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).

Probably because they feared Germans more then they hated France?

I think Britain had a mutual defence treaty with a country Germany invaded.

Darn treaties ;)

Zephyr:

I think Britain had a mutual defence treaty with a country Germany invaded.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#July_Crisis_and_the_Declarations_of_Wa r):

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 (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm) 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.

Zephyr:

Treaties mean diddly squat. They are only obeyed when it is convenient to do so... just look at WW2.

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

I've always been a little confused as to why Britain allied with France during WWI.
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 .
So why didn't Britain ally itself with Germany during WW1, and LOL at France as it was being attacked?
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 .
Germa Foreign Policy (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/) German economic expansion
Before 1871
During the institution of the German Customers Union (1834/Zollverein), plans were first developed for a "large-area economy" under German leadership. The manufacturing nations of Prussia and Austria were to assume hegemony over an area extending from the North Sea to the Black Sea. The countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe were assigned the status of producers of food and raw materials. At the same time they were to serve as markets for German products and as a trade bridge to the Middle East. Areas of Africa and Latin America were seen as "complementary zones".
This continental imperialism was to endow Germany with major-power status in competition with Russia and the naval powers of England and France. The economic penetration of large areas of eastern and south-eastern Europe was based on control of the Danube plus the construction of railroad lines, which Prussian and Austrian financiers were pushing ahead rapidly.
This led rapidly to this conclusion :
Germa Foreign Policy (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/) 1871-1918
In spite of differences in strategy, both groups agreed on the goal of a European large-area economy under German dominance, that - as described in many plans, popular brochures and strategy papers - was meanwhile expected to extend from the North Sea to the Persian Gulf. Both factions subsumed this goal under the designation of "Central Europe". Because the peaceful penetration by means of capital loans and trade agreements met with difficulties and growing opposition, both factions agreed to seek a solution in the forcible establishment of a "major Central European economic region" over against England, France, Russian and the US. This was the primary German motive for unleashing the First World War.

Surely that would have been beneficial for Britain?
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 .
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).
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:

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.

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?

*shrugs* it's fun to consider alternative histories, but for an actual explanation, this is what I get from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#July_Crisis_and_the_Declarations_of_Wa r):

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 (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm) 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.
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:

think mountainhare doesnt have much of a concept of history here ,

Is that so, imbecile?

nor does he realise the relationships between European powers

Obviously not, since I'm asking questions about the fucking relationships in the first place, you ignorant twit. But thanks for stating the obvious.


is ignoring having to answer our posts , that is not good

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?

I think mountainhare doesn't have much of a concept of history here , nor does he realize the relationships between European powers . He is ignoring having to answer our posts , that is not good.

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.

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).

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.

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 4th.

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.

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.

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.

You obviously don't know that Britain and France had been close partners since the 1850's when they formed an alliance against Russia in the Crimean war .

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.

So the question is, why did Britain find it convenient to uphold its end of the bargain with Belgium?

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.

Brian:

Is that so, imbecile?
Touchy , Christ and this guy added me to his msn list ! I guess I wont be getting anymore messages ROFL .
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.
I didnt give you treaties I gave you actual foreign policy Ost politik .
So the question is, why did Britain find it convenient to uphold its end of the bargain with Belgium?
Ahh to get into the war along with France to destroy its principal economic rival Germany . As what I explained .
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.
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 .
In 1898 Britain and France almost went to war over Fashoda in Egypt, and also experienced grave difficulties in Siam.
Fashoda was a territorial dispute , over a fort , the French conceded .
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.
There was the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1892 , the French defeat in 1871 demonstrated clearly the rise of German imperialism to imperial Britain .
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.
Precisely WW1 was an engineered event to remove Germany as a economic competitor .

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 .

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.

Fashoda was a territorial dispute , over a fort , the French conceded.

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.


Precisely WW1 was an engineered event to remove Germany as a economic competitor .

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.

*shrugs* it's fun to consider alternative histories, but for an actual explanation, this is what I get from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#July_Crisis_and_the_Declarations_of_Wa r):

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 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.

You might find this piece by Revilo P Oliver (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6953) worth thinking about, mountainhare.

Ah, an example of (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=53856).

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.

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.

ok my bad sorry

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?

Sure, but I thought they declared war because of the previous guarantee of Belgian Neutrality.

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.

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 be because in that case we would have had nothing to fear from the Germans, even if they owned half of Europe?

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.

Hang on, but if it really was that simple, a) why didnt they do it, and b) why invade France etc?

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.

The 1839 Treaty of London (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm) derives its significance from Article 7, which bound Britain to guard the neutrality of Belgium in the event of the latter's invasion..
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.

World War 1 was caused by the German's loss of a cheap and powerful workforce within Russia, caused by the Russian Revolution.
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.

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.