actually we joined the war to side with the belgiums because we had a friendship with them, then germany declared war with us so it was only logical to side with someone
Germany did not declare war on England. Rather, Great Britain declared war on Germany on the evening of August 4th, 1914.
Sure, but I thought they declared war because of the previous guarantee of Belgian Neutrality. The whole of Europe was criss crossed with pacts, secret and otherwise, which guaranteed that every country would be sucked into a war.
Actually, would you mind going more into your reasoning why having both the UK and Germany against Russia would be a good idea? Would it bebecause in that case we would hvae had nothing to fear from the Germans, even if they owned half of Europe?
The neutrality of Belgium was the subject of the British ultimatum to Germany on August 4th. However, by that point the British had refused outright to assure Germany of neutrality should Germany honor the terms of the 1839 treaty. On the same day, August 1st, a formal German offer of neutrality in the west was also rebuffed without discussion - this too would have safeguarded Belgium. So while it is true that Belgium formed the basis of the British ultimatum, it cannot be said that Great Britain would have remained neutral should Germany have refrained from action in the west. And which half would that be? The premise is straightforward; Germany and Austria-Hungary went to war in 1914 because of Serbo-Russian agitation in the Balkans that was deemed a severe security threat to the Central Powers. It was within Great Britain's interests and within her grasp to distinguish between foolish Russian Balkans aspirations and legitimate Russian interests. Since the military dominance of the Triple Entente did not rely upon any combination of Balkans powers, London could have cooperated with Berlin in isolating St. Petersburg with regard to a destructive Balkans program. Note that this doesn't translate into a British blank cheque to Germany against Russia. Merely that the Russian interests the British would be willing to fight for all were within the existing boundries of the Russian Empire. Chamberlain's approach to Rumania and Poland in 1938/1939 looks like a functioning model of a similar policy in action.
My guesses? A) Because the British judged cooperation with Germany as less desirable than war. B) Because the Germans came to the conclusion outlined in A above.
World War 1 was caused by the German's loss of a cheap and powerful workforce within Russia, caused by the Russian Revolution. It was also the product of, as said earlier, several decades worth of treaties and royal politics. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand gave Austria-Hungary an excuse to invade the balkans (which in their eyes was a rising threat because they couldn't directly control the croatian and bosnian territories, and the Ottoman's dissapearance in the area would more or less leave the remaining nations to be a wildcard, which was not desireable). Germany and Austria knew that invading the Balkans would entice Russia to come to the Serbs' aid, which in turn would give an excuse for Germany to throttle Russia and regain the cheap eastern workforce. Invading Belgium was a gamble that Germany took because they wanted to control a more sizeable territory in Europe, or at least unite the nations of Germanic origin (the Benelux, former Prussian territories). Basically the primary factor was to regain the Russian-German labour agreements which were lost through the 1905 Russian Revolution. The secondary cause was Germany's greed to control more territory, and Austria was closely tied to Germany so theres no surprise in their mutual interests. Austria's primary reason was to regain stability in the Balkans caused by the removal of the Ottoman empire, caused by the First Balkan War.
Yeah, about that...what if Belgium was to invade another country (say, the Principality of Sealand)? They would no longer be neutral, but they would be the aggressors. Which would Britain help in that situation? NOTE: I say Sealand specifically because that country is in very close proximity to Britain, creating a big conundrum for the UK.
Last I knew the Russian Revolution occured in 1917, 3 years after the war started. The last major upheavals before that were in 1906 I think.
Yes, you're right. The Russian Revolution of 1905, I wasn't talking about the Communist Revolution of 1917, that would be silly.
The revolution of 1905 didn't accomplish anything, though, so it wouldn't be a cause of the War at all. It was, however, a result of a war...the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
