If Great Britain knew that the economic burden of World War One would damage the British Empire to the extent that it would no longer be sustainable would England have supported France and Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany? Note; This is a question I had put in another thread and thought it might be an area to explore on it's own.
The Cost of Empire
- Thread starter Akuma
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This is a good read How a "damned silly thing" in the Balkans sparked WWI
Appetite for the empire was fading by the start of WW1, for many reasons. People were starting to find out more about what was going on, the Labour movement was becoming more powerful and it cost too much. The UK spent 30% o GDP on defence of it but most of the profits went to private individuals or investment companies.
I remember studying this at school the various treaties and agreements at the time are mind numbly complicated, the theory was that binding states together by treaties and accords and ententes peace would be guaranteed. As my history teacher explained it was like a group of mountaineers climbing a steep mountain roping each other together for safety but not attaching the rope to anything at all.
There are all sorts of theories and pet explanations, I remember AJP Taylor explaining one in a talk he gave on TV recorded in the late 50s early 60s. To the French "mobilization" meant sending the boys to the border to look busy earnest and aggressive. To the Germans their plan was based on the use of the railways and "mobilization" meant they were on the move to attack, there was no plan or facility for Germany to send their boys to the border to look busy earnest and aggressive as a bargaining ploy. They were obviously speaking different languages, but even if they spoke the same language they still wouldnt understand what the other was saying.
As far as the question in the OP, I think they would because Belgium had been created as a neutral buffer state with neutrality guaranteed by the British and French, I cant see how they could have got out of that obligation. In any case it would all be over by Christmas, wouldnt it?
I remember studying this at school the various treaties and agreements at the time are mind numbly complicated, the theory was that binding states together by treaties and accords and ententes peace would be guaranteed. As my history teacher explained it was like a group of mountaineers climbing a steep mountain roping each other together for safety but not attaching the rope to anything at all.
There are all sorts of theories and pet explanations, I remember AJP Taylor explaining one in a talk he gave on TV recorded in the late 50s early 60s. To the French "mobilization" meant sending the boys to the border to look busy earnest and aggressive. To the Germans their plan was based on the use of the railways and "mobilization" meant they were on the move to attack, there was no plan or facility for Germany to send their boys to the border to look busy earnest and aggressive as a bargaining ploy. They were obviously speaking different languages, but even if they spoke the same language they still wouldnt understand what the other was saying.
As far as the question in the OP, I think they would because Belgium had been created as a neutral buffer state with neutrality guaranteed by the British and French, I cant see how they could have got out of that obligation. In any case it would all be over by Christmas, wouldnt it?
- Thread starter
- #4
I liked the article that you provided the link to. I know that the question I posed is based on 20/20 hindsight but let's think of it in a different way; as a kind of thought experiment. Let us suppose that in the British government there was a very high placed sort of think tank that have worked with the Cabinet and Lord Grey in the past. This group is known to be extremely insightful; a kind of go to group whenever there are questions of policy that come up. Further let's say that this group has a 99% (or any high rating) track record for being correct. Now it's 1914, Russia is assisting the Serbs in facing up to Austria-Hungary, the AH empire seeing the Serbs quietly mobilizing has declared war after being assured by Germany that they won't have to face Russia and possibly France on their own. At this point Lord Grey and the cabinet have to decide whether to honor their commitments to Belgium and their secret commitments to France. Before reaching a final decision they go to the think tank and ask for some input. That group responds by telling them that they can win the war with Americas assistance but that the cost in blood and especially in treasure will permanently cripple the empire leading to it's dissolution before the end of the twentieth century.
I know it's a thorny what if, but I think that if Lord Grey and the cabinet had serious reason to think that it would have been the end of empire they might have taken another course. One that would not necessarily rule out some sort of limited military action.
Last edited:
