Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not military, but political. The British had not signed any treaties guaranteeing either Denmark's or Vichy France's neutrality.I
I repeat my question, why were the military reasons of breaking the Neutrality of Denmark and Vichy France higher, then the miltary reasons of breaking the neutrality of Belgium, even if this treaty was 75 years old and the borderlines were totaly different at the timeline of 1839 then 1914 and the military circumstances also totaly different.
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.They were a fatal mix. The British would have probably accepted the rise in Germany's economic power, if they hadn't mixed it with a naval build up at the same time.
:Parsifal, you type much faster than I can and write well :thumbright
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.
Preamble
France and Russia, being animated by a common desire to preserve peace, and having no other object than to meet the necessities of a defensive war, provoked by an attack of the forces of the Triple Alliance against either of them, have agreed upon the following provisions:
Article 1
If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
Article 2
In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.
Article 3
The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.
These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.
Article 4
The General Staffs of the Armies of the two countries shall cooperate with each other at all times in the preparation and facilitation of the execution of the measures mentioned above.
They shall communicate with each other, while there is still peace, all information relative to the armies of the Triple Alliance which is already in their possession or shall come into their possession.
Ways and means of corresponding in time of war shall be studied and worked out in advance.
Article 5
France and Russia shall not conclude peace separately.
Article 6
The present Convention shall have the same duration as the Triple Alliance.
Article 7
All the clauses enumerated above shall be kept absolutely secret.
Signature of the Minister:
General Aide-de-Camp:
General of Division:
Chief of the General Staff:
Councillor of State:
Signed: OBRUCHEFF
(Sub-Chief of the General Staff of the Army)
Signed: BOISDEFFRE
"Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance." 123HelpMe.com. 31 Oct 2013Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance
During the late 19th century many countries sought an alliance with other countries to guarantee their own safety, preserve peace and sometimes to help their economic position. this is highlighted by alliances and treaties such as the "Dual Alliance" of 1879, the "Dreikaiserbund" of 1881 and the "Reinsurance Treaty" This was also the case for both France and Russia, with them agreeing the "Franco-Russian Military Convention" on August 18th 1892 and later agreeing the "Franco-Russian Alliance" in 1893. France and Russia were animated by a common desire to preserve peace. The only reason it was possible for France and Russia to form this alliance is because Germany allowed the Reinsurance treaty to become invalid. Both countries wanted different things from the alliance but there was one common reason between them, and that was to oppose Germany - although both countries had different incentives for this. France, Russia and Germany all contributed to the alliance being formed, either through their aims or what they did.
France aimed to get revenge on Germany for the Franco - Prussian war of 1970 - 1971 where France were disastrously defeated, Germany aimed to stay free from an invasion from France and keep Austria-Hungary happy as France and Austria- Hungary were on either side of German, and Russia wanted an ally so it could feel safe form Germany.
France made an alliance with Russia because it was against Germany. France wanted Revenge on Germany because of the humiliation of losing the Franco-Prussian war and the valuable land lost, like "Alsace - Lorraine". They wanted revenge and this widely known. France knew that "without Russia's help, the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871, in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine could never be repaired", so it was important France allied with a relatively strong power. Karl Marx said "If Alsace - Lorraine is taken, then France will later make war with Germany in conjunction with France".
France needed an ally because she felt extremely vulnerable, this was mainly due to Bismarck and Germany. Bismarck had been successful in isolating France diplomatically over the previous decade, so she needed to catch up with the other major powers. France couldn't ally with Britain because Britain kept itself in "splendid isolation", so Russia was really the only real choice as they were the only other great power who was suspicious and disliked Germany.
France feared Germany, Germany had a preponderant military, so to counterbalance the German - British alliance, France agreed the Franco-Russian alliance. They had to try and make sure the disastrous defeat of the "Franco - Prussian war" wasn't repeated, so making an alliance with a country as powerful and with such a good geographical position, for an attack on Germany, would inevitable almost guarantee their safety. If Germany started a war with France they would have to fight on two fronts as Russia and France were on either side of Germany, which would stretch resources immenseley
Russia also feared Germany's dominance so seeked an Alliance to reduce the chance of being attacked. After the Reinsurance treaty had expired in 1890 Russia wanted to turn to another country who had strained relations with Germany, and also after the renewal of the "Triple alliance" (of Germany, Austria and Italy) it prompted serious consideration from Russia about her isolated position, so she turned to France. Russia couldn't form an alliance with Britain, because Britain didn't want to make an Alliance at this time and they kept themselves isolated.
Russia saw an Alliance with France as a very attractive prospect. This is because even before the alliance was formed, France had lent Russia considerable sums of money so Russia could build up their army and France had given Russia military assistance in weapons procurement, so now an alliance was formed, it would almost ensure that France would continue investing capital into Russia and helping with arms development. During the 1880's Russia was borrowing up to 2 million francs every year from the French, so an alliance would hopefully secure the very important financial support needed by the very backward Russian economy at that time.
Russia also seeked an anti - German alliance because Russia was unhappy with the way in which Germany had treated them. From being once an ally with Germany, Russia had totally changed their views about their foreign policy with them. Firstly there was the fact that Germany had failed to renew the "Reinsurance treaty" with them, which could have left Russia in a very vulnerable position, and secondly there was the trouble Bismarck had caused in November 1987, over the bonds on the stock market. Bismarck banned the sales of bonds on the Berlin stock market because Bismarck was annoyed with the Russian government imposing taxes on foreign owners of estates in Russia.
The Franco - Russian alliance helped Russia and France in different ways, but for both of them it was good for the alliance to be anti - German because both powers feared Germany and both wanted revenge against Germany, France for the "Franco - Prussian war" and Russia for their bonds being banned from the Berlin stock market.
Both countries were apprehesive about Germany's intentions but the geographical position of France and Russia, on either side of Germany, meant that Germany fealt a bit threatened so the chance of attack on France and Russia was reduced. The Franco - Russian alliance was not merely a commercial or financial scheme, it was the supreme guaranty of the unhampered development of the two nations, which was needed as both countries were left feeling isolated and vulnerable, France after the "Franco - Prussian war" and for Russia the expired "Reinsurance Treaty".
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.. 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..
There was no treaty which compelled the British come to France's or Russia's aid if attacked by either Germany or A-HThere were treaty obligations with France, Russia and Britain, well known as the Triple Entente. in the same way as germany was obligated to come the aid of Austria , the british were allied to the french, and the Russians. Its that shaky alliance system again..
No.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....
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
It would have ended any chance of Britain supporting France or Russia, though I'm doubtful Britain would have gone to war over it.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?