Just re-read The Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman, published in 1962.

It relates the prelude to the First World War, how the major powers of Europe saw where they were headed but couldn’t find the moral courage or the diplomatic skill to head it off … as well as the first month of the war, focused almost entirely on the Western Front — following Germany’s invasion of Belgium, Britain’s entry into the war, and the Battle of the Marne, where Germany’s bid to defeat France in 40 days came to an end.

August 4, 2014, is a key anniversary of what was to be known, for two decades, as the Great War.

It was on August 4, 1914, that the German army crossed into neutral Belgium, which chose to resist, and the day when Britain entered the war on the side of France and Russia, against Germany and Austro-Hungary.

And what strikes me during this re-reading of “Guns”?

How Belgium did not have to fight … and how Britain did not have to fight.

This seems to be a notion Tuchman could hardly wrap her mind around, when she wrote, more than 50 years ago.

It would have been one I would not have thought of three or four decades ago. But as we watch history seeming to go in circles …

Let’s consider three geopolitical positions.

–Belgium. The country is something of a geopolitical anomaly, divided between populations that speak French and Dutch, pretty much a British creation in the 1830s to keep France from expanding into the French-speaking southern half and from Netherlands from reabsorbing at least the Dutch-speaking northern half. (Even now, Belgium is in constant upheaval over language and cannot really be called a “nation” in the narrow definition. A soccer team and a preference for mayonnaise on French fries does not a nation make.)

What made Belgium palatable to the other European powers, back then, was its declaration of neutrality forever, and it worked for most of 80 years.

As most neutrals do, Belgium remained armed. (As Switzerland does today.) In 1914, it had powerful forts on its narrow border with Germany. It had an army of about 117,700 and was confronted by a German force of about 750,000.

Belgium’s king, Albert, knew Belgium had no chance of stopping the Germans. Perhaps holding out for a few weeks or a month (turned out, it was only a few days), but no chance to stop them. The Germans had repeatedly asked Belgium to step aside as they crossed their territory, promising to return Belgium to its borders after the war was over (which probably would not have happened, had the Germans won). And no one would get hurt, etc., on their way to attacking France.

Resisting invasion is a condition of neutrality. But Belgium went to war knowing it would suffer. For “honor”, basically. And in a week or so, suffered 30,000 casualties in its army of 117,000, plus about 6,000 civilian deaths from the outraged Germans, who thought they were being shot at by Belgian civilians, and also burned down several cities.

The question, a century later … is being remembered as “plucky little Belgium” make worthwhile a lot of dead Belgians in a lost cause?

–Britain had promised to go to war against any country that invaded Belgium — which in 1914, was going to be Germany unless the French did something stupid, like advancing into Belgium before Germany did, intent on meeting the Germans on the plains of Belgium. Anyway, the French were scrupulous about staying out, and Britain came into the war.

Why? Because they said they would.

Because they feared a European mainland dominated by Germany.

Why? Because it might upset a world order at the time dominated by the British Empire. Though Germany was not attacking Britain or the British Empire and, this time around, had no intention of doing so.

Britain sent over its splendid little army, which was only seven divisions, and that led to four years of British involvment on the Western Front, and more than 1 million dead, when Britain’s 800,000 or so dead are added to those from their empire/Commonwealth.

–Let’s stipulate this was going to be a bloody mess between Germany and France. And it was. France suffered nearly 1.4 million war dead. Germany had around 2 million war dead, but that included fighting in the east against Russia. Those three major players were always going to be involved, as was the sclerotic Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Why, though, was this Britain’s fight?

Scenario 1: Britain stays out and Germany wins a short war. This almost happened, even with the British army involved. It would have been a bit likelier to happen had the British and their seven divisions stayed out. In a short war, a Britain sitting out the events on the continent (which a significant number of British politicians supported, by Tuchman’s admission) would have saved them tens of thousands of casualties from their early deployment of about 100,000 men.

Scenario 2: Britain stays out and Germany wins a long war. In this case, Britain in 1918 has about 800,000 more men still alive from the generation of about 1880 to 1900. Plus, it doesn’t spend itself nearly into bankrupcy while fighting the war. In this scenario, Britain still has the world’s biggest navy, and biggest empire … and maybe trouble coming with a unbeaten Germany later on … but maybe not.

Scenario 3: France and Russia win a long war over Germany and the Austrians. Not very likely, but possible. In which case the French are way ticked at England … and that’s all.

Let’s look at what subsequently happened, after the war was over.

Germany felt aggrieved by the Treaty of Versailles and its warlike spirit had not been crushed. Leading directly to the Second World War, which was far deadlier because so many more civilians died.

Then, after a few more decades, Germany recovered, reunited … and in 2014 we have a Europe in many ways dominated by Germany — even after losing two wars.

Meantime, a great treasure of lives and money was spent, back in the 1914-18 time frame, which led to the second war, and we still have pretty much arrived where we might have gone with a German victory in 1914 — with Britain stripped of empire, Germany having the greatest influence over continental Europe and France still France (albeit without Alsace and Lorraine) and Russia still Russia (after 70 years of Communist rule).

In her book, Tuchman admits to being a big admirer of King Albert of Belgium. Whose honor meant tens of thousands of dead Belgians. And she treats Britain’s entry as something necessary to save … something. Not lives, certainly. “Making the world safe for democracy” was how that war was sold, but try telling that to those who subsequently fell under fascist or communist regimes, or to relatives of the dead.

I think we all have found, a century later, that most wars do not have to be fought, and the First World War was a great example of that, and from the distance of a century “why did that have to happen?” seems more germane than ever.

Even if we had the four continental powers going after each other hammer and tongs, it doesn’t mean Britain and its empire/commonwealth and eventually the United States (with 116,000 of its own war dead) had to get involved.