Would UK have been better off staying out of the World Wars?

As a blonde, blue eyed six foot three aryan, i say definitely…

But the real driving force behind both was that bloody stupid set of domino treaties that triggered world war one.

To the time machine builders : sod going back and killing hitler. Kill the jerks that put those treaties in place and he stays an insignificant little austrian.

I read somewhere that when German troops entered Belgium and the Belgians resisted King George V was informed by his advisor's that he had to declare war on Germany. Which he did. The government was then informed that he had done so. A few days earlier the Cabinet had decided that being a signatory to the 1839 treaty guaranteeing Belgium's frontiers did not obligate it to oppose a German invasion of Belgium with military force. The Liberal Party, which was then in power, was very much against getting involved in hostilities. So ... Britain's entry into the war was actually brought about by someone "close to the King".

The war was actually started by Czar Nicholas, who, against the advice of ALL of his advisors, ordered a mobilisation of the Russian army. Although Russia had a treaty with Serbia (Austria had declared war on Serbia) it was not due to come into effect until 1917.

It was said that Nicholas made his decision whilst listening to the crowds outside his palace calling for war ... crowds encouraged to do so by the newspapers.

A historian claimed that the war came about because of the breakdown of normal diplomacy caused by the influence of newspapers.

The Kaiser had actually contacted the Czar and pleaded with him not to mobilise, because if he did so Germany would have to go to war. As France had a treaty with Russia Germany attacked them first, before they could fully mobilise. Germany's very efficient railways allowed them to get their act together much quicker than France.

As for WW 2. In February 1939 Germany proposed a treaty with Poland (with secret provisions for them to participate in a war with Russia and acquire Russian territory). Poland would allow Danzig to be returned to Germany and even transfer to Gemany parts of Poland occupied by German majorities. Germany would help Poland modernise its armed forces. Many influential Poles were in favour of this. However, the President of Poland, who had near dictatorial powers, did not give his approval. Britain then arranged a treaty with Poland. The treaty's plan involved Britain and France "immediately" attacking Germany if Germany attacked Poland, with the Polish army "marching on Berlin". When Britain and France declared war Germany had most of its armed forces engaged in Poland ... such was Hitler's confidence that we wouldn't go to war. A German General said that if we had have attacked, as per the plan, Germany would have been defeated "within three weeks". Germany had also successfully conned us into thinking that they had a much larger air force than they actually had.        

p.s Veronika, my intuition says you are male and english, your english can be perfect at times. Are you having a joke, is your real name Raymond Johnson from West Wratting?

Lets consider the likely course of events had Britain stood apart. September 1914 was touch and go. Without the British contribution The Germans would likely have taken Paris and defeated France. And even had they not there would have been no mass British army to support the French who are unlikely to have survived on their own. Nor any Royal Navy blockade of Germany. Germany did manage to defeat Tsarist Russia in spite of the blockade and the existence of a western front. This would have been all the more readily achieved sooner without either to worry about. The Ottoman Empire too would never have endured the knockout blow delivered by the British. In short the Central Powers would have won the war, with German hegemony on the continent.

The Third Reich which was borne out of defeat would probably never have happened but Europe would have been dominated by a militaristic Prussian led Germany. They would have been free to continue building their large navy, and with the increasing development of air power would likely have dominated us too and proved an existential threat to our freedoms. Palestine would continue to have been administered by the Ottomans in the interests of the muslim majority, and Israel is highly unlikely to have come into existence. On the plus side the holocaust might not have happened and the Bolshevik revolution might not have occurred. But we are unlikely to have retained our freedom for long in the face of a German dominated continent, without having to fight for it anyway, and without the Allies we would have had in 1914. So our participation in that conflict was the least bad option.

Had all that happened as it did but we had elected not to participate in the Second World War, it would have made no difference to Poland. But France without us might have bottled it and if it didnt it would have been even more easily defeated. The Germans invaded Denmark and Norway mostly to forestall us, so these countries would probably not have been attacked and remained neutral. But without a western front or war in the med to worry about Hitler could have turned his entire might eastwards and might well have delivered a knockout blow to the USSR. And without us in the war, the USA would likely not have come in against Germany and even if it did it would have had no ready base from which to launch offensives against Germany. So all would have depended on the outcome in the east. But either we would have ended up with Nazi Germany triumphant and hegemonic from the Atlantic to the Urals, or a Soviet dominated Europe. Under the circumstances prevailing the former would have been more likely but neither would have left us free and undominated, inevitably forced into becoming a de facto puppet state. The Jews of Europe would have been entirely wiped out, along with millions of Slavs, most of the rest reduced to conditions of slavery.

It is also likely that without us or the USA involved, the Manhattan project might not have occurred, and the atomic age delayed for many years, possibly decades. And the existential danger in that is that a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe might have got there first.

So however bad our participation in either war was for for us economically and in terms of lives lost and property destroyed, the eventual outcome would likely have been far worse for us if we hadnt bothered.

Freedom does sometimes have to be fought for, when those who would take it from us are willing to fight to try.

Your surname looks Ukrainian to me.

I have noticed that whilst many Russian names when written in the Latin alphabet end in "ov" or "ski", Ukrainian names more often end in things like "ko" or "pro" but definitely often with an "o" at the end. The Soviet era Marshal Semyon Timoshenko was for example a Ukrainian, whilst Marshall Georgy Zhukov was a Russian. You can tell that by their names alone.

All of which makes me wonder what your take on the current war in Ukraine is. But perhaps that needs a different thread.

Some of my relatives died in the World Wars, but it was necessary to stand against German aggression.

In WW1 war crimes were committed against Belgium.
And I really don't need to tell everyone how much of a scumbag the man with the silly moustache and penchant for rotational symmetry was.

We did what was morally right, and we are better off for it, because, to have tolerated evil then could have resulted in evil now. And a nuclear armed dictatorship centred in Germany, would have attacked and turned us into a slave state at some point.

It was right to resist.