
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The First World War is not called the Great War for nothing. It was the single most decisive event in modern history, as well as one of the bloodiest: by the time the war ended, some nine million soldiers had been killed. It was also a historical full stop, marking the definitive end of the Victorian era and the advent of a new age of uncertainty. By 1918, the old order had fallen: the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had been destroyed; and even the victorious Allied powers had suffered devastating losses. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. And yet barely two decades later, the world was again plunged into conflict. Little wonder then that historians still cannot agree whether Britain's engagement was worth it. For some, the war was a vitally important crusade against Prussian militarism. Had we stayed out, they argue, the result would have been an oppressive German-dominated Europe, leaving the British Empire isolated and doomed to decline. And by fighting to save Belgium, Britain stood up for principle: the right of a small nation to resist its overbearing neighbours. For others, the war was a catastrophic mistake, fought at a catastrophic human cost. It brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of Nazism. We often forget that, even a few days before Britain entered the war, it seemed likely that we would stay out. H. H. Asquith's decision to intervene changed the course of history. But was it the right one? Arguing for the motion in this Intelligence Squared debate were John Charmley, Professor of Modern History at the University of East Anglia; and Dominic Sandbrook, historian, columnist and broadcaster. Arguing against them were Max Hastings, historian, journalist and former newspaper editor; and Margaret MacMillan, Warden of St Antony’s College and Professor of International History at the University of Oxford. The debate was chaired by senior editor at The Economist, Edward Lucas.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
By Intelligence Squared4.3
722722 ratings
The First World War is not called the Great War for nothing. It was the single most decisive event in modern history, as well as one of the bloodiest: by the time the war ended, some nine million soldiers had been killed. It was also a historical full stop, marking the definitive end of the Victorian era and the advent of a new age of uncertainty. By 1918, the old order had fallen: the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires had been destroyed; and even the victorious Allied powers had suffered devastating losses. It was supposed to be the war to end all wars. And yet barely two decades later, the world was again plunged into conflict. Little wonder then that historians still cannot agree whether Britain's engagement was worth it. For some, the war was a vitally important crusade against Prussian militarism. Had we stayed out, they argue, the result would have been an oppressive German-dominated Europe, leaving the British Empire isolated and doomed to decline. And by fighting to save Belgium, Britain stood up for principle: the right of a small nation to resist its overbearing neighbours. For others, the war was a catastrophic mistake, fought at a catastrophic human cost. It brought Communism to power in Russia, ripped up the map of Europe and left a festering sense of resentment that would fuel the rise of Nazism. We often forget that, even a few days before Britain entered the war, it seemed likely that we would stay out. H. H. Asquith's decision to intervene changed the course of history. But was it the right one? Arguing for the motion in this Intelligence Squared debate were John Charmley, Professor of Modern History at the University of East Anglia; and Dominic Sandbrook, historian, columnist and broadcaster. Arguing against them were Max Hastings, historian, journalist and former newspaper editor; and Margaret MacMillan, Warden of St Antony’s College and Professor of International History at the University of Oxford. The debate was chaired by senior editor at The Economist, Edward Lucas.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

305 Listeners

4,132 Listeners

2,153 Listeners

877 Listeners

5,530 Listeners

296 Listeners

849 Listeners

139 Listeners

892 Listeners

2,539 Listeners

27 Listeners

142 Listeners

6 Listeners

3 Listeners

2 Listeners

1 Listeners

3,340 Listeners

469 Listeners

2,427 Listeners

329 Listeners

0 Listeners

4 Listeners

0 Listeners

4 Listeners

0 Listeners

9 Listeners

0 Listeners

2 Listeners

0 Listeners

0 Listeners