Why has Germany been the 'troublemaker' in Europe?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 24yearsSpurs
And the Germans offered a naval trade off before the war, and we refused. sorry, but then it's more complex to say Germany caused it.
A trade-off only necessitated by their attempt to challenge Britain at sea. Germany had failed to achieve what they wanted and were trying to back down with on offer that would have given Britain nothing.
But overall, the cause of WWI is indeed a hugely complex issue. See http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3371357
Original post by 24yearsSpurs
And the Germans offered a naval trade off before the war, and we refused. sorry, but then it's more complex to say Germany caused it.
How so?
The UK and empires involvement started when Germany invaded Belgium. Had the Germans not made a flanking manoeuvre through a neutral country that we had promised to defend it's most likely that UK Plc could've sat on the side lines.
As it happened, Germany did invade neutral Belgium.
I do find it amazing that we have people in the UK who still blame ourselves for another country's naked aggression.
It's unfair to single out the Germans
Someone from outside Europe could well ask, 'Why are the Brits always so imperialistic?'
and I would be like 'Because we're cheeky like that'
Someone from outside Europe could well ask, 'Why are the Brits always so imperialistic?'
and I would be like 'Because we're cheeky like that'
For the First World War it wasnt really Germany's fault. The two alliances meant to secure peace ultimately resulted in the chain reaction which caused the war between Austria and Serbia to grow however in it Germany certainly planned terratorial expansion via the invasion of Belgium who would otherwise probably of stayed neutral.
In the 2nd World War the Germans were the agressors however the stupidity of the terms in the Treaty of Versailles were one of the reasons for this as well as the Great Depression.
In the 2nd World War the Germans were the agressors however the stupidity of the terms in the Treaty of Versailles were one of the reasons for this as well as the Great Depression.
Original post by MatureStudent36
How so?
The UK and empires involvement started when Germany invaded Belgium. Had the Germans not made a flanking manoeuvre through a neutral country that we had promised to defend it's most likely that UK Plc could've sat on the side lines.
As it happened, Germany did invade neutral Belgium.
I do find it amazing that we have people in the UK who still blame ourselves for another country's naked aggression.
The UK and empires involvement started when Germany invaded Belgium. Had the Germans not made a flanking manoeuvre through a neutral country that we had promised to defend it's most likely that UK Plc could've sat on the side lines.
As it happened, Germany did invade neutral Belgium.
I do find it amazing that we have people in the UK who still blame ourselves for another country's naked aggression.
Due to the 2;1 naval rule, Germany realised it couldn't keep up and said it wanted to let the UK have a larger navy, and we said no. So this is a major cause of the war, when we had a larger Empire, and no way they could have ever caught us up in navy size.
Original post by 24yearsSpurs
Due to the 2;1 naval rule, Germany realised it couldn't keep up and said it wanted to let the UK have a larger navy, and we said no. So this is a major cause of the war, when we had a larger Empire, and no way they could have ever caught us up in navy size.
Sadly, too simplistic.
If you can show me historical evidence of a German plan to invade Belgium in order to draw Britain into. Land war in Europe to defeat us in order to grow the German empire I'll gladly stand Corrected.
What you've done is throw together a whole host of reasons for tensions between the two country's pre war and said that's the reason.
Many people often say that we should have a Scandinavian welfare model. That's not enough for us to go to war with Norway.
Germany was the one that mobilised its troops and invaded neutral Belgium.
Original post by MatureStudent36
How so?
The UK and empires involvement started when Germany invaded Belgium. Had the Germans not made a flanking manoeuvre through a neutral country that we had promised to defend it's most likely that UK Plc could've sat on the side lines.
The UK and empires involvement started when Germany invaded Belgium. Had the Germans not made a flanking manoeuvre through a neutral country that we had promised to defend it's most likely that UK Plc could've sat on the side lines.
It is very difficult to see us staying out of a Franco-German War as soon as we encouraged the French down the route of a Mediterranean Navy. Could we have countenanced the Dardenelles campaign being fought in the Pas de Calais?
Original post by 24yearsSpurs
Due to the 2;1 naval rule, Germany realised it couldn't keep up and said it wanted to let the UK have a larger navy, and we said no. So this is a major cause of the war, when we had a larger Empire, and no way they could have ever caught us up in navy size.
Your reasoning for this completely escapes me. Could you explain how Germany conceding that it couldn't keep up in a naval race which it started was a major cause of WWI?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because they are mad....... ?
Original post by nulli tertius
It is very difficult to see us staying out of a Franco-German War as soon as we encouraged the French down the route of a Mediterranean Navy. Could we have countenanced the Dardenelles campaign being fought in the Pas de Calais?
Although most attention has been paid to the BEF when considering Anglo - French relations prior to WWI, I've always felt that the naval agreement was at least as significant. The navy was regarded as more important than the army at the time and the arrangement with France was one of the more influential factors discussed by the cabinet when it decided for war.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
It is very difficult to see us staying out of a Franco-German War as soon as we encouraged the French down the route of a Mediterranean Navy. Could we have countenanced the Dardenelles campaign being fought in the Pas de Calais?
The UK has always tried to steer clear of mainland Europe, we didn't particularly get involved in the franc Prussian war in the 1870s as it didn't impact us.
The same could be said with WW1. UK interest weren't too focused on mainland Europe. However we had a moral obligation to defend Belgium.
A lot of the issues with ww1 were founded in tensions between France and Germany dating back to the Franco Prussian war
Original post by nulli tertius
It is very difficult to see us staying out of a Franco-German War as soon as we encouraged the French down the route of a Mediterranean Navy. Could we have countenanced the Dardenelles campaign being fought in the Pas de Calais?
No but for that reason the most likely outcome would be the Germans declining to fight it there. Even without fear that Britain would intervene more widely, Britain could inflict a devastating defeat on them simply by blockading their ships inside the Channel, which makes the operation so reckless it would never be attempted.
Alternatively imagine Britain acting more like Japan - declaring war on Germany as historical in 1914, and then fighting a campaign purely against German colonies, refusing to send anything to the continent, and agreeing a separate peace when it had everything it could get cheap.
If you think Britain planned to involve itself in a major European land war between 1890 and 1914, you have to explain why Britain didn't establish conscription. If it had done so, Germany probably would have thrown in the towel in 1915.
I can think of one half convincing answer - but I've never seen it anywhere else and the glass is still half empty.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
No but for that reason the most likely outcome would be the Germans declining to fight it there. Even without fear that Britain would intervene more widely, Britain could inflict a devastating defeat on them simply by blockading their ships inside the Channel, which makes the operation so reckless it would never be attempted.
A blockade is in international law an act of war (hence Kennedy's non-blockade of Cuba). It is inconceivable that Britain would of declared neutrality in a Franco-German conflict and then attacked German naval forces. We would have had to make our decision whether we could stomach attacks on France's western seaboard whilst the Germans were still in Kiel and Bremerhaven.
If you think Britain planned to involve itself in a major European land war between 1890 and 1914, you have to explain why Britain didn't establish conscription. If it had done so, Germany probably would have thrown in the towel in 1915.
The historical record is that the Anglo-French military conversations starting in January 1906 spelt out exactly what the UK would do with the 2 Corps we would deploy to the continent "if" we got involved in a European war on the French side, but of course the truth was that the French plans would be 2 Corps light if we didn't. The French had realised that we would fight even though we did not promise to do so. Peacetime, frankly even wartime, conscription was not politically deliverable until 1916.
Original post by nulli tertius
A blockade is in international law an act of war (hence Kennedy's non-blockade of Cuba). It is inconceivable that Britain would of declared neutrality in a Franco-German conflict and then attacked German naval forces. We would have had to make our decision whether we could stomach attacks on France's western seaboard whilst the Germans were still in Kiel and Bremerhaven.
I agree it would have been an act of war, but it is the Germans who need to keep the British out at this point, not the British who need to stay out. If Britain chooses to declare war on Germany over the narrow cause of control of the Channel then the Germans will lose the Channel and there is very little harm they can inflict on Britain in retaliation. This is only a high stakes war for Britain if Britain's goal is to ensure a peace in which France is not a defeated power.
The historical record is that the Anglo-French military conversations starting in January 1906 spelt out exactly what the UK would do with the 2 Corps we would deploy to the continent "if" we got involved in a European war on the French side, but of course the truth was that the French plans would be 2 Corps light if we didn't. The French had realised that we would fight even though we did not promise to do so. Peacetime, frankly even wartime, conscription was not politically deliverable until 1916.
The French plans were twenty to thirty corps light - corps which were eventually delivered by Britain in 1916-18. Plans react to capabilities more than vice-versa. Given that Britain needed to deliver thirty corps, could deliver two, and could take no acceptable action to deliver the remaining twenty-eight, the logical plan to make was to not fight alongside France. However that assumes that the British knew about the requirement for thirty corps, and I'm not sure they did. I think you are right that the British planned to get involved in a continental war in certain circumstances, but not the war that actually developed.
The answer I have is this: the models of a European war in 1914 were the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Turkish War. All of these wars involved large battles fought in the open in which both sides suffered casualties very rapidly, leading to one side's collapse. This is roughly what happened in 1914 - the Battle of the Marne is the largest example of such a battle in history. But unlike in the model wars, 1914 wasn't decisive. Britain planned to fight an extremely bloody one year war in which it would expend its professional army before it had time to raise a new one. "The war will be over by Christmas." referred to the expected extreme destructiveness of weapons resulting in a short but very bloody war - not the belief that victory would be easy.
Britain made plans on faulty assumptions and became sucked into the WWI catastrophe largely by accident, having placed itself in a position it never wanted to be in but where going forwards was easier than trying to go backwards. Staying out and allowing France to have been defeated in 1915 or 1916 would almost certainly have been a better option for Britain. Declaring war on Germany as a separate power and taking colonies that could be traded back for concessions in Europe would have been better still.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Some could say that it's historically been hemmed in by its neighbours.
Others may say that it's neighbours have been hostile to it as its seen as a threat.
Some may say that power shifts in Europe historically. In order to weaken France, the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) is strengthened. When power shifts to them France respondes and the power shifts back to France.
Others may argue that ww2 was a carry over from WW1 which in turn had its seeds sown in the Franco Prussian war of the 1870s.
WRY ww2, it wasn't only Germany at that time that embraced crazies. There's only the UK that hasn't embraced totalitarian dictatorship in Europe in the last 100 years or so.
Others may say that it's neighbours have been hostile to it as its seen as a threat.
Some may say that power shifts in Europe historically. In order to weaken France, the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) is strengthened. When power shifts to them France respondes and the power shifts back to France.
Others may argue that ww2 was a carry over from WW1 which in turn had its seeds sown in the Franco Prussian war of the 1870s.
WRY ww2, it wasn't only Germany at that time that embraced crazies. There's only the UK that hasn't embraced totalitarian dictatorship in Europe in the last 100 years or so.
Totally agree with you - I think it's down to the Franco-Prussian war, personally.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Gap year travel
- How many countries have you been to?
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Why Not to Study in the Netherlands
- Apart from your home country, what country have you spent the most time in?
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Would it be a good idea to move to Europe right now?
- A Level Maths tuition
- What are your plans for travel this summer?
- Trophy hunting: Botswana threatens to send 20,000 elephants to Germany
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Post grad loan following time away from UK
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- OCR A-Level History Unit 2 (Y201-Y224) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- Uk sanctions china
- What is it like studying abroad?
- parents giving money
- School lost GCSE certificates and refuse to provide replacements
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
