Origins of The First World War and ramifications

I respond to TimShatz.

Agreed, it could have been avoidable, but you would have left a mad man in control of one of the largest armies in Continental Europe. This accomodation attempt, during the Interwar Period was what led to WW2. Germany was receiving mixed messages from the main powers before WW2. It was also receiving mixed messages from the other powers before WW1. At the start, WW1 could have been avoided, but once events started to build up, it would have become harder and harder to avoid war.

The assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinard was only the straw that broke the camel's back. There were a lot of factors both large and small in Europe that built up to the first World War. I think though the Russo-Sino War happened beforehand nobody on either side was quite expecting it to be so bloody and take so long. Everyone expected a quick war with home before Christmas Time being the common refrain because that was the type of war that had happened in Europe up to that time.

Events snowballed, so we can look back at events and see things clearer, but when you are in the midst of events it is harder to maintain this clarity. It is like, at the moment it is hard to see when events in Iraq and Afganistan will stablize, and the process will finish because it is still ongoing.

The whole problem, is how to decide what to do at the same time and make the correct decision that makes sure that the peace is maintained without future evil implications. Kaiser Wilheim and Hitler were two evil figures, that if they were never checked and Chamberlain's policy of Apeasement was followed would continue to go on and on and on with their greed to obtain everything they could. It is the larger scale equivalent of giving a bully an ice-cream while he has a victim he has beaten-up lying on the ground and is selecting his next victim. The whole problem is one of motive and Kaiser Wilheim and Hitler all aimed to complete a quest that Alexander the Great almost acheived...

"... I think though the Russo-Sino War happened beforehand". ???

Russo-Japan War, 1904-05 ....?

MM

I thought it was before, thanks for that, just had a history blank with my dates. That the Russo-Sino war had a lot of the innovations that contributed to the stalemate during WW1. There was the widespread use of barbed-wire, trenches, machine-guns, grenades, rifles, snipers.

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Sino-Japanese War .....
SinoJapaneseWar.com Sino-Japanese War 1894-95

MM

I can recommend a very interesting book: "13 days" by Clive Ponting.

It contains a range of the original documents and telegrams between the legations and their capitals in the different countries.

It surely shows that Germany was not into mobilisation and was the last one to get ready, nearly to the point of getting hurt in the process (where would Russia go besides Austria?)

Unfortunately, the absolute un-professional and clumsy way of Austria handling the Sarajevo story got everybody into it.

If Austria had made a quick punitive war on Serbia, as in 1-2 weeks and finished the this police action, war could (maybe?) have been avoided. At least for some years.

Austria lost the initiative and the whole thing just got muddled with Russia mobilising.

Amazing to see that during Bismarck, UK and Germany were very close and France isolated. Wilhelm II got that friendship stuffed up.

The other thing was probably that all wars up until WWI were wars between ARMIES, not NATIONS.

The really deep underlying causes should probably be found in Charlemagne's settlement of Europe, none of these were really changed until after WWII.

Is that a fair comment as well?

Ivan

Am reading an interesting book called "The History of Warfare." It is by John Keegan who is probably the foremost military historian alive today. Book published in 1993 and is a tough read because a lot of it addresses warfare in ancient history BC, for example, but is worthwhile because of the light which he sheds on very important but not very sexy issues like logistics and supplies. In the section on Logistics and Supply he points out that the Civil War in America was the first "Railroad War." In fact there was, in 1860, 30000 miles of railroad track in the US. That was more than the rest of the world combined. The Union controlled most of it and that control played a huge part in the union victory.

In the period following that war there was a lot of railroad building in Europe which played a big role in the rapid mobilisation of the various armies at the outset of the war. Even the Russians were able to mobilise much faster than the Germans believed they could. However, the railroads could not help much in getting supplies to the front lines after they reached the rail heads. For the most part horses were needed to pull the wagons of supplies that had to reach close to the battle zones where from that point, man packing had to take over in the fire zone. In 1914-18 the largest single category of cargo unloaded at French ports for the BEF was horse fodder. The Germans used 1.4M horses in WW1 and most of those died There was a shortage of horses and horse breeders did well in the US because so many were sent to Europe.

During WW2, the British and Americans and to some extent, the USSR, were well equipped with trucks and gasoline, thanks to the US. The Germans had to rely a great deal on horses with 2.75M being used and most died. The Red Army used 3.5M horses. The US supplied to the USSR 395,883 trucks and 2.7M tons of fuel, which the Soviets admitted was crucial in the advance from Stalingrad to Berlin.

ivanotter said:

Unfortunately, the absolute un-professional and clumsy way of Austria handling the Sarajevo story got everybody into it.

If Austria had made a quick punitive war on Serbia, as in 1-2 weeks and finished the this police action, war could (maybe?) have been avoided. At least for some years.

Click to expand...

Shame on Serbs for rejecting humiliating Austrian ultimatum and for defending themselves successfully in 1914.

".... Shame on Serbs for rejecting humiliating Austrian ultimatum and for defending themselves successfully in 1914.".

No shame. But the Tzar should have stayed out of it --- protector of the Slavs --- indeed. And that attitude predated "Germanification" under Bismarck's leadership.

Some protector.

MM

Even if Tzar indeed stayed out of it, I doubt the French would. We were on much better terms with the French in those days then in the recent years you know.

"... Even if Tzar indeed stayed out of it, I doubt the French would".

This is indeed probably very true. Another example of France looking for cause to redress her own defeats, blunders and misadventures that you and I have sparred over in previous threads.

I was thinking about this topic after I posted this AM .... there was a book several years back that postulated that Britain needn't have honored its agreements in 1914 and gone to war ... and what a difference that would have made. Originally I pooh poohed that theory but the more I think on it the more it seems true.

If Britain had refused to land an army in France - and stuck to keeping the sea lanes open for Her commerce with Empire - World War I would have have never become a WW. Just a big nasty Continental war between emerging and fading empires and emerging nationalisms.

No body gained anything from WWI - except the USA. Poland and Czechoslovakia were only momentary "creations" at some other countries' expense. Versailles (in 1918 -19) was as delusional in its way as efforts by various countries and regimes are today to "redistribute wealth" (carbon credits, etc. etc.)

By going to France in 1914, Britain committed economic suicide.

MM

Been busy, so I'm a late entrant in this fray. Let's start with the official party line as written by the victors: Germany was driven by an egotistical and determined emperor who was bent on European domination. Britain was neutral and peace-loving, but would not stand idly by while Germany invaded and attacked countries that it had pledged to help. So when Germany declared was on France on 3 August 1914 and began its advance through Belgium, it triggered a European war that became a global war as colonies of the British Empire provided men and munitions in support of the Mother country.
No war occurs in a vacuum and the roots of WWI go back well over 100 years and while all countries involved share some of the blame the lions share goes to the Lion, the British one that is. Britain's imperial pretensions and her determination to maintain her place in the world, including conflict with Germany over her colonial ambitions is/was the most important.
To see Britain's imperial policy in action let's go to the Crimean War (1853 – 56). Russia in desperation to obtain an approach to the Mediterranean, destroy the Ottoman Turks, and seize Constantinople, invades the Crimean peninsula.
The Ottoman Empire was on its last legs, central European powers, and the newly resurgent Balkan states, were circling, waiting to grab a piece. Thus the British, fearful of losing the advantages of empire, intervened on behalf of the Turks. The British believed that Russian expansion southward would eventually threaten their interest in India, the crown jewel of the Empire. Russia had already expanded southward into Transcaucasia and was involved in central Asia and Afghanistan. Thus the two Anglo-Afghan Wars (1839-42)(1878 -80) and the British invasion of Tibet (1903).
All this reveals exactly how far Britain was prepared to go to preserve its empire. British efforts to preserve the crumbling Ottoman Empire blocked the ambitions of Balkan nations trying to free themselves from the Turks. Thus instead of a quick, painful, rapid dismemberment we had continuous warfare for over eighty years stoking the fires of Balkan nationalism, which bled over into the destabilization of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thus the passions that launched the bullet that ended the life of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 have their roots in British Imperial policy.
As for Imperial Russia, humiliated by the British they turned to the far east leading to a confrontation with Japan in 1904-05. In eastern Europe they promoted the drive for Slavic independence becoming the protector of the Balkan Slavs supporting their struggle for independence from the Austrian Hapsburgs. Thus Russia allied itself with France, in a strange twist, becoming an ally of its old enemy Britain.
So the wonderful world of pre-WWI Europe: Britain and France suspicious of German intentions form an alliance. Germany accordingly made an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire to her south. This alienated the Russians, protectors of the Serbs, so they join the British and French in a mutual alliance against aggression. Russian intensions to move against the Turks prompted the Turks to ally with Germany.
Europe was on the point of a needle. The assassination of the Archduke tipped the balance. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany, Germany invades Belgium to get at the French bringing Belgium into the conflict. Britain was under no specific obligation to come to Belgium's aid, since the 1839 Treaty of London was a collective agreement among nations not including Germany which did not become a unified country until 1871. This did not matter to Imperial Britian, it gave them the excuse they had been looking for and the countries leadership took it.

"... All this reveals exactly how far Britain was prepared to go to preserve its empire."

Transpose your words, Mike: All this reveals exactly how far the USA was prepared to go to preserve American free-market capitalism.

It isn't a conspiracy ...

Britain's "Empire" began with Ireland, the Channel Islands and Newfoundland. Not much from which to launch a Francis Drake, a Nelson, Frobisher, Shackleton or Cooke.

Britain's Empire was hard-earned and fair-won - and the Royal Navy was the instrument of governance.

Other than regurgitating dogma: "... let's start with the party line", what exactly are you trying to say, Mike ...? Lots of words but what's your point .... that the topic is complicated, tortured and nuanced ..? Yes. Agreed.

MM

Boiled down to its simplist terms, Germany did indeed START WWI by its invasion of Belgium, no arguement there, but Germany had been pushed, proded and poked into position mostly by Britain
The late nineteenth century was the last major era of imperialist expansion. All the great European powers were involved. Africa was rapidly carved up between the main European powers and harsh conditions were imposed on independent states that could not be conquered outright, such as China. Eventually every available territory was claimed as a colony by one or other of the major European powers.
By the turn of the twentieth century Germany was a rising force in the world eager to acquire an empire comparable to Britain. In 1871 the Germans achieved their dream of unification which had been strongly resisted by France who preferred a weak and divided Germany. By 1884 Germany had put together an overseas empire, but a small one compared to those administered by Britain and France. The scramble for African colonies had been driven by the idea that a nations economic survival depended upon it being able to offload surplus products into overseas possessions. Thus German imperialists argued that Britain's dominant position in the world gave it an unfair advantage in international markets, thus limiting Germany's economic growth and threatening its security. Britain meanwhile was determined to continue its expansionist plans because it foresaw a possible decline in its share of the world's export trade with the rise of competition from Germany, America, and France.
During the Bismarck period, the Iron Chancellor managed to gain what he wanted by subtle means, without overt confrontation. However when the young, inexperienced, and impatient Wilhelm II was made Kaiser the situation started to spiral out of control. Britain put pressure on Germany to limit the size of its naval fleet in the North Sea and hemmed in the Germans on land by their treaties with France and Russia. France was also trying to oust the Germans from their territory, Alsace-Lorraine, acquired by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. All these pressures fed German resentment until the moment it exploded.
In 1902 Britain signed a new alliance with Japan to prevent German expansion in that area. The British assured Germany that their alliance with France and Russia were only about ending old disputes and had nothing to do with joining those nations in the event of war. Assurances aside, the fact remained that Britain had allied itself with two nations convinced that Germany was their enemy. The Germans were worried.
In the first Moroccan Crisis of 1905, Wilhelm II supported Moroccan independence, thus removing them as a French protectorate. Britain had to choose between supporting French ambitions or the German move toward an independent Moroccan state. In response Britain entered into military consultations with the French and delivered a blunt "Hands off" message to Germany.
Meanwhile in South Africa, the British (unsanctioned but a good example of the British left hand not knowing what the right was doing) Jameson raid into the Transvaal was repulsed. Ever the diplomat, Wilhelm II sends a telegram to the President of the Transvaal, the infamous Kruger telegram:
"I express to you my sincere congratulations that, without appealing to the help of friendly Powers, you and your people have succeeded in repelling with your own forces the armed bands which had broken into your country, and in maintaining the independence of your country against foreign aggression."
Sent from British telegrapher to telegrapher along British telegraph wires through British relay stations, the telegram soon became public and was printed in British newspapers. British public opinion turned quickly against the Germans in what was seen as an attempt to interfere in a British sphere of influence.
By the time of the second Moroccan crises Britain was firmly on the French side and Germany was encircled by hostile forces. In 1912 Britain added fuel to the smoldering fire by signing a naval agreement with France pledging to defend the French coast along the channel and the Atlantic. More fuel was poured on in 1913 with the formation of the British Expeditionary Force, which comprised six divisions created to fight on the continent.
British imperial ambitions simply could not afford for France to be defeated in another war with Germany. For that would make Germany the strongest nation in continental Europe, at a time when that country, was attempting to gain control of the oceans and expand its sphere of influence into the Balkans and Turkey. Britain's leaders clearly felt that they had to join France in standing against Germany sooner or later; they simply awaited the right pretext.

Oh gee, poor germany, not allowed to conquer Europe by the agressive machination of britain. wot a load of tripe, to put it mildly.

Whilst the 2nd Reich was not the monster that the third reich was, it was still a monster, make no mistake. Her aims were clear....dominate Europe by whatever means needed....including, (and preferably), by military means.

Sorry if that offends, but such dominance of Europe by a single power was totally unnacceptable to british NATIONAL (not Imperial) interests. A Europe dominated by a single nation was a europe capable of destroying Britain, AND her empire. Thats why the british since before napoleon have always supported the second most powerful contintal power in Europe. By supporting the second continental nation, the brits could maintain a balance of power, and thereby ensure no single nation achieve the dominance of the continent that the british so feared. Its a strange warped logic to argue that the british were responsible for German aggression because they were defending their national interests. What were they supposed to do....allow the germans to overrun western europe, and then their own country as well, and not raise a finger in reply???? IMO thats a ridiculous notion, nobody put a gun to germany's head to make them invade Belgium, nobody was holding the germans to econmic ransom, except that other countries, following their own self interest took steps to maximise that self interest. The british should not be held up as responsible for causing WWI simply because they were good at looking after themselves. The difference between the british and german behaviours is a fine one, but nevertheless significant. Britain was not subjegating other white, western european nations to get their way, wheras the germans were more than prepared to do that.

Napoleon once said "Prussia has emerged from the barrel of a cannon", and he was spot on in that assessment. About as amenable to other nations interests as a wild dog after a rabbit in my opinion. At great national cost, the british thankfully took care of that wild dog, twice.

"... Prussia has emerged from the barrel of a cannon".

Great quote. And if he had been alive after Bismarck's unification he could rightly have said: Germany emerged from the barrel of a cannon.

I agree with your analysis, Parsifal.


MM

As I had stated earlier Germany certainly initiated A WAR by its invasion of Belgium It became a WORLD WAR due to the interlocking treaties forged by Britain. The German invasion could have easily been handled as a continental war. Back anyone into a corner and leave them no option and they will fight. Britain and France wanted a war to settle the "German problem" once and for all. None of the countries involved expected the TYPE of war that resulted. Almost all expected to be home by Christmas.
Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer" Three Examples:
MID-EAST
The British had recognized the importance of the region's oil wealth as early as 1916 when the British secretly signed the 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement with France which called for the division of the Ottoman Empire into a patchwork of states that would be ruled by the British and French. The secret agreement was exposed when the Soviet government retrieved a copy in 1921, but a year earlier, the oil factor had been officially recognized in the 1920 San Remo Treaty. In 1928, the Red Line Agreement was signed, which described the sharing of the oil wealth of former Ottoman territories by the British and French colonial governments, and how percentages of future oil production were to be allocated to British and French oil companies.
The desire to control the region's oil wealth led to the creation of artificial states such as Kuwait, and states with mixed Kurdish and Arab populations such as in Syria and Iraq. The arbitrary creation of borders and the installation of unpopular pro-colonial leaders served the purpose of dividing the local populations and ensuring the establishment of impotent client-regimes whose administrations were subservient to British colonial interests.

INDIA
By 1700 the British East India Company began to dominate the India and control its foreign trade. To protect its interests, the company built forts, used soldiers to keep friendly rulers in power, and maintained its own army of Indian soldiers known as "Sepoys." By the 1880s the British Parliament felt that the British government itself should assume responsibility for India, and to extend their colonial empire. In 1857 the Sepoy Rebellion broke out, an uprising of Indian troops serving under the British East India Company against oppressive British colonial authority. The uprising gave Parliament the excuse it needed to end the rule of the East India Company and assume control of India.
After 1858 the British government set up a system of colonial rule in India. The British ruled about 2/3 of India while Indian rulers ruled the rest of the country. The goals of these policies, was to create an upper Indian class "Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect."
"In India, every European is automatically a member of the ruling race. Railway carriages, station waiting rooms, benches in parks are marked 'For Europeans Only' to have to put up with this in one's own country is a humiliating reminder of our enslaved condition." Based on these feelings periodic uprisings by thousands of enraged peasants resulted in the use of British troops on various occasions throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries however these revolts did not threaten British control, due to their poor organization and lack of arms.

IRELAND
Until 1921, the island of Ireland was governed as a single political unit as a colony of Britain. A combined political/military campaign by Irish nationalists between the years 1916 to 1921 forced the British government to consider its position.
With the objective of `protecting English interests with an economy of English lives' (Lord Birkenhead), the partition of Ireland was conceived.
Partition was imposed on the Irish people by an Act of Parliament, the Government of Ireland Act (1920), passed in the British legislature. The consent of the Irish people was never sought and was never freely given.
Proffered as a solution under the threat of ``immediate and terrible war'' (Lloyd George, the then British Prime Minister). The Act made provision for the creation of two states in Ireland: the ``Irish Free State'' (later to become known as the Republic of Ireland), containing 26 of Ireland's 32 counties; and ``Northern Ireland'' containing the remaining six counties.
The partition of Ireland was merely an innovation of the British governments tried and trusted colonial strategy of divide and rule, used throughout its former colonial empire.
However, while the British government had the single objective of `protecting English interests', its strategy for achieving this created deeper, more acute and more bitter multiple divisions in Irish society than those previously fostered, and which, until then, had helped sustain British rule in Ireland.
Partition did not only physically divide the national territory of Ireland. It spawned the Civil War in 1922, which has molded politics in the 26-County state ever since. It made more acute the divisions between nationalists and unionists in the Six-County state, and between the populations of the two states. Not least, it created real and lasting divisions among nationalists themselves.

".... Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer".

I'm no fan of that particular colonial stategy, Mike, but I don't think the facts about current world "hot spots" confirm your theory. Furthermore, the same strategy was used by the Romans, The Ottomans and the Chinese - to name just three major empire-building cultures.

Do you think Britain was responsible for the Civil War that divided the USA? How about the intentional "division" of Yugoslavia? Or perhaps the piracy in Somalia, or N Korea's nuclear ambitions are tied directly to humiliating experiences with the British colonialism.

My favorite example is Quebec separatism in Canada - dastardly British, they should have just crushed the French after 1763 instead of allowing them to survive, prosper and divide Canada.

India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus countries from Barbados, to Hong Kong, to Singapore are all vastly better off for their British experience. I believe even the USA picked up a trick or two from that experience .

MM

Michael, note I said "almost" places like N Korea where the British never "Empired" are excepted. And yes "divide and conquer" is tried and true but the British actively practiced this into the 20th century. The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire.
America (1) Revolutionary War - a direct result of British colonial policy
(2) War of 1812 - direct result of British policy on the high seas and an invasion of the US
(3) Slavery was brought to the New World by British colonists and slavery, while not a direct cause, certainly contributed to the southern states rebellion. Britain played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. Slavery was a legal institution in all of the 13 American colonies and Canada (acquired by Britain in 1763). The profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to 5% of the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The Somersett's case in 1772 was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England. The judgment emancipated the 10,000–14,000 slaves or possible slaves in England, who were mostly domestic servants. It also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the North American colonies) could not be enforced in England. In 1807, following many years of lobbying by the Abolitionist movement, the British Parliament voted to make the slave trade illegal anywhere in the Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807

Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861-65. The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French military intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States. A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861, (An American naval vessel boarded a British ship and forcefully removed two confederate diplomats. This violation of British neutral rights triggered an uproar in Britain. Eleven thousand British troops were sent to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, with plans to capture New York City if war broke out, and a sharp note was dispatched to Washington demanding return of the prisoners and an apology. Lincoln, concerned about Britain entering the war, ignored anti-British sentiment and issued an apology and ordered the prisoners released). More of a problem was the British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) building two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama, over vehement protests from the United States. The controversy continued after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships. The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain.

As I had stated earlier Germany certainly initiated A WAR by its invasion of Belgium It became a WORLD WAR due to the interlocking treaties forged by Britain. The German invasion could have easily been handled as a continental war.

Britain did not forge the series of interlocking treaties in their entirety, and this does not alter the fact that Germany chose to initiate a war of aggression knowing those treaties were in place. Making treaties does not cause wars, breaking them does.

In the 19th century Britain was the peak super power of the age. It made sense that nations would enter into bi-lateral and multilateral arrangements, with everything from trade through to defence being the focus of those treaty arrangements. I fail to see how this is any different to modern treaties like NATO , SEATO, ANZUS and previously CENTO, treaties initiated by the US as the post war premier power entered into with its with its allies. The fact that the US entered these arrangements to contain Soviet aggression does not make the US an aggressor, or the instigator of even the Cold War. It merely means the US took effective steps in its foreign relations to take care of what it perceived to be its intersts

Back anyone into a corner and leave them no option and they will fight. Britain and France wanted a war to settle the "German problem" once and for all..

On what basis other than fantasy can you say that Britain and France wanted a war with Germany. How did they "back them into a corner". This stuff would be funny except that it is spoken with earnest conviction.

In point of fact Britain and france were afraid of germany, and would prefer to have avoided war. But driven into a corner by German aggression they were forced to act. The mutual defence arrangements they entered into were there to contain that aggression, not cause a war. It was hoped, and believed that the threat of general war would curb German aggression. In this they miscalculated. The prospect of general war was not enough to contain german ambition….they decided to risk war and got exactly that. They wre in no way forced to go to war. They elected to do so. They saw it in their national interests, the same as Britain, but in reverse, to risk general war to achieve their aims. To this extent Britain and germany of 1914 were very similar. But there the similarity ends. Whereas british policy was defensive, German intentions were aggressive and violent.

It should be noted that in 1939, faced with exactly the same situation, the allies did not wait. Germany never declared war on France or Britain, indeed, it was the other way round. As an intrsting aside, the only nation that germany gave the courtesy to by declaring war before they started shooting was the US….and oddly enough, this was the only country that they fought that they didn't really want to go to war with….

Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer"

This statement fails to acknowledge a fundamental truth about the british empire, namely, that at one point it controlled nearly 30% of the worlds land mass directly, and nearly 50% of the worlds population outside of europe and china. For every failure that can be pointed to the british empire there are twice as many successes. For example, all of the worlds successful democracies are based on the British westminster system. Nearly all the worlds successful democracies are of direct british origin. Try and find former colonies that are not of british origin that have not, at some point in their post WWI history failed, you will not find them. Some are democracies for some of the time. Generally their belief and promotion of democratic principals are weak, like Brazil.

Those nations that have failed did not start before the british in the modern age with any mighty traditions. In the middle east, one of the example you gave, these spheres of influence were people….people who had hated each other for centuries, and wanted nothing better than to kill each other at the first opportunity. In the imperial world of the early 20th century, it made sense to carve up the spoils of war, so long as the nation was not a white european nation, it was morally okay to do that at that time. Moreover, to blame Britain (or france) for this regions instability is ridiculous, to be honest. What britain did, in fact, was to try and give these peoples some modicum of order and justice....albeit British justice, which unfortunately has failed. Is this the fault of Britain. If that was the case, why then are nations that have never been under britains control in just as much of a mess…nations like Libya, Ethiopia, the Phillipines and Indonesia for example. I suspect a convenient vehicle for a spot of limey bashing.

And compared to more recent US efforts to democratize some of these peoples, British methods are downright peace loving

Finally, far from adopting devisive measure to divide and conquer, Britain (and France) were attempting to "unite" these peoples under the one administration (within each territory I mean). Most of these peoples had never known or understood the one rule. With the passing of Turkish enslavement of these people, they were given relative freedom under the European administrations, not subjugation. Ask any Armenian what they think of the turks and you will get your answer.

I suspect that the wonderful benefits of British Colonial rule and imperialism would be lost on the millions of native peoples who had their homelands taken, borders redrawn, were enslaved, murdered, and made 2nd or 3rd class citizens in their own lands all in the name of making the world England.
But there is a German who, through sheer stubborn blockheadedness fell into every trap and alienated just about every European nation: enter Wilhelm II
In 1888, Kaiser Wilhelm II became Emperor of Germany, an empire that had been guided by the sure hand of its "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, since 1871. It was clear when Wilhelm took the throne that, although quick witted, he was also emotionally unstable and had a violent temper. Impatient to have his own way in everything no matter how trivial, he chafed at any restrictions. In his eagerness to extend Germany's power and influence throughout Europe and the rest of the world he embarked on a program of rapid territorial conquest and military expansion that worried his European neighbors. When Bismarck tried to stear him toward a more cautious approach to foreign policy, the young emperor made it clear that he intended doing things his way, and that he was not content to be merely a figurehead for an ambitious chancellor. Wilhelm's obsession with the armed forces meant that he came under the influence of the Prussian military elite whose advice he sought with alarming regularity. Having been frustrated by his chancellor once too often, Wilhelm asked for, and obtained, Bismarck's dismissal from office.
With Bismarck's removal, Wilhelm began to take Germany in a new and dangerous direction. The chancellors he appointed were weak and vacillating, reducing the governments effectiveness, which meant that Germany was now under his personal rule. Wilhelm's poor grasp of the political world of the late 19th century lead him to make blunder after blunder.
For example, in 1908 seeking to allay British fears about Germany's naval build-up, Wilhelm had his views published in a popular British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March Hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?" With these words Wilhelm tried to win over the hearts and minds of the British in what has to be the most inept attempt at international diplomacy ever seen. But worse was to come as he implied that France and Russia had tried to persuade Germany to enter the Boer War to fight with the Boers against Britain. Thus alienating both the French and Russians. Then he went on to declare that the German naval build up was aimed more at Japan than at Britain alienating the Japanese as well.
Believing that his personal relationships with fellow monarchs were what counted (he was a grandson of Queen Victoria) he allowed a defense treaty with Russia to lapse in 1890, enabling the Russians to forge a treaty with France instead. He maintained his alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, even though it was on a collision course with Russia, an event which might lead to a war which would drag in France and Britain as well, because of the treaties signed between the three nations.
After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb on June 28, 1914, Wilhelm offered his support to Austro-Hungary if it were to take action against the Serbians. As soon as Austria-Hungary declared was on Serbia, the Russians began to mobilize troops along both the Austrian and German borders. Seeing this, and recognizing that since France had not declared itself neutral, it would therefore come into the war on the side of Russia. Military officials in Germany persuaded Wilhelm to sign the mobilization order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan, by which Germany would attack France. Although Wilhelm was worried by the approaching conflict, he vacillated between asking for more time for negotiations and fully supporting his military commanders approach. In the end, he gave the approval for Germany to declare war on Russia on August 1 followed by a declaration of war on Russia's main ally France on August 3. When Belgium asserted its neutrality, by denying Germany the right to cross its territory, the Germans invaded anyway on August 4. Britain did not have a mutual defense treaty with Belgium. The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed Belgian independence as a collective agreement among several nation except Germany which was not a nation until 1871. Legally the treaty called for a collective, not an individual response. Legalities aside Britain had the excuse it needed and had been looking for and the countries leadership took it.