In 1905, the foreign office's legal team reported to the government that Britain did not in fact have an obligation to defend Belgium if it were attacked by a foreign power. As Lloyd George himself said, we could in fact have slithered out of intervening in Belgium if we'd wanted to. But I would argue that nothing loosened our grip on the empire more than the fact that we had exhausted ourselves in the fields of Flanders. We all agree that Britain was weakened financially by both wars, but that's not why they went in. They were not fighting for financial gain. And at the end of the Second World War, and we should remember this, they thought the cost had been worth
For this week's Sunday Debate, we're dipping back into the archive to 2014, when we gathered a panel of expert historians to debate whether Britain was right to fight in the First World War, a tragedy that laid the foundations for decades of destructive upheaval and violence across Europe. To debate the issue, we invited leading historians Margaret MacMillan, Max Hastings, John Charmley and Dominic Sandbrook to an event hosted by journalist, columnist and national security expert, Edward Lucas.
We’d love to hear your feedback and what you think we should talk about next, who we should have on and what our future debates should be about. Send us an email or voice note with your thoughts to podcasts@intelligencesquared.com.
At Intelligence Squared we’ve got our own online streaming platform, Intelligence Squared+ and we’d love you to give it a go. It’s packed with more than 20 years’ worth of video debates and conversations on the world’s most important topics as well as exclusive podcast content. Tune in to live events, ask your questions or watch on-demand, totally ad-free with hours of discussion to dive into. Visit intelligencesquaredplus.com to start watching today.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices