Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#781

Post by MarkN » 21 Mar 2018, 16:45

South wrote: If Germany wanted to place vessels in international waters near Gibraltar, where would the vessels be based at ?
Any one of its existing naval bases or friendly ports of call.
South wrote: Please review what I wrote in re German colonial matters and naval force projection matters.
How will that help me? It seems to have lead you up a blind alley.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#782

Post by South » 21 Mar 2018, 16:46

Good morning Terry,

Appreciate German term - Risikoflotte -

Danke.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA


South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#783

Post by South » 21 Mar 2018, 16:48

Good morning Mark,

We have different interpretations.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#784

Post by MarkN » 21 Mar 2018, 16:59

South wrote: We have different interpretations.
Indeed we do.

How long would it have taken (measured in years if not decades) and at what cost (financial and opportunity) would it have taken Germany to create a credible naval base which actually posed a genuine threat to Britain's hold on Gibraltar and the western enterance to the Med? A threat over and above that which it could already make from its existing naval bases and friednly ports of call.

A sensible answer to that question provides the context as to whether it is a credible point to make that Germany's objective in the 1911 Panther/Agadir issue was related to naval force projection over Gibraltar.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#785

Post by Terry Duncan » 21 Mar 2018, 17:28

MarkN wrote:
South wrote: We have different interpretations.
Indeed we do.

How long would it have taken (measured in years if not decades) and at what cost (financial and opportunity) would it have taken Germany to create a credible naval base which actually posed a genuine threat to Britain's hold on Gibraltar and the western enterance to the Med? A threat over and above that which it could already make from its existing naval bases and friednly ports of call.

A sensible answer to that question provides the context as to whether it is a credible point to make that Germany's objective in the 1911 Panther/Agadir issue was related to naval force projection over Gibraltar.
If we are talking about Germany gaining a sensible port like Casablanca as a concession, not a basket case like Agadir which was simply a port used in 1911 to show a 'German business interest' in an area outside of the control of the Moroccan/French forces, then it is likely to take less than five years, as Tsingtao was operational within such a period and fortified too.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#786

Post by South » 21 Mar 2018, 18:11

Good afternoon Mark,

My "different interpretation" post addresses your "fixed binary choices" post: not specifically Morocco.

Germany did NOT have the power to pose "a genuine threat" to Britain's Gibraltar.

I believe Britain's Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and France negotiated a secret agreement that the RN would protect the north coast of France from Germany and France would deploy vessels to augment the French naval presence around the western Med to protect British interests. From what I remember, the Br cabinet did not learn of this secret agreement until August 1914.

I'm omitting a reply as to the cost and time allocation to build a small German community and a naval station negotiated somewhere on Atlantic Morocco. This is a variable if there is such a thing as a variable. Germany had overall financial problems and this got worse when they had a 1911 (I believe 1911) financial crisis.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#787

Post by MarkN » 21 Mar 2018, 18:25

Terry Duncan wrote:If we are talking about Germany gaining a sensible port like Casablanca as a concession, not a basket case like Agadir which was simply a port used in 1911 to show a 'German business interest' in an area outside of the control of the Moroccan/French forces, then it is likely to take less than five years, as Tsingtao was operational within such a period and fortified too.
Quite so.

Decision-making is a fluid process based upon specifics and wider context. Agadir is not Casablanca. Agadir is not Antwerp. 1870 is not 1911 or 1914. A decision taken at one point in time is not necessarily a guarantee that the same decision will be taken at a different point in time. It is most unlikely the same decision will be made given wholly different specifics and context.

Was Germany trying to stir up a bit of mischief in Morocco in 1911? Yes!

Did either Germany, Britain or France base their 1911 decisions and effort upon creating the fear, or there being a fear, of a greater threat to Gibraltar of merchant passage through the Med? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#788

Post by MarkN » 21 Mar 2018, 18:29

South wrote: I believe Britain's Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and France negotiated a secret agreement that the RN would protect the north coast of France from Germany and France would deploy vessels to augment the French naval presence around the western Med to protect British interests. From what I remember, the Br cabinet did not learn of this secret agreement until August 1914.
The Cambon-Grey letters exchanged in 1912 to which you seem to refer to were drafted and approved by the British Cabinet at the time. That is an historically accepted reality which can easily be evidenced.

If you are suggesting that there was an additional "secret agreement" that nobody has ever heard of - let alone produced - then I suggest you take your conspiratorial commentary off to a more appropriate forum elsewhere on the internet.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#789

Post by South » 21 Mar 2018, 18:45

Good afternoon Mark,

If the 1912 Cambon-Grey agreement was about the Fr and Br fleet arrangements, yes, that's what I was referring to. I thought they were secret but, if not, I was wrong.

Regardless, the agreement strengthened the Br presence at Gibraltar.

What is so sacred and off-limits about any secret agreements ? They were - and still are - plentiful.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#790

Post by Terry Duncan » 21 Mar 2018, 18:52

MarkN wrote:
South wrote: I believe Britain's Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and France negotiated a secret agreement that the RN would protect the north coast of France from Germany and France would deploy vessels to augment the French naval presence around the western Med to protect British interests. From what I remember, the Br cabinet did not learn of this secret agreement until August 1914.
The Cambon-Grey letters exchanged in 1912 to which you seem to refer to were drafted and approved by the British Cabinet at the time. That is an historically accepted reality which can easily be evidenced.

If you are suggesting that there was an additional "secret agreement" that nobody has ever heard of - let alone produced - then I suggest you take your conspiratorial commentary off to a more appropriate forum elsewhere on the internet.

I think South has refered to the Naval Agreement in a similar way to some of the cabinet members and later authors who seemed to claim the entire thing came as some sort of shock in 1914 because they had never heard of such an agreement. Such a line was often posted here previously by Peterhof, which makes it likely Fay and/or Barnes cited it as being unknown to the cabinet.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#791

Post by MarkN » 21 Mar 2018, 19:16

South wrote: If the 1912 Cambon-Grey agreement was about the Fr and Br fleet arrangements, yes, that's what I was referring to. I thought they were secret but, if not, I was wrong.
There is no if about it. Moreover, these very letters, the discussion in 1914 and the historical reality that the Cabinet helped draft them in 1912 have all been discussed already in this very thread. Like glenn239, you seem to have a selective reading ability.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#792

Post by South » 22 Mar 2018, 08:38

Good morning Mark,

Only because I try to reply to correspondence......

I view you as being too strict-constructionist doctrinaire in your presentations.

I'm not commenting on the bio references. They are out of place here.

You're commingling substantive points in history with procedural matters and then transmitting your responses tailored to your view only.

...

Returning to the thread's subject line....


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#793

Post by glenn239 » 12 Jun 2018, 22:21

Jon Clarke wrote:For some reason, Hazlehurst has added the bit about the British Fleet even though CP Scott made no reference to any such British involvement in his account of the conversation with Lloyd George. This account is contained in JL Hammond's CP Snow Of The Manchester Guardian (available from the Internet Archive) and is as follows:
So, I'm back to catch up now. An interesting detail, whether LG mentioned the fleet or not.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#794

Post by glenn239 » 12 Jun 2018, 22:32

Terry Duncan wrote: It would appear that even in 1914 the rather pro-German Lloyd-George did not believe Germany would invade Belgium on any major scale if she invaded Belgium at all. In 1911 the German action was based on her trade interests in Morocco being affected by the French action, but Britain had more trade interests in Morocco than Germany, hence the reference. There was no talk about the 1839 treaty because if Germany were to go to war in this situation, Britain would fight alongside France irrespective of Belgium. British foreign policy did not revolve around Belgium, there were other important factors to consider.
The other factors were none other than the Entente partnerships - neither of France nor Russia proved in the slightest enthusistic at the concept of British and Belgian neutrality. The 1839 Treaty was therefore a double-edged sword with respect to its usefulness to the Ententes - it all depended on whether Germany would or would not violate Belgium.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#795

Post by glenn239 » 12 Jun 2018, 22:36

The Captain wrote: Not quite. Serbia was the last square separating the Central Alliance from total control of the entire land area from Berlin to Baghdad. A Central power takeover of Serbia in July 1914 combined with the attack on Belgium had to be an issue for Britain, since it meant a de facto takeover attempt of key remaining elements of the European land mass. A land grab.
Britain had no interest in an Austro-Serbian war, but an Austrian annexation of Serbia would have been quite out of the question! In terms of Berlin to Baghdad, gut impression is that German commerical opportunities in Turkey were probably synergistic with increasing British commerical opportunities there too. Tough to see how German and British interests didn't correspond to some degree in any Turkish economic revival of fortunes, at least commericially.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”