I've always been a little confused as to why Britain allied with France during WWI. Throughout history, the French and the British have always hated each others guts. France has attempted to invade England time and time again, and fought against the British during the American revolutionary wars, as well as in various other conflicts. And the British have a long history of being a thorn in France's side. Hell, France's national anthem makes a subtle reference to watering the fields with the blood of their English enemy! So why didn't Britain ally itself with Germany during WW1, and LOL at France as it was being attacked? Surely that would have been beneficial for Britain? An age-old enemy would get it up the rear, and Britain would get France's former colonies (which were far more numerous than the German's).
I think Britain had a mutual defence treaty with a country Germany invaded. Darn treaties Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Zephyr: Treaties mean diddly squat. They are only obeyed when it is convenient to do so... just look at WW2.
*shrugs* it's fun to consider alternative histories, but for an actual explanation, this is what I get from Wikipedia: On August 3 Germany declared war on France, and on August 4 invaded Belgium. This act, violating Belgian neutrality to which Germany, France, and Britain were all committed to guarantee, gave Britain, which up to that point had yet to choose a side in the conflict, a reason to declare war on Germany on August 4. So to explain the cooperation between Britain and France I suppose you'd need to find the origin of that agreement with Belgium.
The 1839 Treaty of London derives its significance from Article 7, which bound Britain to guard the neutrality of Belgium in the event of the latter's invasion. mountainhare, Treaties may sometimes be ignored, but to the detriment of that nation in forming future treaties, and besides, this one was 75 years old. The royal families of many European nations were often intimately connected by intermarriage.
Eh? I thought hostility with Germany was cemented (and made notable by the complete absence of action by either France or Britain) when Poland was invaded, with which France and England had treaties. Sounds to me more like WW2 illustrated that treaties moved nations. Geoff
Because Germany was beginning to economically rival Great Britain and France so it was in these 2 imperial nations interests to set Germany up for a fall . Because if Germany had of over ran France , it would of left Germany free to pursue its Ost-Politik that is the economic domination of Eastern Europe . This led rapidly to this conclusion : Ost-Politik is the German policy of economic domination of Eastern Europe that was developed in the 1800's in which Germany because of its central; geograhic position would be able to incorporate East Europe/Russia into its sphere of control . Any success of Ost-Politik would of cemented Germanys rise and the eclipse of Britains economic supremacy thats why it was un-beneficial for Britain . You obviously dont know that Britain and France had been close partners since the 1850's when they formed an alliance against Russia in the Crimean war . As for colonies Britain was beginning the process of shedding itself of its colonies then , you only have to take the 1900 Dominion Act which literally gave Australia and Canada its independence , against the will of these 2 nations I add also , as evidence of this . And the fact is Britain could of grabbed French possessions during WW2 when france was occupied it never did .
GeoffP: Think again. In fact, your example does more harm than good to your case. Germany wasn't the only country to invade Poland during WW2. Another country invaded Poland about 2 weeks after the Nazis began their invasion. Who was this country? And did France and Britain declare war on this country, despite their treaty to defend Poland? In fact, did France and Britain ever get around to defending Poland, even against the Nazis?
I think mountainhare doesnt have much of a concept of history here , nor does he realise the relationships between European powers . He is ignoring having to answer our posts , that is not good .
Brian: Is that so, imbecile? Obviously not, since I'm asking questions about the fucking relationships in the first place, you ignorant twit. But thanks for stating the obvious. I tend to ignore irrelevant crap which doesn't answer my question. Treaties by themselves are nothing, they are just pieces of paper. Time and time again, France, Britain and the U.S have broken treaties when it was convenient to do so. So the question is, why did Britain find it convenient to uphold its end of the bargain with Belgium?
Actually, I think Mountainhare's question quite good. He's indicated first that he thinks something doesn't jive, and second that he doesn't have a great depth of the topic. If so this makes his question all the more noteworthy, because his intuition is on the mark in asking it. Niall Ferguson asks much the same question in Pity of War by positing whether Britain would have been further ahead by remaining neutral in the conflict. Yes, but on August 1st the British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey, upon inquiry of the German Ambassador, rejected any possibility that Great Britain would assure neutrality towards Germany based upon Britain's obligations to Belgium and Germany inherent to the 1839 Treaty. Also, do understand that Germany's invasion of Belgium doesn't answer Mountainhare's question - the 1839 treaty was not an alliance per say, and contained no clause stipulating the military intervention of a guarantor power. Chamberlain's very public treaty with Poland was an improvisation designed to deter Hitler from doing something stupid. He may as well have asked the Devil to convert to Christianity. While a bonafide and binding treaty, the Anglo-Polish agreement was a last minute, rushed affair meant to publicly denote a new and sudden commonality of interests and not an alliance per say - that wedding requires tangible action by both parties; in this case Britain let Germany swing Poland from the nearest tree. In 1898 Britain and France almost went to war over Fashoda in Egypt, and also experienced grave difficulties in Siam. Generally speaking, until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, France was the most isolated power in Europe, as demonstrated by Bismarck's stunning victory over the Republic in 1871. The British wanted Germany to invade Belgium because they feared that if Germany didn't, then France would have to do so themselves. The German invasion was 'convenient' because it gave a perfect excuse to enter the war, and it avoided a potentially dangerous political pitfall, which savvy German leadership might have tried to exploit.
Touchy , Christ and this guy added me to his msn list ! I guess I wont be getting anymore messages ROFL . I didnt give you treaties I gave you actual foreign policy Ost politik . Ahh to get into the war along with France to destroy its principal economic rival Germany . As what I explained . That doesnt surprise me 15 pages of debate with you on my WW2 thread and you could not provide one credible source other than hand typed passages from books . Yeah and what was it when I provided actual German intelligence and military files from the archives you discounted them . Fashoda was a territorial dispute , over a fort , the French conceded . There was the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1892 , the French defeat in 1871 demonstrated clearly the rise of German imperialism to imperial Britain . Precisely WW1 was an engineered event to remove Germany as a economic competitor .
. Correct - all sources I cited were published works and therefore credible, allowing anyone interested to look them up themselves at their local library. If you've any further observations on that particular thread, please feel free to retrieve it and post them there, not here. . That's like saying 'Agadir was a dispute over a beach. The Germans conceeded.' Prior to the death of Victoria in 1901 it's incorrect to suggest an Anglo-French partnership extending onward 'from 1854'. The British let the Germans trounce France in 1871, for instance. The Dual Alliance of 1892 (made possible by the lapse of the German-Russian Reinsurance Treaty) was the first major break for France, as you correctly note. Qualified agreement. Yes I think the Entente was the aggressor grouping, and hence that they are more guilty than the Central Powers of causing the war. No, I don't think their behaviour was 'engineered' - meaning that the expression of this universal Entente drive to war was more chaotic and uncertain than you might feel.
the real reason Britain had to declare war on Germany is through the treaty that it held with Poland. That ment that as soon as Poland is invaded the treaty states that the British have to declare war right after.
I've always wondered by Britain, France and Germany don't just band together. Countries like Greece contribute nothing to the E.U. whereas countries like the UK just end up paying large amounts of tax for few benefits. Benefits which should exist anyway - such as lack of travel visa's. There should be a seperate E.U. of 'good' countries.
I side with BRian foley on this one, at least in WW1. If the UK had left germany alone, they would have defeated France, and with total control of the coalfields and mines of the region, they would have been in a position to overtake the UK in many areas of manufacturing, not to mention access to naval bases on the West coast of France would have meant the German navy could have destroyed the British Navy from all directions. Relations with France might have been up and down, but they were never the direct threat that Germany was. France was never an industrial power worth speaking of; the inneficiencesi of its indutries were legion.
Britain had another option which avoided totally unneccessary dramatics such as German control of the French north coast. London could have cooperated with Germany diplomatically to isolate Russia. All Grey had to do was publish the stupid, blackmailing demands Sazonov was making in Persia by the summer of 1914 and all of jolly England would have been in an anti-Russian uproar.
