THE centenary of the outbreak of the First World War has spawned many what-ifs or counterfactual histories.

The general view seems to be that the disaster was less an inevitable outcome from the titanic forces of history and more a matter of bad luck in the detail. On the other hand, history allows plenty of time for such misfortune to arise if we let it.

The equivalent mischance in the late 20th Century could have brought about Armageddon within hours. The carnage of the First World War was spread over four years (longer if we include the follow-on conflicts in Russia and elsewhere). An armistice was agreed for November 11 1918. We might ask why this was not achieved for the same date in 1914, 15, 16 or 17.

If everyone expected that it would ‘be all over by Christmas’ then this not happening should surely have been a moment to rethink.

The question of why the war was not ended quickly is of no less significance than that of why it started.

Clearly, it was important within each alliance for the individual members not to be bought off with a separate peace. But it seems sensible for a group going to war to have a consensus on their objectives and the conditions under which they would stop.

John Riseley, Harrogate