Was It a Mistake for Britain to Fight World War II?

Hi, this is John Meersheimer, and I'm back to answer a question from a channel member. And the question for today comes from Hassan Akram 8328. And he asks whether it was worth it for Britain or for the United Kingdom to have fought World War II and whether the UK was right to have fought World War I and to today be helping Ukraine in their war with Russia.

I'll say a few words at the end about Ukraine, but I'm going to concentrate on his fascinating question about whether Britain should have fought World War I and World War II. And this, by the way, is a long-standing issue in the historical literature. And in fact, Niall Ferguson's first book, I think, which is called Pity of War, basically makes the case that Britain should not have entered World War I.

Now, my answer, to be very clear here, is that Britain had no choice but to get involved in World War I and in World War II. It was the correct decision in both cases. I fully understand that Britain paid an enormous cost for entering World War I, and it paid an enormous cost for entering World War II.

There's no question about that. But the fact is it would have paid an even greater cost had it not entered World War I and had it not entered World War II. It was choosing among two bad alternatives, and entering the war was the least bad alternative, both in 1914 and in 1939. Now let's talk a little bit about the threat environment that existed in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, which of course covers World War I and World War II.

Germany was by far the most powerful state in Europe before both world wars. And in fact, Imperial Germany was more powerful than Nazi Germany. But nevertheless, Nazi Germany, of course, was a remarkably powerful country. And Germany, in both cases, threatened to dominate all of Europe. In my language, it threatened to become a regional hegemon.

And I believe, as I'll make clear here, it was not in Britain's interest to let that happen. But the problem that Britain faced was that there was no one or two countries that could alone prevent Germany from dominating Europe. It was essential that Britain join a balancing coalition against Nazi Germany.

And you want to remember that in World War I, the balancing coalition to start with included Britain, France, and Russia. And the Russians were knocked out of the war, the French were almost knocked out of the war, and the United States had to come in to help defeat Germany. This gives you a sense of how powerful Imperial Germany was in World War I.

It took the Russians, the French, the British, and the United States to finish off Germany. Imperial Germany, of course, had an ally in Austria-Hungary, but one could make an argument that Austria-Hungary was more of a liability than it was an asset. It just didn't matter much in the balance of power.

But nevertheless, the reason that Britain entered the war was that Britain was needed to help defeat Germany. The same thing is true with regard to World War II. You want to remember that Nazi Germany was defeated by a coalition that included the Soviet Union, the United States, and Britain, those three countries together.

And they had a devil of a time defeating Nazi Germany because, again, it was an incredibly powerful force. And it threatened, like Imperial Germany, its predecessor, to dominate all of Europe, to become a regional hegemon. And this is why the British came in. Now let me say a bit more about British policy towards fighting wars on the continent, because I think this will illuminate what's going on here in both World War I and World War II.

Britain, of course, because it's an island that's not attached to the European continent, doesn't necessarily have to get involved in all of Europe's wars. This is, of course, what prompts the question that's on the table. If you're an island off the European continent, why just stay out of, why not just stay out of Europe's wars?

It's a perfectly legitimate question. Now, the fact is that the British have gone to great lengths over time to stay out of Britain, excuse me, to stay out of the continent's wars. There's no question about that. The British have tried to pursue a policy that's sometimes referred to as splendid isolationism.

And I would note to you that one of the reasons that Britain has been able, over time, to create this huge empire that spanned large portions of the globe was because Britain was not involved in Europe. Because Britain was not involved in the wars that took place on the continent. It was free to build a navy and build a powerful empire.

So Britain preferred to pursue a policy of splendid isolation if it could. The first case was the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, which went from 1792 up until 1815. That's the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. And France under Napoleon threatened to dominate all of Europe. And the British found this unacceptable.

And the British played a central role in fighting against Napoleon and defeating Napoleonic France. You all remember the Battle of Waterloo and Wellington's contribution to the victory over Napoleonic France. So that's the first case. The second case, of course, is World War I. And the third case is World War II.

So what you see is that whenever Britain faces a potential hegemon in Europe, it is forced to abandon its policy of splendid isolation, and it is forced to focus on defeating that potential hegemon. And in all those cases, it's very important to emphasize that Britain alone did not defeat Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, or Nazi Germany.

It did it as part of a balancing coalition. But it was an essential member of that balancing coalition. Now, my argument is that it makes eminently good sense for Britain to prevent any one country from dominating all of Europe. Because if that country, be it Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, was able to achieve hegemony in Europe, hegemony on the continent, it would seriously threaten Britain.

It would be an incredibly powerful country. If Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union in World War II, or if Imperial Germany had defeated Russia in World War I, it would have controlled a huge amount of resources in Russia. And then if it had defeated France in the process, it would have controlled all of those French resources.

And furthermore, whether it's Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany, it would have controlled French territory, which was very close to Britain. And the Germans would have been in an excellent position to blockade Britain or even to invade Britain. This was a situation that British policymakers considered untenable.

They wanted a continent that had at least two great powers on it, preferably three or four great powers. Indeed, from Britain's point of view, the more great powers there were on the European continent, and the more they challenged each other, balanced against each other, and even fought each other, the better for Britain.

The last thing Britain wanted was one single country to dominate all of Europe, to have all those resources at its disposal, and to be able to build a military capability that could threaten Britain in a serious way. So this explains why Britain, this island that's physically separated from the European continent and prefers to pursue a policy of splendid isolation, that prefers to build an empire, is on occasion forced to enter into a coalition that aims first at containing that potential hegemon, but then fighting against that potential hegemon if deterrence fails or if containment fails and you get a major war.

So my point is that from Britain's point of view, as costly as these wars were, here we're talking about the Napoleonic Wars, World War I or World War II, they were all costly. As costly as they were, it made sense from Britain's point of view. Now let me just elaborate on this a bit by talking about the American case.

The fact is the same logic basically applies to the United States. The United States has a vested interest in making sure that no country dominates Europe, just as Britain has a vested interest in making sure that no country dominates Europe. So what the United States has done over time is that it has hung back and it has tried to get the European countries, Britain included, to do the heavy lifting of preventing countries like Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany from dominating all of Europe.

So the question of whether or not Britain should have fought World War I or Britain should have fought World War II applies to the United States as well. Should we, the United States, another island, physically separated from the European continent, should we have fought World War I and should we have fought World War II?

Well, here's what happened in those two cases. World War I, of course, broke out on August 1st, 1914. The United States did not enter the war until April of 1917. That's when we declared war against Germany. And we came into the war because it was clear by the spring of 1917 that the British, the Russians, and the French were faltering in the face of various German offensives.

Germany was a very powerful state. Here we're talking about Imperial Germany in World War I. The United States came into the fight because we had a vested interest in preventing Germany from becoming a hegemon in Europe, from becoming the most powerful state on the European continent, and possibly dominating Britain in the process.

So we came in. So you see the same basic logic applies to the United States. The United States had no interest in getting involved in European wars before 1914. And even when the war breaks out, World War I, that is, we try to stay out, but we eventually have to come in because we don't want Germany to dominate all of Europe.

The same basic logic applies in World War II. The United States has little interest in getting involved in the war in Europe, which breaks out on September 1, 1939. But then the Germans first overrun Poland in 1939, then they overrun France in 1940 and pushed the British off the beaches at Dunkirk. And then in the summer of 1941, the Wehrmacht invades the Soviet Union, and the United States is beginning to think that the Nazis will knock out the Soviet Union and they will end up dominating all of Europe.

And Roosevelt then starts working overtime to get us involved in the war, because Roosevelt understands that it is not in the American national interest to let Nazi Germany dominate all of Europe any more than it was in Woodrow Wilson's interest in 1917 to allow Imperial Germany to dominate all of Europe.

So thankfully, from an American point of view, on December 11, 1941, this is four days after the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany declares war on the United States. And the United States is then in World War II in Europe. And of course, as I said before, it is Nazi Germany is defeated by a coalition that includes the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain.

And again, you can see the Soviet Union played the key role in defeating Nazi Germany, but it needed help from Britain, that's why Britain got into the war, and it needed help from the United States, which is why the United States got into the war. But the key point is, in terms of the question, that the United States, much like Britain, had no choice but to enter both World War I and World War II.

Because from Britain's point of view, as well as from America's point of view, it is in those two countries' interests to make sure that no country, whether it's Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union during the Cold War, dominates all of Europe. Let me conclude with just a very brief statement about the last part of the question that I was asked.

Hassan Akram 8328 said at the end should uh Britain be helping Ukraine in their war with Russia? My answer to this, and this is really a subject for a separate video, but my short answer is that Britain should not be helping Ukraine in its war against Russia. And in fact, it was in Britain's interest to make sure that this war never happened, and then once the war did happen, to shut it down almost immediately.

And the fact is, and this is very important to emphasize, Russia today is not a threat to dominate all of Europe. Russia is not the equivalent of the Soviet Union, it's not the equivalent of Nazi Germany, it's not the equivalent of Imperial Germany, and it's not the equivalent of Napoleonic France, as I'm sure all viewers recognize.

We're now in the fifth year of this war, and the Russians have had a devil of a time conquering the eastern one-fifth of Ukraine. Does this look like a country with an army that is going to dominate all of Europe and threaten Britain or threaten the United States? Of course it doesn't. Therefore, the basic logic I laid out that explains why Britain entered World War I and World War II, and why the United States entered World War I and World War II does not apply to the Ukraine war today and how both Britain and the United States should think about Russia.

That concludes my commentary for today in response to this excellent question, and I look forward to the next episode. Thank you.

Was It a Mistake for Britain to Fight World War II? | Ask the Professor

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin