Not military, but political. The British had not signed any treaties guaranteeing either Denmark's or Vichy France's neutrality.
How Europe Went to War in 1914
- Thread starter DonL
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
Robert K. Massie wrote an excellent book on the naval build-up that led to WW1, "Dreadnaught".
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
parsifal
Colonel
The British collision with Germany is one thing, but the developing conflict between Russia, France and Serbia on the one hand, and Austria and Germany on the other is an altogether different situation, and for me, one that I dont understand as well.
Serbia is often portrayed as the victim, but i have serious doubts. The group that assassinated the Archduke were basically terrorists. having said that, the Austrians were apparently engaging in a most unsavoury pogrom. Exactly who was to blame is probably an open question.
The descent into war really was the result of ultra nationalism, and a shaky network of alliances. Once one nation within that alliance was in conflict with another it was very difficult for the entire continent not to also get involved. One question to try and resolve is whether one or more groups actively sought war, and if so whether their pursuit of conflict was undertaken legally. Sometimes wars are unavoidable. There is not much to be gained by application of any sort of moral code that is not based on some form of legal system. Arguments about who was right, or who was wrong are endless and pointless if they are just based on moral judgements. My belief systems and values are going to be different to the next mans. The best one can do in that situation is to judge the actions of each nation against the body of international law, such as it existed, that applied at the time hostilities broke out. Did each particular country act lawfully or not?
There is a separate debate, that runs to the deeper, long term causes for each nations involvement. We have discussed, somewhat, the reasons for Britains involvement in the war. Why did they gravitate to war in the way that they did. i see that as a separate, no less valid argument, to the more narrow question of whether each nation acted lawfully in its road to war. In the case of Britain, the stated reason for the british DOW was the violation of Belgian Neutrality. We can argue whether that was the real reason for British involvement or not....it was the stated reason, it was known at the time. British gurantees were lawful, kown, and long standing. Not honouring those gurantees would have been an abrogation of Britains responsibilities, and could be argued as a form of illegal behaviour.... illegal by abrogation of responsibility.
These gurantees given by Britain to Belgium were ignored by Germany. The consequence of that was war. I dont think that it can be argued that Britain acted unlawfully in any of that. I am not so sure about Germany's actions. Ive already asked the question, what threat did Belgium pose to Germany, to warrant its invasion. The answer I received is unsatisfactory.....it was necessary to attack Belgium so as to improve the chances of success against France. in my book that makes Germany the aggressor in that part of the conflict, and puts her in the wrong. Of the two nations in question, she was the nation that acted unlawfully by violating the neutrality of a nation that posed no threat to her. There may have been reasons for doing that, perhaps even good ones, but in terms of the narrow test of legaility, Germany's actions were not, in my view, a lawful application of warfare (in the sense of attacking a third party that was innocent).
Serbia is often portrayed as the victim, but i have serious doubts. The group that assassinated the Archduke were basically terrorists. having said that, the Austrians were apparently engaging in a most unsavoury pogrom. Exactly who was to blame is probably an open question.
The descent into war really was the result of ultra nationalism, and a shaky network of alliances. Once one nation within that alliance was in conflict with another it was very difficult for the entire continent not to also get involved. One question to try and resolve is whether one or more groups actively sought war, and if so whether their pursuit of conflict was undertaken legally. Sometimes wars are unavoidable. There is not much to be gained by application of any sort of moral code that is not based on some form of legal system. Arguments about who was right, or who was wrong are endless and pointless if they are just based on moral judgements. My belief systems and values are going to be different to the next mans. The best one can do in that situation is to judge the actions of each nation against the body of international law, such as it existed, that applied at the time hostilities broke out. Did each particular country act lawfully or not?
There is a separate debate, that runs to the deeper, long term causes for each nations involvement. We have discussed, somewhat, the reasons for Britains involvement in the war. Why did they gravitate to war in the way that they did. i see that as a separate, no less valid argument, to the more narrow question of whether each nation acted lawfully in its road to war. In the case of Britain, the stated reason for the british DOW was the violation of Belgian Neutrality. We can argue whether that was the real reason for British involvement or not....it was the stated reason, it was known at the time. British gurantees were lawful, kown, and long standing. Not honouring those gurantees would have been an abrogation of Britains responsibilities, and could be argued as a form of illegal behaviour.... illegal by abrogation of responsibility.
These gurantees given by Britain to Belgium were ignored by Germany. The consequence of that was war. I dont think that it can be argued that Britain acted unlawfully in any of that. I am not so sure about Germany's actions. Ive already asked the question, what threat did Belgium pose to Germany, to warrant its invasion. The answer I received is unsatisfactory.....it was necessary to attack Belgium so as to improve the chances of success against France. in my book that makes Germany the aggressor in that part of the conflict, and puts her in the wrong. Of the two nations in question, she was the nation that acted unlawfully by violating the neutrality of a nation that posed no threat to her. There may have been reasons for doing that, perhaps even good ones, but in terms of the narrow test of legaility, Germany's actions were not, in my view, a lawful application of warfare (in the sense of attacking a third party that was innocent).
European history looks as complicated as ours in the Far East.
Frankly I have felt great sympathy for the loser as a same loser in the second world war
but this has been a good chance for me to understand how the ww1 happened.
Thank you very much, gents.
Frankly I have felt great sympathy for the loser as a same loser in the second world war
but this has been a good chance for me to understand how the ww1 happened.
Thank you very much, gents.
A German navy meant the Channel could be breached and Britain could be invaded. In fact, if Germany had a navy in WWII, it would have been invaded, right after France, I think.
Parsifal, you type much faster than I can and write well 
A few remarks, though. The invasion of Belgium was only in name the reason for the British to go to war. Secret negotiations with France in the years before had already tied them to the fate of France. Mr. Grey claimed they had to help the Belgians when attacked because of the London treaty in 1839. That was false, not such obligation was in that treaty.
You're right that german's pre-emptive strike made them the agressor. I think if they would have waited any longer it would have been France, but hat's not what happened.
According to some books I have, The treaty between France and Russia made it quite clear that both countries were aiming for war with Germany around 1917. WW1 came a little early for them, but was exactly what they wanted.
I have always believed that all countries were equally guilty in the making of ww1. This was quite different from ww2.
A few remarks, though. The invasion of Belgium was only in name the reason for the British to go to war. Secret negotiations with France in the years before had already tied them to the fate of France. Mr. Grey claimed they had to help the Belgians when attacked because of the London treaty in 1839. That was false, not such obligation was in that treaty.
You're right that german's pre-emptive strike made them the agressor. I think if they would have waited any longer it would have been France, but hat's not what happened.
According to some books I have, The treaty between France and Russia made it quite clear that both countries were aiming for war with Germany around 1917. WW1 came a little early for them, but was exactly what they wanted.
I have always believed that all countries were equally guilty in the making of ww1. This was quite different from ww2.
parsifal
Colonel
:
Thanks. you are doing fine i think
There were treaty obligations with France, Russia and Britain, well known as the Triple Entente. in the same way as germany was obkigated to come the aid of Austria , the british were allied to the french, and the Russians. Its that shaky alliance system again.
However, with regard to Belgium, the British gave separate undertakings to the Belgians several times in the 19th century to uphold their neutrality, with armed force if necessary. i disagree that it was false to claim they had no responsibility. it was not written directly into the treaty, but Britain had stated they would defend Belgian neutrality on many occasions, well before the final race to war.
It would have been intersting if the french did violate Belgian Neutrality. if Britains reason for declaring war on Germany was genuine, would thay have declared war on France for the same transgression? Somehow, I think not, but I also am doubtful they would have joined the french in theiur invasion either. we can only speculate really, because it never happened.
I dont uppose you can identify the books you saw those opinions. I would like to undertake a bit more research in that regard
All wars, including WWII have at least two sides, and for all wars there are reasons why each side fights. There were good reasons why the Nazis went to war in 1939, and over the years there have been many attempts to justify their aggression on that basis. This doesnt exonerate the Nazis, or make it legal. We have to be very careful to separate the rule of law (such as it is) from the wider, deeper reasons for war.
In the case of WWI, the lines are far more blurred, and i have modified my belief to the extent of questioning the innocence of the French and the Russians, and the Serbs for that matter. The deep seated reasons were also more rational and justifiable from both sides perspectives. There were good and noble reasons why Germany went to war in 1914, just as there were good and noble reasons why the British did the same. Id hazard a guess and think that the russians and th4e french also can meet those criteria. You cant judge guilt or inocence on the basis of justification (a woman who kills her wife beating husband is likley to have justification for her crime, but is still guilty of manslaughter, and possibly murder) . You also cant make any sort of moral judgement in the case of WWI. Both sides had a good "moral" basis for going to war. Even the French anhd the Russians. But in the end, this came to nothing, and the war degenerated into the most ammoral of slaughters in history.
The best i think that can be done, is to assess whether each nation, in its machiavellian dealings with other nations, acted lawfully or not. Intent should not enter into this at this point. I cannot answer for every nation, at least not authoritatively. In the case of Britain, she was as machiavellian as any other nation, probably moreso. But her conduct and raison detre for entering the war are absolutely lawful and followed what we might call the procedures for war. The British were always careful to make sure about things like that. its a very long stretch in my view to argue that the British broke laws, or acted unlawfully in the undertakings they made to Belgium. They made it clear, from many years prior, about what they would do if Belgium was attacked. They honoured those committments. That they may have engineered that to serve other purposes may or may not have been the case, but neither is it relevant to the very narrow test of legality that can be applied in this case.
I'll try and find the books Parsifal, as soon as I have some time to digg into them, hopefully this weekend.
The British did not just claim they had to help Belgium as a moral obligation, but they claimed the had to because of the London treaty. This was clearly false as the treaty only agreed that none of the signers would violate the neutrality of Belgium, but it did not force the participants to counter any violation of the treaty. This was clearly ment as propaganda aimed at their own population to legalise the war and raise ethousiasm. But you're right, I think the British entrance into the war was legal in the literal sence. Also, although from my view they had a 'moral guilt' in the outbreak of the war, they were not the main 'villain' in the whole story.
I think that it is quite obvious that it was the Germans who violated several international treaties.
Edit:
Found the text of Franco-Russian military convention of 1892. Don't see the date 1917 here, will have to read my books again or retreat that statement
. But the aim against Germany alone is quite obvious.
The British did not just claim they had to help Belgium as a moral obligation, but they claimed the had to because of the London treaty. This was clearly false as the treaty only agreed that none of the signers would violate the neutrality of Belgium, but it did not force the participants to counter any violation of the treaty. This was clearly ment as propaganda aimed at their own population to legalise the war and raise ethousiasm. But you're right, I think the British entrance into the war was legal in the literal sence. Also, although from my view they had a 'moral guilt' in the outbreak of the war, they were not the main 'villain' in the whole story.
I think that it is quite obvious that it was the Germans who violated several international treaties.
Edit:
Found the text of Franco-Russian military convention of 1892. Don't see the date 1917 here, will have to read my books again or retreat that statement
. But the aim against Germany alone is quite obvious.
Last edited:
Another background into this vital treaty behind Russia and France:
<Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance :: European Europe History>.
"Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance." 123HelpMe.com. 31 Oct 2013
<Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance :: European Europe History>.
silence
Senior Airman
Just to insert my little 2 cents (which, thanks to inflation, is now $5.29):
If I am reading Article 2 correctly, than any mobilization of any kind provides legal (and I use the word loosely) justification for Russia and France to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides. This would even justify enacting the Article even if say, Italy mobilizes to attack A-H (!!!), then because one (two) of the Triple Alliance mobilized then Russia and France are to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides - even if, for whatever reason, Germany itself remains out of the Italian-AH conflict.
The Convention also specifies Germany is the country to be attacked, not Austria-Hungary nor Italy. So I guess if the convention is enacted and France and Russia breach the German frontier, then they stop at Germany's borders with Austria-Hungary, even if A-H is also at war.
And A-H can go to war against either France or Russia alone, without German help, and the one is NOT obligated to support the other?
Someone(s) seem to be looking for any excuse to attack another someone they don't like, and want to provide a letter-of-the-law reason (excuse) for doing so while maintaining the high moral ground. "Well, gee, ma, I beat that kid up because his buddy's cousin on his mother's side once removed beat up my friend's cousin's neighbor's dog's first owner. So he was asking for it and I did what I had to do." <sigh...> My three year old nephew could see through this.
Its also interesting that France is to commit 50% more troops to the fight than Russia...
If I am reading Article 2 correctly, than any mobilization of any kind provides legal (and I use the word loosely) justification for Russia and France to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides. This would even justify enacting the Article even if say, Italy mobilizes to attack A-H (!!!), then because one (two) of the Triple Alliance mobilized then Russia and France are to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides - even if, for whatever reason, Germany itself remains out of the Italian-AH conflict.
The Convention also specifies Germany is the country to be attacked, not Austria-Hungary nor Italy. So I guess if the convention is enacted and France and Russia breach the German frontier, then they stop at Germany's borders with Austria-Hungary, even if A-H is also at war.
And A-H can go to war against either France or Russia alone, without German help, and the one is NOT obligated to support the other?
Someone(s) seem to be looking for any excuse to attack another someone they don't like, and want to provide a letter-of-the-law reason (excuse) for doing so while maintaining the high moral ground. "Well, gee, ma, I beat that kid up because his buddy's cousin on his mother's side once removed beat up my friend's cousin's neighbor's dog's first owner. So he was asking for it and I did what I had to do." <sigh...> My three year old nephew could see through this.
Its also interesting that France is to commit 50% more troops to the fight than Russia...
Could you explain what 'moral guilt' Britain had at the start of the war, seeing the British only entered the war after everybody else was already at war.
There was no treaty which compelled the British come to France's or Russia's aid if attacked by either Germany or A-H
The Triple Entente merely resolved a number of colonial disputes between the nations and an agreement to settle any further disputes in a friendly manner.
However, what they did do was place Britain on friendly relations with France and Russia at a time of deteriorating relationships with Germany and A-H.
Avalon Project - The Entente Cordiale Between England and France - April 8, 1904
Avalon Project - The Anglo-Russian Entente - 1907
Marcel, I believe you're right, Belgium was for public consumption. The German aggression had to be met. It upset the peace. A nation doesn't go to war because of a commitment, real or otherwise, to protect some other nation. It goes to war because it's in its interests to go to war. In this case, British interests in Europe were threatened by the German aggression. Belgium was the pretense to get involved. Had Germany gone around Belgium to attack France, Britain still would have got involved, and for the same reason, its interests were threatened.
No.
All that the agreement required was for them to also mobilise their forces, and ready them to respond to any attack on either nation. There was no requirement to attack either Germany or A-H if they merely mobilised their forces and didn't attack.
The problem for the senior members of the British government who felt it was in Britain's interests to stop German domination of the continent was that even within the British cabinet there was dispute on whether Britain should get involved or not with a majority of members being opposed to a promise of support for France even as late as the 29th July , and it was worse in parliament itself and with the British population, where there was little interest in this foreign war . The attack on Belguim changed all that, it ensured British involvement.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #77
DonL
Banned
You should read Christopher Clarks book, there you can see from primary sources, diplomatic - notes, letters and documents, how Sir Edward Grey, supported and encouraged, Russia and France at their way and acts. Great Britain was a big player at Juli and without the support and knowledge that Great Britain will join the war, Russia and France didn't have forced the war through mobilization.
Hold in mind, Raymond Poincaré visited St. Petersburg two weeks befor Russia mobilized at 25.07.1914 and proclaimed and and supported the way to war.
After the mobilization through Russia, Germany spoke an Ultimatum to neglect the mobilization, weather France nor Great Britain did anything to first neglect the mobilization or second, did anything for a diplomatic solution. More the opposite France also mobilized before Germany.
Belgium was the excuse for the British government for thier people to explain, why they join the war, nothing else.
France and Russia knew very well, that without Great Britain the war couldn't be won!
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Great posts, parsifal and Marcel...Belgium suffered mainly because of it's geographical position, not political.
Germany knew that it would be hit on both sides, from France and Russia, so thier idea was tomtake France out as quickly as possible and then turn to face Russia.
Now the question I have, is how would the face of WWI been altered had France gone ahead and pushed through Belgium first, as they had wanted to but hesitated when Belgium declined thier request for passage?
This is not saying WWI would not have happened had Germany not pushed through Belgium first, WWI was going to happen, no matter what. It was not a question of "if" but "when".
So again, my question is how would the events have unfolded had France pushed through Belgium first, to strike Germany? How would this have altered the alliances, if at all?
Germany knew that it would be hit on both sides, from France and Russia, so thier idea was tomtake France out as quickly as possible and then turn to face Russia.
Now the question I have, is how would the face of WWI been altered had France gone ahead and pushed through Belgium first, as they had wanted to but hesitated when Belgium declined thier request for passage?
This is not saying WWI would not have happened had Germany not pushed through Belgium first, WWI was going to happen, no matter what. It was not a question of "if" but "when".
So again, my question is how would the events have unfolded had France pushed through Belgium first, to strike Germany? How would this have altered the alliances, if at all?
Well, Britain, in the person of Sir Grey had helped getting the circumstances right for ww1. For instance when minister of was Haldane went to Berlin in 1912, he tried to lessen the tension between Germany and Britain. To his surprise the Germans were very much willing to do so. Grey, minister of foreign affairs, however didn't want that and obstructed the concept-agreement, drafted by Haldane and the Germans. He even stated to the French ambassador that he would make sure that the negotiations would not affect the good relations with France. He lost a major opportunity to prefent war there but refused. This is just one example of behaviour of Brittain (wether intended or not) that helped starting the war.
In my opinion, Grey was mainly responsible for Britain entering the war, he had a clear anti-german attitude, kept the secret negotiations with France going, even against the wishes of the rest of the government and used a false statement to explain why the UK was in war with Germany.
Difficult to say and I'm not good in these kind of speculations. I think Grey would have had a harder time to get Britain into this war. How it would have ended I don't know. I guess we would have had a stalemate war all the same.
Last edited:
It would have ended any chance of Britain supporting France or Russia, though I'm doubtful Britain would have gone to war over it.
