Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

[South]

Good afternoon Ljadw,

There are different approaches to studying WWI - and different conclusions among historians.

Those mobilizations can be called "powder keys". Add the economic mobilization to the troop assembly and the entire nation-state's key parties are on alert and presenting points of view to the political establishment.

I am following your paragraphs and understand your views.

It WAS NOT still possible......"probable" is the better word......for only local action of the war to AH and Serbia. There were many, many, many agreements, understandings ,memorandums, some to many being secret, between and among the various states - and businesses - .

Some did not want a Germany dominating the Continent.

I do agree with you that the militants, especially Moltke, influenced and triggered the German invasion of Belgium as the immediate spark that ignited one of the main powder kegs.

What followed in reaction to the German thrust into Belgium in derogation of the Treaty of 1839, were the other sparks hitting the other powder kegs.

It is not acceptable to some historians to blame, for example, some former Kaiser with a withered arm or a Field Marshall, as being the overall cause of a war spanning the Continent. Other major factors were involved. Belgium was the tripwire and whether Germany fell into a trap or not, everything else got activated in between the sparks.

I still do not know if George Peabody & Co. London had private agreements with J.P. Morgan & Co. New York City prior to Gen Von Kluck crosses the border into Belgium. I don't consider it of the utmost importance. Antwerp was more important.

Think steel and market share.

Don't think about beer steins with the unit members names on them and the mugs serving as a history book equivalent in itself.

Also think of banks and stock markets.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Max Payload]

About Antwerp : it was the second continental harbour ... by its occupation, Germany could have dictated the the conditions for Britain to export to/import from Europe , and this would be the end of Britain as a world power .

But that was something Grey ... could not say ,as the Commons were swarming with socialists, radicals, Irish Nationalists

Another example of your uncanny ability to know the mind, the unspoken imperatives, of someone long dead.
But the port that dare not speak its name apart, I agree with your general conclusion; if instead of indulging in 'reckless diplomacy' the German government had genuinely wanted to avoid war, and had been prepared to work towards that end on terms with which even Austria-Hungary, with a bit of arm-twisting, might eventually have been satisfied, there would have been no war.

[ljadw]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

[ljadw]

About Antwerp : it was the second continental harbour ... by its occupation, Germany could have dictated the the conditions for Britain to export to/import from Europe , and this would be the end of Britain as a world power .

But that was something Grey ... could not say ,as the Commons were swarming with socialists, radicals, Irish Nationalists

Another example of your uncanny ability to know the mind, the unspoken imperatives, of someone long dead.
But the port that dare not speak its name apart, I agree with your general conclusion; if instead of indulging in 'reckless diplomacy' the German government had genuinely wanted to avoid war, and had been prepared to work towards that end on terms with which even Austria-Hungary, with a bit of arm-twisting, might eventually have been satisfied, there would have been no war.

There was no "reckles " diplomacy : from the first day on (28 June ) Germany wanted to use what happened at Sarajevo to provoke a general war .

The German policy was consistent,although the Kaiser panicked, pulled himself together, panicked again, pulled himself together again, ....

[ljadw]

If Germany wanted peace, it was easy : she should have told Austria : if because of your invasion of Serbia, you will be at war with Russia, do not expect any German help .

Bethmann almost did this when telling Vienna to accept Grey's final proposals when he said he would not be dragged into a war whith the following telegram of 02.55 30th July;

“The refusal of every exchange of views with St. Petersburg would be a serious mistake, for it provokes Russia precisely to armed interference, which Austria is primarily concerned in avoiding. We are ready, to be sure, to fulfill our obligations as an ally, but we must refuse to allow ourselves to be drawn by Vienna into a world conflagration frivolously and in disregard of our advice. Please say this to Count Berchtold at once with all emphasis and with great seriousness.”

Sadly the part about being willing to fulfil the role of an ally undercuts the basic point of what Bethmann was trying to achieve (coupled with the line Tschirschky was advocating) but it is still a fact that Bethmann was trying to get Austria to pull back, but at the same time keep hidden the rather duplicitous role he had been playing by stating his adherence to the alliance. It would destroy all credibility in Germany diplomacy if Berchtold let slip he had been urged into an early declaration of war by Jagow and Bethmann! What ever way you read the telegram though, it is clear enough for anyone in Austria to understand what was wanted, and the only way they would then refuse the suggestion is if Austria was determined to have their war no matter what the cost.

From the first day on, Germany incited and pressured AH to attack Serbia,and at the end, it changed its policy.

An other interpretation is that the telegram of 30 July was no change of German policy,but was dictated by domestic imperatives .If on 30 july war was not nearing, there was no need for a telegram (and war between AH and Russia was only declared on 6 August,on German incitation ),if war was nearing, it was too late and the telegram was useless:BH 's policy was dictated by the necessity to have the approval of the SPD .and he had said that an offensive war against France without at the same time a defensive war against the reactionairy tsaristic regime would not have the support of the SPD .

Besides, his telegram of 30 July was followed by the telegram of 31 July where he said :We expect from Austria immediate active participation in the war against Russia .

Thus, if on 30 July AH had answered positively on the telegram from BH, it still would have received the other telegram a day later .

The argument that BH panicked on 30 July is feeble: before the war, he said that an attack on France would result in war with Britain.

And, the same BH who tried to avoid war with Russia, did not hesitate to sabotage the peace-proposals of the Kaiser .

[Terry Duncan]

From the first day on, Germany incited and pressured AH to attack Serbia,and at the end, it changed its policy.

Germany was aiming at a localised war between Austria and Serbia from the outset, and the pressure was for Austria to act before other nations co-ordinated their efforts to secure a peaceful settlement, and have time to consider a military policy. By the time of Bethmann's telegram that I posted, it was abundantly clear this policy had failed and that if Austria were to continue with its policy a general war would result.

An other interpretation is that the telegram of 30 July was no change of German policy,but was dictated by domestic imperatives .

That would be a rather stupid interpretation as the telegram did not become public knowledge until well after the war had begun, and even then there was no proof it was not a forgery.

Besides, his telegram of 30 July was followed by the telegram of 31 July where he said :We expect from Austria immediate active participation in the war against Russia .

You mean after Russia, despite warnings about what would happen, had moved from partial mobilisation to full mobilisation. There is no need to pretend nothing else had changed between the 30th and 31st, most people are aware of it and your attempt to suggest nothing had changed just looks bad.

Thus, if on 30 July AH had answered positively on the telegram from BH, it still would have received the other telegram a day later .

If Austria had stood down then there would have been no Russian general mobilisation, no threats to Russia, no need to try to force Austria to negotiate, so no, the telegram you quote is most unlikely to have been sent. One side being locked into acting exactly as it did historically when oither factors change is the worst fault of many alternate history.

The argument that BH panicked on 30 July is feeble: before the war, he said that an attack on France would result in war with Britain.

Bethmann was clearly trying to prevent the clash of Austria and Russia, which would inevitably draw in Germany and France.

And, the same BH who tried to avoid war with Russia, did not hesitate to sabotage the peace-proposals of the Kaiser .

Because in an absurd miscalculation Bethmann viewed he still had time to push through the localised war, and if that failed he could still look to Britain to work with him to ensure a peaceful settlement. That was the entire point of his double game with Grey, to buy time to get his own policy through and to have a fallback position if that failed. With hindsight, it was a stupid gamble, but it was not with the aim of starting a general war.

[Terry Duncan]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

How about looking at what the British ultimatum to Germany said? Why avoid the question MarkN asked? Avoidance like that is maybe worthy of a politician, but really not worthy of someone on a historical forum.

[MarkN]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

What ???

Being the Waffle Kaiser doesn't give you the same powers to tell others what is right and wrong as those held by Kaiser Wilhelm.

Your claims...

Germany master of Antwerp and of the French coasts was a casus belli for Britain .

... for London, the occupation of Antwerp was considered as a casus belli .

6,2 million ton under British flag were going to Antwerp : this was enough to declare war .

If in 1913 Belgian had sold /rent the harbour of Antwerp to Germany, Britain would have intervened,

Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Belgium, but not when Germany invaded Luxemburg . Reason is that Antwerp is situated in Belgium .

It is not a question (there is no question mark at the end of the sentence); it is a request for you to evidence your claims.

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

The thread is still waiting for a single piece of evidence to be provided that the town/port of Antwerp was part of the discussion in the British Cabinet that lead them to declare war on Germany. There has been lots of waffle, lots of misdirection and lots and lots of nonsense. But still waiting evidence.

[MarkN]

Ljadw did post something today which I agree with: "Antwerp crucial. The 1839 Treaty was not".

Then your reasoning is as daft as ljadw the Waffle Kaiser's. :roll:

[ljadw]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

How about looking at what the British ultimatum to Germany said? Why avoid the question MarkN asked? Avoidance like that is maybe worthy of a politician, but really not worthy of someone on a historical forum.

Why is Mark N asking this irrelevant question ?

In 1911 Lloyd George said at Mansions House that if there was a war between Germany and France, Britain would join France . He did not talk about Belgium,or the violation of the treaty of 1839 .Whatever would happen, even if Belgium was not invaded, Britain would support France in case of war with Germany . Neutrality as in 1870 was excluded .

Lloyd George (who posed as the next PM ) said : the security of our great international trade is no party question ;he was not talking about the Treaty of 1839, although he knew very well that war between Germany and France would start with the invasion of "neutral " Belgium .

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911 in a warning about a possible British intervention . As the security of British international trade would not be endangered if Germany received a piece of Morocco (which it didn't want),the conclusion is that the security of British international trade would be endangered by a German occupation of Belgium ,which implied an occupation of Antwerp .

And, if it was so in 1911, why would it be different in 1914 ?

Besides, before 1914, there were several attacks on "neutral " countries, without Grey appearing in the Commons and talking about British honour .

When there is peace, everyone is neutral, when there is war, everyone who is not at war is neutral .

[Terry Duncan]

Lloyd George (who posed as the next PM ) said : the security of our great international trade is no party question ;he was not talking about the Treaty of 1839, although he knew very well that war between Germany and France would start with the invasion of "neutral " Belgium .

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.

[MarkN]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

How about looking at what the British ultimatum to Germany said? Why avoid the question MarkN asked? Avoidance like that is maybe worthy of a politician, but really not worthy of someone on a historical forum.

Why is Mark N asking this irrelevant question ?

Why? Because you have made these claims...

Germany master of Antwerp and of the French coasts was a casus belli for Britain .

... for London, the occupation of Antwerp was considered as a casus belli .

6,2 million ton under British flag were going to Antwerp : this was enough to declare war .

If in 1913 Belgian had sold /rent the harbour of Antwerp to Germany, Britain would have intervened,

Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Belgium, but not when Germany invaded Luxemburg . Reason is that Antwerp is situated in Belgium .

It is not a question (there is no question mark at the end of the sentence); it is a request for you to evidence your claims.

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.


However, instead of responding to the request, the Waffle Kaiser gives us yet more waffle and a few lies thrown in for good measure.

In 1911 Lloyd George said at Mansions House that if there was a war between Germany and France, Britain would join France . He did not talk about Belgium,or the violation of the treaty of 1839 .Whatever would happen, even if Belgium was not invaded, Britain would support France in case of war with Germany . Neutrality as in 1870 was excluded .

Lloyd George (who posed as the next PM ) said : the security of our great international trade is no party question ;he was not talking about the Treaty of 1839, although he knew very well that war between Germany and France would start with the invasion of "neutral " Belgium .

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911 in a warning about a possible British intervention . As the security of British international trade would not be endangered if Germany received a piece of Morocco (which it didn't want),the conclusion is that the security of British international trade would be endangered by a German occupation of Belgium ,which implied an occupation of Antwerp .

You are contradicting yourself and then lying.

Contradiction 1...
You offer evidence of threats of war relating a national interest (security of trade routes) connected to an event (Agadir) where Britain didn't go to war. An event that you have repeatedly used in previous posts to 'evidence' Britain's non-intervention tendency. If the ljadw theory holds good, then Britain would have intervened in 1911 to protect its national interest.

Contradiction 2...

He did not talk about Belgium ...

... followed by ...

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911

The lie...

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911 ...

Please show me where in the Mansion House speech, 1 July 1911, Lloyd-George "mentions" the word "Antwerp".

[South]

Good morning Mark,

I do not thoroughly know Ljadw's reasoning. I'm addressing some of the presented fact patterns.

When the US and UK were secretly.......using "secretly" in the broad sense......planning scenarios for hostilities to start, the US was a new maritime and naval Great Power. Most surely these non-public discussions involved the neutral port of Antwerp and the area's French ports.

British internal discussions on going to war with Germany or not probably involved US involvement in support of Britain. I am guessing a US presence in the area involved the ports.

Antwerp, Belgium was probably a feature of discussion.

The Cathedral of Rheims was probably not.


...............

Do note that I place little relevance on the telegrams so thoroughly discussed here. It's probably an important matter to some historians. I place much importance on the 31 July 1914 closing of the London Stock Exchange - the most influential in the world - The UK was still the world's financial power - . The US followed in closing its stock market. The other important stock exchanges followed and closed. I'm writing all this again because the closings were an indicator of pending war.

Belgium was the tripwire substitute for the lost English Channel moat function.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[ljadw]

Lloyd George (who posed as the next PM ) said : the security of our great international trade is no party question ;he was not talking about the Treaty of 1839, although he knew very well that war between Germany and France would start with the invasion of "neutral " Belgium .

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.

1) This is questionable as the Schlieffenplan was not a secret :the French and British generals knew that Germany would invade Belgium ,because otherwise an invasion of France had very little chance to succeed .


2) I am not convinced at all that the Morocco crises were about Morocco, but this is just by the by,about LG : his speech ( the intentions of which were to be the first in the queue of those who wanted to eliminate Asquith and to avoid the inflated danger of war ) had for the public opinion in Britain success: war was avoided thanks to a British politician (the resemblance with Chamberlain in march 1939 is striking ) and , what was maybe even more umportant : the Liberal party would conserve a lot of marginal constituencies . If there was a war, and France lost, the result would be very bad for Britain: the security of British intrnational trade would be in danger, not because a German occupation of some Moroccan harbours, but because a defeat of France without an invasion of Belgium,still would result in the satellisation of Belgium .

Britain had only 2 options : prevent a war between France and Germany, or,if this was impossible, support France .

About a violation of the Treaty of 1839: I have to agree, unwillingly ,with Glenn : the only who could violate the Treaty was Belgium . Thus, the cry that Germany had violated her own signature,is nonsense .

[ljadw]

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.

Wrong question ;correct question is : can you prove that the "violation " of the Treaty of 1839 was the reason why Britain declared war on Germany ?

How about looking at what the British ultimatum to Germany said? Why avoid the question MarkN asked? Avoidance like that is maybe worthy of a politician, but really not worthy of someone on a historical forum.

Why is Mark N asking this irrelevant question ?

Why? Because you have made these claims...

Germany master of Antwerp and of the French coasts was a casus belli for Britain .

... for London, the occupation of Antwerp was considered as a casus belli .

6,2 million ton under British flag were going to Antwerp : this was enough to declare war .

If in 1913 Belgian had sold /rent the harbour of Antwerp to Germany, Britain would have intervened,

Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Belgium, but not when Germany invaded Luxemburg . Reason is that Antwerp is situated in Belgium .

It is not a question (there is no question mark at the end of the sentence); it is a request for you to evidence your claims.

Can you provide evidence that Antwerp was part of the discussion in Britain when choosing to go to war with Germany in 1914.


However, instead of responding to the request, the Waffle Kaiser gives us yet more waffle and a few lies thrown in for good measure.

In 1911 Lloyd George said at Mansions House that if there was a war between Germany and France, Britain would join France . He did not talk about Belgium,or the violation of the treaty of 1839 .Whatever would happen, even if Belgium was not invaded, Britain would support France in case of war with Germany . Neutrality as in 1870 was excluded .

Lloyd George (who posed as the next PM ) said : the security of our great international trade is no party question ;he was not talking about the Treaty of 1839, although he knew very well that war between Germany and France would start with the invasion of "neutral " Belgium .

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911 in a warning about a possible British intervention . As the security of British international trade would not be endangered if Germany received a piece of Morocco (which it didn't want),the conclusion is that the security of British international trade would be endangered by a German occupation of Belgium ,which implied an occupation of Antwerp .

You are contradicting yourself and then lying.

Contradiction 1...
You offer evidence of threats of war relating a national interest (security of trade routes) connected to an event (Agadir) where Britain didn't go to war. An event that you have repeatedly used in previous posts to 'evidence' Britain's non-intervention tendency. If the ljadw theory holds good, then Britain would have intervened in 1911 to protect its national interest.

Contradiction 2...

He did not talk about Belgium ...

... followed by ...

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911

The lie...

Here is an evidence that "Antwerp" was mentioned in 1911 ...

Please show me where in the Mansion House speech, 1 July 1911, Lloyd-George "mentions" the word "Antwerp".

I did not say Antwerp, but "Antwerp " . If you don't know the difference, that's not my business .