those who don’t want our troops to sort out the mess we made in iraq, even if Sam still feels this, the mess of Germany after the first world war,lead to our invlo0vement in WW2 then ,we cant stand by and watch peope die