It can certainly not be said that Britain (government, military, and newspapers etc.) went to war unprepared. For more than a decade, everybody was talking about it, whether approvingly or not. The Entente and the treaties with Russia and Belgium were obvious preparations.

Either side felt they would win, and hoped for the other side to realize that and cave in. In the meantime, the propaganda machines went hot. According to French folklore, Belgium was prepared as a propaganda trap - German soldiers stepped on it with glee, even more so than anticipated.

In other words: the war started in the 190x years, the British government being among the major actors, with plenty of options. By 1914, the die was cast, and initially things went according to plan. Withdrawal in 1914 would have been illogical from the government point of view.

"Unprepared" may be true for those particular troops, in the sense that saving human lives was not the priority we would want it to be nowadays.

In my opinion, "sleepwalking" can only be diagnosed for the continuation of the war in 1915. (Clark was mainly concerned with the Balkan theatre, a different topic.) They had built racing cars and forgotten the brakes. Vabanque gambling, I would call it.

Dave the Gnome, 28 Jan 14 - 08:39 AM, is quite right that the dispute is not so much about facts than about our evaluations from the present-day point of view. Analogies have been offered in the media, to Iran, China, Russia, Syria ... Some lessons have been learned, but never enough.