There were, of course, two sides, two alliances of countries.
Germany, and Austria-Hungry, and on the other side France, Britain, and later
America, along with all of the etc. nations.. But at the beginning, in the massive sweep of the original
version of the German Blitz, as the armies prepared to tear across the French,
Dutch, and Belgium country sides, the British deliberated their
response, should they go to war or not?
A high official from Britain was speaking to a top French
opposite number, and asked how many British soldiers would be useful to France in
the war, without Britain officially joining it. They were, he said, considering a plan of limited action. Without hesitation, the French man responded “One, and we would take very
good care to be sure he was killed.” He guessed, probably rightly, that if one
British soldier had been killed, a thousand more would have been sent running
by the public outcry to avenge him.
As Baghdad in Iraq stands, but stands perilously, threatened
by ISIS, a group so militant, that Al Qaeda itself refuses to join up with
them. America has sent or is still sending 275 “military advisers” to the area,
for the defense of a city we won and then left.
It is interesting to think now of what that all but forgotten
French leader said a hundred years ago now, in the great chess game that
spiraled into the First World War. Mankind does not change very fast. One
hundred years on from the “War to End All Wars” and we are still fighting. And
one hundred years on we are still trying to use limited action. Will it work
this time?
We may have to check the news next week to find out. In
Britain, a hundred years ago, when the people of London did that, after the
attempt at “limited action” they awoke to the London Times announcing that the
“World is at War.”
Andrew C. Abbott
No comments:
Post a Comment