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: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#91

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 11:17

Good morning South,
South wrote: My key example mentioned the diplomatic usage versus the British common law jurisprudence.
Which made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever since it is the diplomatic usage of "guarantee" which I am applying!

From the Palgrave A Dictionary of Diplomacy...
guarantee.
This does not have a technical meaning in international law and diplomacy. But it generally indicates a legal undertaking by a relatively strong state or states to protect – by force unless otherwise specified – the independence and territorial integrity of another and usually weaker state, or some other important aspect of its condition.
It is also the understanding used by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Probably many others too, but I mention those based upon personal and professional experience.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#92

Post by ljadw » 11 Feb 2018, 11:43

Antwerp was the second harbour of the continent, after Hamburg, and more important than London.

Incoming shipping tonnage in 1912 : 13,761,000 (London : 12,989;Hamburg :13, 797 )

Under British flag :6,269,OOO (3,394 ships)

Under German flag :4,149,OOO (1,627 ships )

The loss of Antwerp would be disastrous for Britain .

Admiral von Tirpitz to B-H (19/01/1915) :the importance of Antwerp demands its permanent occupation .

That's why the occupation of Antwerp was mentioned in the September program .

Antwerp would be essential for Germany and Britain after a German victory against France ,with Britain remaining neutral : the occupation of Antwerp would give Germany the opportunity to dictate the conditions for the British trade with the continent .


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#93

Post by ljadw » 11 Feb 2018, 11:47

MarkN wrote:
ljadw wrote:If Antwerp was not important for Britain, why was the Naval Brigade sent to Antwerp ?
If Antwerp was so important to Britain, why didn't they send anybody in August? :roll:

Because there was no German attack on Antwerp in August . :P

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

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#94

Post by South » 11 Feb 2018, 12:01

Good morning Mark,

To avoid pedantics.......

An author's statements must be strictly construed against the author. This is applicable to me also.

You did mention a residential mortgage default. Thus, I wasn't sure of the corpus of definitions you relied on.

Enough.

I use "Foreign Relations Law of the United States - American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law" [My pulp copy is old; situation ethics still governs the contents], 1962,1965, with a focus on Chapter 4 titled "Interpretation of International Agreements" and the sub section "Criteria for Interpretation".

The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the JFK School of Government are prominent. They are not the definitive source of views.

Read up on the American Petroleum Institute and its antecedents. Ditto re the US banking industry. Both the Wilson and JFK schools reflect a common theme and this theme has been challenged since the US got started as a sovereign. Tensions abounds.

~Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#95

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 12:39

ljadw wrote:The loss of Antwerp would be disastrous for Britain .
ljadw opinion...

The Germans controlled Antwerp for the duration of WW1. How was it disasterous in real life not ljadw counter-factual history?
ljadw wrote:Admiral von Tirpitz to B-H (19/01/1915) :the importance of Antwerp demands its permanent occupation .
That's why the occupation of Antwerp was mentioned in the September program .
How about evidence how important it was to Britain rather than evidence of German interest. :roll:
ljadw wrote: Antwerp would be essential for Germany and Britain after a German victory against France ,with Britain remaining neutral : the occupation of Antwerp would give Germany the opportunity to dictate the conditions for the British trade with the continent .
If Germany is master of the continent, it dictates the "conditions for the British trade with the continent" whether Antwerp is in German or British or Belgian hands... :roll:
ljadw wrote: Because there was no German attack on Antwerp in August .
So it would have been the perfect time for Britain to deploy the BEF to Antwerp to prepare its defence in advance. Not so? I mean, you claim that Antwerp is so important to Britain that it would go to war over - yet they did nothing of any note to secure that vital interest until it was too late. And, since that effort only came in October, it is not directly related to pre-war decision-making and pre-war concerns and the decision to go to war.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#96

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 12:50

Morning again South,
South wrote: I use "Foreign Relations Law of the United States - American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law" [My pulp copy is old; situation ethics still governs the contents], 1962,1965, with a focus on Chapter 4 titled "Interpretation of International Agreements" and the sub section "Criteria for Interpretation".
So you were using an (American) Law based understanding not a practical diplomatic understanding? :?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#97

Post by ljadw » 11 Feb 2018, 13:19

MarkN wrote:
ljadw wrote:The loss of Antwerp would be disastrous for Britain .
ljadw opinion...

The Germans controlled Antwerp for the duration of WW1. How was it disasterous in real life not ljadw counter-factual history?

Sigh, sigh, sigh

During the war, the loss of Antwerp was not disastrous for Britain, because there was a war where Britain was participating in . If Britain did not participate and Germany won the war , Britain's trade with the continent would be at the mercy of the Germans, as the Germans would control the 3 most important harbours of the continent = Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam .
Even British trade with America would suffer, as Britain used also Antwerp for this trade .

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

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#98

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 13:36

ljadw wrote: Sigh, sigh, sigh

During the war, the loss of Antwerp was not disastrous for Britain, because there was a war where Britain was participating in . If Britain did not participate and Germany won the war , Britain's trade with the continent would be at the mercy of the Germans, as the Germans would control the 3 most important harbours of the continent = Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam .
Sigh, sigh, sigh 1

Back to ljadw 2017 WHAT IF scenarios!!!

Where is your evidence on on what the British establishment was thinking at the time? The thoughts on which they made decisions and policy.

Sigh, sigh, sigh 2

"If Britain did not participate and Germany won the war , Britain's trade with the continent would be at the mercy of the Germans, as the Germans would control ... " the continent of Europe. Trading with the continent is the same as trading with Germany in your what if!!!!

So German control of the "3 most important harbours of the continent = Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam" is irrelevant to the construct.

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

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#99

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Feb 2018, 14:35

MarkN wrote:Back to ljadw 2017 WHAT IF scenarios!!!
British policy was based very much around 'what if' scenarios, as laid out to yre Crowe's memo in 1914, where he asks what would be the position of Britain if Germany and Austria or Russia and France won, and where Grey outlined that Britain would be similarly affected if she entered a war to if she stayed out. The people were not dealing with certainties, by that time it is too late to change things or have any direct impact on them, so 'what if' tends to be all a nation has in order to decide what to do. There tends not to be a detailed list of what is and is not acceptable, rather a basic operating principle based on precedent and traditions.

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

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#100

Post by South » 11 Feb 2018, 15:19

Good morning Mark,

Actually, was not, never have, used my referenced Restatement book for any understanding. I just use it for the subject matter outline and then add to this.

For example; From the book: "Criteria for Interpretation"
"(d) drafts and other documents submitted for consideration,..."
"(e) unilateral statements of understanding made by a signatory before the agreement came into effect,.."

Please be assured the demands of the US steel industrialists were known and not in the notes.

Please be assured the American public opinion molding apparatus such as the New York Times injected policy positions into the Article VII neutrality clause.

Leave "pure" diplomacy for a moment and glance at a book such as Dr John E. Mueller's "War, Presidents and Public Opinion", 1973,. It's thin on the Great War Part One but Mueller does provide info on the opinion-molding.

A "practical diplomatic understanding" is subordinated to the actions of the political establishment. Diplomacy does not govern; it's just present as one of several tools.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#101

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 15:32

Terry Duncan wrote:
MarkN wrote:Back to ljadw 2017 WHAT IF scenarios!!!
British policy was based very much around 'what if' scenarios, as laid out to yre Crowe's memo in 1914, where he asks what would be the position of Britain if Germany and Austria or Russia and France won, and where Grey outlined that Britain would be similarly affected if she entered a war to if she stayed out. The people were not dealing with certainties, by that time it is too late to change things or have any direct impact on them, so 'what if' tends to be all a nation has in order to decide what to do. There tends not to be a detailed list of what is and is not acceptable, rather a basic operating principle based on precedent and traditions.
Absolutely!

There were Crowe's 1914 'what if', Churchill's 1914 'what if', Grey's 1914 'what if', Asquith's 1914 'what if', the General Staff's 1914 'what if', The Admiralty's 1914 'what if', the Bank of England's 1914 'what if' and so on and on and on....

The product of all those 'what if' thoughts and ideas culminated in Cabinet policy. That policy being Grey's speech to the House on 3 August 1914.

None of those 1914 'what if's can be considered to equate to ljadw's 2017 'what if' until such time as he or she produces evidence that demonstrates alignment. That evidence is thus far conspicuous by its absence.

ljadw's 2017 'what if's are an attempt to justify his/her personal opinion that Antwerp was important.

ljadw's 'what if's do NOT evidence his assertion that Antwerp was of such importance to Britain in 1914 that they were prepared to go to war over it.

Is this thread concerning the history of Britain's entry into war in 1914 or is it a thread to indulge ljadw's 2017 personal thoughts on the importance of Antwerp?

Since ljadw is unable or unwilling to produce any evidence, perhaps you could help him/her out.
Last edited by MarkN on 11 Feb 2018, 15:41, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#102

Post by South » 11 Feb 2018, 15:37

Good morning all,

Ljadw does introduce some valuable points re the large ports in our discussion.

Now, remember, the new Panama Canal just opened nearly concurrent with the opening of the new US central bank, the Federal Reserve System (Dec '13). The "Fed" had some inducement mechanisms to transfer much foreign trade transactions from London to New York City.

Let's refocus: "Why didn't Britain stay neutral?"

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#103

Post by MarkN » 11 Feb 2018, 15:43

South wrote: Ljadw does introduce some valuable points re the large ports in our discussion.
Such as?

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

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#104

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Feb 2018, 16:21

People need to keep this discussion to the points people raise and not make comments about the other person, as whilst I am willing to allow a small ammount of 'banter' the site rules prohibit insults etc. Please try to keep the discussion on subject and remember than opinions are often based on cumulative evidence gained from many sources, and that English is not the first language of everyone here.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

#105

Post by MarkN » 12 Feb 2018, 16:04

Terry Duncan wrote:People need to keep this discussion to the points people raise and not make comments about the other person, as whilst I am willing to allow a small ammount of 'banter' the site rules prohibit insults etc. Please try to keep the discussion on subject and remember than opinions are often based on cumulative evidence gained from many sources, and that English is not the first language of everyone here.
Banter and insults? What about some evidence to back up the "points people raise", the opinion and the historical claims?

I can understand a serious discussion built around "cumulative evidence gained from many sources" where direct evidence from the principles does not exist. By default, it's all one can do.

To take an opinion seriously - and lend credibility to a historical claim - where direct evidence from the principles is in abundance and contrary to the opinion and claim, is nigh on impossible.

Are you suggesting posters should humour the ridiculous?

Here's another ridiculous theory based upon "cumulative evidence gained from many sources" and a direct response to the original question.

It was impossible for Britain to remain neutral because they had an international legally binding obligation to uphold Belgium's neutrality which Belgium had unilaterally just decided to do away with (see Crowe's memoradum of 1908 and Britain's liability if Belgium chooses to do away with neutrality herself). Thus, when Germany decided to act upon their obligation to "make good" Belgium's deceit, Britain was obliged to act in concert with Germany and, if necessary, oppose Belgium's (indirect) ally France. Moreover, history should be rewritten to accept that the Kaiser, Moltke and Germany were in the right, and that Britain - because it didn't do as it should - was in the wrong!

"Cumulative evidence gained from many sources" = Belgium supplied weapons of war to Serbia, one of which was used in the killing of Archduke Ferdinand. Serbia had a relationship with Russia and Russia had an alliance with France. QED, Belgium no longer upholding its neutrality and allied to France, Russia and Serbia.

I've raised a point. Utterly ridiculous point I know. But it has the same level of credibility as the theory that Britain chose war based upon Antwerp (principally) - and perhaps other Channel ports - being gobbled up by Germany.

Let's discuss! :wink:

PS. Are you sure English is my first language? I use it for about 5% or less of my daily communication. I do so here (part of the 5%), and on other similar websites since it is the rules of the forum. The other part of the 5% is made up with business meetings and telephone conversations with foreign business and professional associates where English is a common medium.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”