Vae victoribus!
From Arthur Hamilton
Sir: David Kidd is wrong (Letters, 18 February). The first world war had to be fought to resist German domination. But once stalemate had arrived on the main fighting front, the rational that the war must be won weakened. Nearly all Britain’s previous wars had ended in a negotiated settlement acceptable to both sides, something that was not achieved at Versailles even after ‘winning’. A Pyrrhic victory that leaves the victor seriously weakened, as Britain was in 1919, is not an improvement on a negotiated peace that leaves the aggressor with losses but acquiescent in the new balance. After 1916, ‘defeating’ a thwarted Germany was not the only option, nor the only reasonable one.
My uncle died at Arras in 1917 and my father’s lungs eventually succumbed to the gassing they had received. They were of course both patriotic volunteers and representatives of the national sentiment of the time. But more fruitful use of their lives could certainly have been made than engaging in repeated bloodbaths.
Arthur Hamilton Paxton, Berwickshire
Previous page
