Why did Britain go to war in 1914?

I think you're jumping the gun in assuming that Germany would have wanted British territories, NONE of mainland Europe was in British hands (Gibraltar withstanding) so they had plenty of room for manoeuvring.

I'm also not entirely sure Germany would have declared war on Britain, it's damned hard to invade for one, the royal family is part german, and to be honest I just don't see it.

I'm slowly coming around to seeing Britain as the perpetrator of both world wars in a way.

If they saw ww1 coming, they could have ended it almost immediately, yet chose not to, no one would have been able to stand up to a full mobilisation of the British empire at that point in time.
 
lIlIxX-IW_Rio_IW-XxlIlI said:
I think you're jumping the gun in assuming that Germany would have wanted British territories, NONE of mainland Europe was in British hands (Gibraltar withstanding) so they had plenty of room for manoeuvring.

I'm also not entirely sure Germany would have declared war on Britain, it's damned hard to invade for one, the royal family is part german, and to be honest I just don't see it.

I'm slowly coming around to seeing Britain as the perpetrator of both world wars in a way.

If they saw ww1 coming, they could have ended it almost immediately, yet chose not to, no one would have been able to stand up to a full mobilisation of the British empire at that point in time.
Click to expand...

Couple of important points one the British were concerned about German moves in Africa and the pacific near what were then colonies of the British empire.
Second you fail to grasp that before 1914 Britain didn't have a mass conscription army based on a continental model such as France Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The regular British army was small volunteer force used in colonial wars deployed by the first service ( the Royal Navy ) in bush wars. Most of that deployed as the BFE and it fought on the fields of Northern France and Belgium during the early weeks of the war.

However during the war the British empire and it's commonwealth built the army that finally won the war in 1918. But very little of that had existed in 1914.
 
That's exactly my point, if they had REALLY wanted to stop it happening, they would of rolled out conscription throughout the empire.
 
Leavanny said:
Brave-New-World said:
Well I hope you enjoyed your History lesson ;)
Click to expand...

This is an essay not a lesson :/

Plus the bit about WW1 stemming before the shooting of archduke Franz Ferdinand is pretty freaking obvious, the shooting was a fuse to light the pile of gunpowder that had been building. Only people who have never seen the subject don't know that.

Also a war between France and Germany had already happened in Alsace-Lorraine. So the point about a war being between Germany and France was a bit null, as it had already happened.
Click to expand...
You are referring to the Franco-Prussian was which actually led to Bismark's unification of Germany, so you point about there already being a war is null, as there hadn't been one
 
lIlIxX-IW_Rio_IW-XxlIlI said:
I think you're jumping the gun in assuming that Germany would have wanted British territories, NONE of mainland Europe was in British hands (Gibraltar withstanding) so they had plenty of room for manoeuvring.

I'm also not entirely sure Germany would have declared war on Britain, it's damned hard to invade for one, the royal family is part german, and to be honest I just don't see it.

I'm slowly coming around to seeing Britain as the perpetrator of both world wars in a way.

If they saw ww1 coming, they could have ended it almost immediately, yet chose not to, no one would have been able to stand up to a full mobilisation of the British empire at that point in time.
Click to expand...
Germany had already been competing for land in British colonies for example the scramble for Africa
Germany wouldn't have declared war on Britian, however they couldn't have been allies as an alliance had already been suggested by Germany which was refused. And France and Russia wouldn't have been happy we left them hanging dry
Britian did not see world war 1 coming and you do understand how ludicrous your point about constcription of the whole empire is don't you? Britian main force had always been its navy, and the army was just a standing force, no where near as many as the other European armies
 
---BigD--- said:
(May of been mentioned already)(didn't read many replies) they are normally from tormented souls,Are you asking us to do your homework ??
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you're saying here? As I would be doing all the work I can't see how you would be doing my homework for me? :/
 
The first world war conflict was instigated by an military organization called BLACK HAND following the assassination of the arch Duke of Austria/Hungary, England politically could not stand back from a war between France and Germany and would be cut off economically from western Europe and Russia so all out war ensued.
 
And just a little fact, the royal families of England Germany and Russia we're very closely related and all very competitive toward each other
 
jagielleon said:
If you think Britain started both world wars you're not in the right thread: this is historical.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should reword that to 'indirectly responsible'

Ww1 could have been avoided by introducing conscription in the first decade of the century, at that point in time the empire could of sustained a much larger armed force that Germany couldn't of matched.

Ww2 could have been completely avoided if a stronger British government post ww1 had of stood up for the rights of German citizens instead of allowing the ridiculously strict restrictions on the economy of Germany and the amount they (the German people) were forced to pay back.


Of The four major powers,l then only Britain could of done this.

France was too angry.
The states too greedy.
Russia were geographical rivals.

The empire was politically weak when it should have been strong.
 
Rio you are trying to blame the British for things that were beyond their individual control.

No British government was going to introduce universal conscription across the then empire. Not least because it would never have been accepted in the home countries.
As for the treaty of Versailles which ended WW1 that's a collective work the British empire had no more power there than the other great powers.
Next why would the British government be concerned with the rights of the average German citizen ? That's an internal German issue interfering would have started another war which was the last thing the British government wanted.
Added to the fact that following WW1 the British had more than enough going on at home and across the empire to keep them distracted and busy.

Perhaps a better question why after making Wilson's 14 points the principles of US involvement then being key at Versailles treaty discussions then the formation of the League of Nations, did the USA never sign on to join the league ?
 
Im struggling to see any of what rio is saying as sense........so your suggesting that britain couldhave Iintroduced mass conscription across the empire based on the fact there "might" have been a war against Germany which would have crippled our economy as the costs involved in creating the army that won the war was astronomical. Also this may have even been seen as an act of aggression bringing the war forward with the germans attacking before a full conscription was in place in order to gain an upper hand
 
A truly interesting topic and read. I applaud your historical mindset! History repeats itself. I do have my own thoughts on this but my response might fill pages of text.
 
lIIlIllI___PARSFAN___lIlIlIIl said:
Im struggling to see any of what rio is saying as sense........so your suggesting that britain couldhave Iintroduced mass conscription across the empire based on the fact there "might" have been a war against Germany which would have crippled our economy as the costs involved in creating the army that won the war was astronomical. Also this may have even been seen as an act of aggression bringing the war forward with the germans attacking before a full conscription was in place in order to gain an upper hand
Click to expand...


Actually, the OP stated that the British had determined that there would be a war, so no, I don't see it as unrealistic to prepare, after all they were already preparing the navy just because there 'might' be a war. We were crippled economically afterwards anyway, I'd rather be crippled before and save millions of lives than lose most of a generation and still be crippled. They saw that there was going to be war, and failed to prepare adequately for it.
 
The English navy was prepared like it always was, to protect the empire and Commonwealth, and nobody was prepared for ww1, even the Germans were not, both forces used outdated strategy and logic from previous campaigns, they didn't account for aircraft or tanks and didn't account for mass artillery and chemical warfare, these we're all game changers that changed the perception and formed the theatre for modern warfare, all sides went in with outdated strategy and logic at the cost of 100s of 1000s of lives
 
Rio the British government saw no way forward once German troops invaded Belgium. They felt they had to protect Belgium's neutrality which they had signed treaty's to ensure. Alongside German and France it's worth noting.
They could have chosen to ignore the treaty they'd signed and allowed France and Russia to try to fight against the German and austro-Hungarian's alone but seeing as both had been beaten by smaller countries in living memory they were rightly sceptical of the ability of their abilities.
Britain had for the last 100 years sought to maintain European status quo they didn't want one country dominating the continent after the 26 yrs they'd spent fighting France.
The Germans had planned the great offensive in 1914 for years they had a name for it and they had prepared for the French counterstrikes.
 
The German strategy had actually already been made 20yrs previous to ww1 it was to sweep into France with 3 armies and knockout Paris, and then sweep back across the continent to counter a Russian retaliation
 
Nah im not buying it rio ......n neither will 99% of people but thats the bueaty of a discussion I actually enjoy reading the more wild theories but to say that we should have built an army the size of the one that won the war on a maybe.....even a strong maybe is ridiculous and to suggest a big army built by the British as a deteterent would have resulted in there being no first world war is mental.....ive watched way more programes on world war one n two than I should have n this is a new theory.....which ill give u credit for thinking outside the box but sorry mate the historians n econimists will defo disagree
 
WW1 was bound to happen there are more variables at play than people think, there had been half a centuries worth of imperialistic rivalries between the main powers in Europe, and the crisises in the Balkans where just string worse, escalating at the terrorist organization the black hand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top