The United Kingdom was a leading Allied Power during the First World War of 1914–1918. They fought against the Central Powers, mainly Germany. The armed forces were greatly expanded and reorganised—the war marked the founding of the Royal Air Force. The highly controversial introduction, in January 1916, of conscription for the first time in British history followed the raising of one of the largest all-volunteer armies in history, known as Kitchener's Army, of more than 2,000,000 men. The outbreak of war was a socially unifying event. Enthusiasm was widespread in 1914, and was similar to that across Europe.Gregory (2008); Pennell (2012)
On the eve of war, there was serious domestic unrest amongst the labour and suffrage movements and especially in Ireland. But those conflicts were postponed. Significant sacrifices were called for in the name of defeating the Empire's enemies and many of those who could not fight contributed to philanthropic and humanitarian causes. Fearing food shortages and labour shortfalls, the government passed legislation such as the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, to give it new powers. The war saw a move away from the idea of "business as usual" under Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, and towards a state of total war (complete state intervention in public affairs) by 1917 under the premiership of David Lloyd George; the first time this had been seen in Britain. The war also witnessed the first aerial bombardments of cities in Britain.
Newspapers played an important role in maintaining popular support for the war. Large quantities of propaganda were produced by the government under the guidance of such journalists as Charles Masterman and newspaper owners such as Lord Beaverbrook. By adapting to the changing demographics of the workforce (or the "dilution of labour", as it was termed), war-related industries grew rapidly, and production increased, as concessions were quickly made to trade unions. In that regard, the war is also credited by some with drawing women into mainstream employment for the first time. Debates continue about the impact the war had on women's emancipation, given that a large number of women were granted the vote for the first time in 1918. The experience of individual women during the war varied; much depended on locality, age, marital status and occupation.Braybon (1990)Braybon (2005)
The civilian death rate rose due to food shortages and Spanish flu, which hit the country in 1918. Military deaths are estimated to have exceeded 850,000. The Empire reached its zenith at the conclusion of peace negotiations. However, the war heightened not only imperial loyalties but also individual national identities in the Dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) and India. Irish nationalists after 1916 moved from collaboration with London to demands for immediate independence (see Easter Rising), a move given great impetus by the Conscription Crisis of 1918. In the United Kingdom, the cultural view of the conflict overall and British participation in particular has generally been critical, though some historians disagree with this interpretation. Research conducted for the centenary of the conflict suggested that the modern public tended to view British involvement in the First World War in a positive light with the exception of believing that the performance of generals was inadequate. But that knowledge of the conflict was limited and that some details seemed to be confused with the Second World War.
Government
Asquith as prime minister
On 4 August 1914, King George V declared war on the advice of his prime minister, H. H. Asquith, leader of the Liberal Party. Britain's basic reasons for declaring war focused on a deep commitment to France and avoidance of splitting the Liberal Party. Top Liberals threatened to resign if the cabinet refused to support France—which would mean loss of control of the government to a coalition or to the Unionist (i.e. Conservative) opposition. However, the large antiwar element among Liberals would support the war to honour the 1839 treaty regarding guarantees of Belgian neutrality, so that, rather than France, was the public reason given.Bentley B. Gilbert, "Pacifist to interventionist: David Lloyd George in 1911 and 1914. Was Belgium an issue?." Historical Journal 28.4 (1985): 863–885.Zara S. Steiner, Britain and the origins of the First World War (1977) pp 235–237. Therefore, the public reason given out by the government, and used in posters, was that Britain was required to safeguard Belgium's neutrality under the 1839 Treaty of London.
The strategic risk posed by German control of the Belgian and ultimately French coast was considered unacceptable. German guarantees of post-war behaviour were cast into doubt by her blasé treatment of Belgian neutrality. However, the Treaty of London had not committed Britain on her own to safeguard Belgium's neutrality. Moreover, naval war planning demonstrated that Britain herself would have violated Belgian neutrality by blockading her ports (to prevent imported goods passing to Germany) in the event of war with Germany.
Britain's duty to her Entente partners, both France and Russia, were paramount factors. The Foreign Secretary Edward Grey argued that the secret naval agreements with France created a moral obligation 'to save France from defeat by Germany. British national interest rejected German control of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Grey warned that to abandon its allies would be a permanent disaster: if Germany won the war, or the Entente won without British support, then, either way, Britain would be left without any friends. This would have left both Britain and her Empire vulnerable to isolation.Steiner, Britain and the origins of the First World War (1977) pp 230–235.
Eyre Crowe, a senior Foreign office expert said:
Should the war come, and England stand aside, one of two things must happen. (a) Either Germany and Austria win, crush France and humiliate Russia. What will be the position of a friendless England? (b) Or France and Russia win. What would be their attitude towards England? What about India and the Mediterranean?
Crisis of Liberal leadership The Liberal Party might have survived a short war, but the totality of the Great War called for strong measures that the party had long rejected. The result was the permanent destruction of the ability of the Liberal Party to lead a government. Historian Robert Blake explains the dilemma: the Liberals were traditionally the party of freedom of speech, conscience and trade. They were against jingoism, heavy armaments and compulsion....Liberals were neither wholehearted nor unanimous about conscription, censorship, the Defence of the Realm Act, severity toward aliens and pacifists, direction of labour and industry. The Conservatives... had no such misgivings.Robert Blake, The Decline of Power: 1915–1964 (1985), p.3 Blake further notes that it was the Liberals, not the Conservatives who needed the moral outrage of Belgium to justify going to war, while the Conservatives called for intervention from the start of the crisis on the grounds of realpolitik and the balance of power.Blake, The Decline of Power (1985), p.3
The British people were disappointed that there was no quick victory in the war. They had long taken great pride and expense in the Royal Navy, but now there was little to cheer about. The Battle of Jutland in May 1916 was the first and only time the German fleet challenged control of the North Sea, but it was overmatched and was reassigned mostly to helping the more important U-boats. Since the Liberals ran the war without consulting the Unionists (Conservatives) there were heavy partisan attacks. However even Liberal commentators were dismayed by the lack of energy at the top. At the time public opinion was intensely hostile, both in the media and in the street, against any young man in civilian garb and labeled as a slacker. The leading Liberal newspaper, the Manchester Guardian complained: The fact that the Government has not dared to challenge the nation to rise above itself, is one among many signs... The war is, in fact, not being taken seriously.... How can any slacker be blamed when the Government itself is slack.Manchester Guardian 1 May 1915, editorial, in
Asquith's Liberal government was brought down in , due in particular to a crisis of inadequate artillery shell production and the protest resignation of Admiral Fisher over the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign against Turkey. Reluctant to face doom in an election, Asquith formed a new coalition government on , with the majority of the new cabinet coming from his own Liberal party and the Unionist (Conservative) party, along with a token Labour representation. The new government lasted a year and a half, and this was the last time Liberals controlled the government.Barry McGill, "Asquith's Predicament, 1914–1918." Journal of Modern History 39.3 (1967): 283–303. in JSTOR The analysis of historian A. J. P. Taylor is that the British people were so deeply divided over numerous issues, but on all sides there was growing distrust for the Asquith government. There was no agreement whatsoever on wartime issues. The leaders of the two parties realized that embittered debates in Parliament would further undermine popular morale, and so the House of Commons did not once discuss the war before May 1915. Taylor argues: The Unionists, by and large, regarded Germany as a dangerous rival, and rejoiced at the chance to destroy her. They meant to fight a hard-headed war by ruthless methods; the condemned Liberal 'softness' before the war and now. The Liberals insisted on remaining high-minded. Many of them come to support the war only when the Germans invaded Belgium....Entering the war for idealistic motives, the Liberals wish to fight it by noble means and found it harder to abandon their principles than to endure your defeat in the field.
Lloyd George as prime minister
This coalition government lasted until 1916, when the Unionists became dissatisfied with Asquith and the Liberals' conduct of affairs, particularly over the Battle of the Somme.Barry McGill, "Asquith's Predicament, 1914–1918," Journal of Modern History (1967) 39#3 pp. 283–303 in JSTOR Asquith's opponents now took control, led by Bonar Law (leader of the Conservatives), Edward Carson (leader of the Ulster Unionists), and David Lloyd George (then a minister in the cabinet). Law, who had few allies outside his own party, lacked sufficient support to form a new coalition; the Liberal Lloyd George, on the other hand, enjoyed much wider support and duly formed a majority-Conservative coalition government with Lloyd George Liberals and Labour. Asquith was still the party head but he and his followers moved to the opposition benches in Parliament.John M. McEwen, "The Struggle for Mastery in Britain: Lloyd George versus Asquith, December 1916." Journal of British Studies 18#1 (1978): 131–156.