Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?

[HelloThere]

What means "right" or "wrong"? I would say Empires and wars for them are morally wrong, but that's what every major nation did during the time.

It certainly was logical for Britain not to accept a German-dominated continent. And Germany violated an agreement that Britain and Belgium had made, so it's not like they had no legal justification for entering the war. What else should we discuss?

 

[Fulton 44]

It's debatable. I think that the course that the British took - while effective in the short term and producing an expansion of the Empire after WWI - may have inevitably led to the Empire's decline. The "old order" was upended. Colonial troops went back home motivated to seek independence. The cost of the war together with mismanagement of the economy after the war put the UK into a decline among the great powers.

 

[Amadeus]

What means "right" or "wrong"? I would say Empires and wars for them are morally wrong, but that's what every major nation did during the time.

It certainly was logical for Britain not to accept a German-dominated continent. And Germany violated an agreement that Britain and Belgium had made, so it's not like they had no legal justification for entering the war. What else should we discuss?

Think of the question another way: "Should Britain Have Entered WWI?" Did the UK have a compelling moral/legal imperative to wage war? Was engaging in the conflict worth it in the end?

 

[Aghasverov]

Think of the question another way: "Should Britain Have Entered WWI?" Did the UK have a compelling moral/legal imperative to wage war? Was engaging in the conflict worth it in the end?

Unfortunately no one in this world is gifted with 20-odd years of foresight... it's very easy, from our current time, to look back and say holy shit, hell no they shouldn't have, look what happened 20 years later... at the time though, it did seem like a moral imperative... and for those of the population that were unconvinced, there were heaps of scurrilous propaganda produced to get them on-side....
I haven't voted btw... gonna sit this one out....

 

[Fletch]

Yes, it was right and war guilt lay with the Central Powers. Because I am lazy, here's a post from a similar thread on this page (I was responding to someone saying Belgium was an excuse) which I point out why. Note, being right in entering does not pass comment on the conduct of the war.

I hate this theory. It is principally put about by apologists of the Central Powers who ignore the internal political situation in Britain at the time and wish to minimise the absolute German war guilt for British entry. (I am not saying that is the case with yourself)

The Government nearly fell over the declaration of war in OTL. As it stood, four Cabinet members resigned over the declaration alongside a Junior minister. David Lloyd-George came within an ace of resigning himself over the declaration. Without the invasion of Belgium, there is a strong possibility that he would have gone forcing a leadership crisis in the country with the government possibly collapsing.

I cannot see Asquith allowing this situation to arise.

Bear in mind, even without the justifiable reason of the invasion of Belgium, the declaration of war on France was also a justifiable reason. Again, pointing to German war guilt.

As for the "excuse to fight Germany". That is just rubbish. There was a fear of Germany. Since the Battle of Trafalgar, the Royal Navy controlled the trade routes of the world, maintaining the Pax Britannica. The Germans decided it would be a good idea to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy, not only putting the trade routes at risk but the United Kingdom itself, forcing a naval arms race.

The risk could have been avoided if Germany maintained itself as a land power rather than acting in a way which would alarm the British government.

Leaving all this aside, the principal priority inside the UK until very late on was not in Serbia, but in Ireland. Had Germany not invaded, we could easily have seen Irish Home Rule within the UK. We could even have seen a Civil War inside the UK over Ireland. It was only postponed due to the Great War after all.

There is little doubt that Britain could have been dragged in eventually if the war lasted. I will point out though that the British were not dragged in during the war of 1870.

German aggression in Naval terms forced a reaction. German aggression in declaring war on France made things possible. German aggression in invading Belgium made it inevitable. As such, I agree likely, but far from inevitable.

Edit: And as has been mentioned, the King was not where the power lay in the UK. The Government were. The Germans would need to negotiate with the British Government, not the King. A few decades later, a King who challenged the Government found out what happens when he tried.

 

[Amadeus]

Unfortunately no one in this world is gifted with 20-odd years of foresight... it's very easy, from our current time, to look back and say holy shit, hell no they shouldn't have, look what happened 20 years later... at the time though, it did seem like a moral imperative... and for those of the population that were unconvinced, there were heaps of scurrilous propaganda produced to get them on-side....
I haven't voted btw... gonna sit this one out....

Fair enough. I actually posted this poll because I myself wasn't sure. However, I was convinced by arguments both here and elsewhere that allowing Germany to abrogate its treaty with Belgium, invade and sack a neutral country, and then attack France without any provocation whatsoever would have had disastrous consequences. (Including, but not limited to, undermining the credibility of international law and allowing the very notion of state sovereignty to be trampled underfoot by a regime that was engaging in blatant war crimes like the Rape of Belgium).

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Germany could not have maintained ongoing hegemony over Russia, for obvious geographic reasons. It could hold the French down for a few years but the French would hate Germany more than ever. Neither Italy nor Austria-Hungary would be a very reliable and effective ally for long. (Hungary would soon go its own way.) Britain in alliance with its dominions and the U.S. (and eventually with a non-communist Russia) would whittle the KaiserReich down to size through economic competition, control of natural resources, and world trade. Maybe there would be an independent role for India in this alliance (if the Brits were capable of thinking outside the box). And finally, it is unclear how Germany could enforce a protectionist trade system over the portions of Europe that were neutral in the war including Scandinavia, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal (without the British in the war, the Portuguese would have remained neutral), Switzerland, and Italy (which might never have joined in the war if it had been a short-lived one). The U.S., with its Monroe doctrine, and the power of the British fleet, would have kept within narrow limits the ability of Germany to exercise influence in Latin America. Obviously Germany would be able to gain access to raw materials in parts of Africa, but the Brits, the Portuguese (backed by the Brits), South Africa, and a hostile overseas French empire might put limits on this.

 

[Guy in europe]

What means "right" or "wrong"? I would say Empires and wars for them are morally wrong, but that's what every major nation did during the time.

It certainly was logical for Britain not to accept a German-dominated continent. And Germany violated an agreement that Britain and Belgium had made, so it's not like they had no legal justification for entering the war. What else should we discuss?

 

[Aghasverov]

Fair enough. I actually posted this poll because I myself wasn't sure. However, I was convinced by arguments both here and elsewhere that allowing Germany to abrogate its treaty with Belgium, invade and sack a neutral country, and then attack France without any provocation whatsoever would have had disastrous consequences. (Including, but not limited to, undermining the credibility of international law and allowing the very notion of state sovereignty to be trampled underfoot by a regime that was engaging in blatant war crimes like the Rape of Belgium).

Well... I gotta draw the line at the "without any provocation whatsoever" on the part of France part... Poincare gave as much of a "blank cheque" to the Russians in their support of Serbia, as Wilhelm did to A-H... only difference is the Wilhelm had second thoughts about it when it appeared to be spiraling uncontrollably... Poincare never did.

 

[N7Buck]

The right time to avoid Germany becoming the dominant European Nation would have been 1870, not 1914.

There was never any sense for Britain to be concerned with which power was dominant on Europe, because Britain wasn't on the Continent. It's empire is is on the other side of the world from Europe, because it could never compete on the Continent. It's only concerns should have been the seas.

 

[TRH]

If the intent, as everyone's been saying, was to ensure that Britain would never be subject to the whims of a mercurial, jingoistic industrial giant with an insurmountable navy and no security threats in its own vicinity to distract it, because engagement with such a state would be fatal to the survival of the Empire...mission accomplished?

 

[Avrorrange]

If the intent, as everyone's been saying, was to ensure that Britain would never be subject to the whims of a mercurial, jingoistic industrial giant with an insurmountable navy and no security threats in its own vicinity to distract it, because engagement with such a state would be fatal to the survival of the Empire...mission accomplished?

Isn’t that what they are actually subjected to right now?Except they don’t even have an empire to give them any weight in dealing with such powers?

 

[TRH]

Isn’t that what they are actually subjected to right now?Except they don’t even have an empire to give them any weight in dealing with such powers?

 

[Uli_Stoiber]

No.

 

[TDM]

Think of the question another way: "Should Britain Have Entered WWI?" Did the UK have a compelling moral/legal imperative to wage war?

Yes

Was engaging in the conflict worth it in the end?

No not for anyone (but he in the end bit is crucial) However wining and losing all those casualties is still better than losing and doing so

Well... I gotta draw the line at the "without any provocation whatsoever" on the part of France part... Poincare gave as much of a "blank cheque" to the Russians in their support of Serbia, as Wilhelm did to A-H... only difference is the Wilhelm had second thoughts about it when it appeared to be spiraling uncontrollably... Poincare never did.

Only how much did Wilhelm's 2nd thoughts matter when his government was doing their best to cut him out when he wavered. It's also interesting that Wilhelm's 2nd thoughts stemmed directly from Serbia's response to AH's demand and ultimatum (and teh International communities response to that). I.e A man who probably in a pretty good position to judge his countries position by teh standards of the time even if he naturally biased towards it, still questioned them

I agree France backed Russia just as Germany backed AH, but the difference is it's AH who's driving this situation forward, and the German backing was given explicitly in order for them to do so. In fact the Germans were pissed at AH that they hadn't already invaded as they had previously urged because they knew the Cassus Belli already a bit dodgy, was rapidly fading!

And finally the clincher (for me anyway) is which side was advocating for negotiating and talks right up until teh last minute, and which side refused them because they not thought they'd do better with war-war not jaw-jaw and that had always been their plan?

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Belgium being in the control of a possibly unfriendly Great Power was a non-starter for the British. They could not afford it, and would not have permitted it for any length of time.

Germany only invaded Belgium to get to France, they had no interest in conquering it until Britain joined the war, after which they wanted it as a staging post against Britain in a future conflict (hence the promise in the draft ultimatum of French territory if they let German troops through).

The German government would have agreed to almost any condition Britain set on neutrality, and were willing to promise no annexations of French core or Belgian territory (a promise that just angered Asquith and Grey more if anything because it basically admitted designs on French colonies).
Whether they would have gone so far as to stay out of Belgium for a promise of neutrality (as Prince Lichnowsky hinted to Grey) is questionable looking at the Schlieffen Plan, but Grey didn't even try to negotiate such a deal. For reference Gladstone had done this in 1870 and been successful.

The trading relationship between Britain and Germany was far more complimentary than competitive pre-war and would likely have stayed this way. Germany was mainly interested in exploiting the Eastern lands of Russia, not a trade war with Britain.

Britain was also not really in terminal decline compared to Germany. In some specific industries like steel Germany was out-competing Britain. But the century of British dominance meant it had so many overseas investments by 1914, they profited as much as Germany or America did from their expanding economies.

What really set Britain in decline was WW1, having to basically fund both of its allies from 1915 whilst also having to build their own army capable of routing the Germans in 1918. As such they had to liquidate a century of carefully built up investments. Wilhelm was unpredictable and Germany obviously expansionist having started the conflict, but the nation would have been tied up trying to hold its new Eastern colonies, as well as fearing a war of revenge from Russia at the first chance. The naval arms race was over by 1912, had Germany chosen to restart it with the plunder of France and Russia, Britain would have won it again.

Ultimately staying out of the conflict guaranteed a powerful Britain, entering it, as seen did not (I also think it is underestimated just how close we came to losing the war several times, without American aid from 1917 we'd have had to stop fighting).

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Yes, it was right and war guilt lay with the Central Powers. Because I am lazy, here's a post from a similar thread on this page (I was responding to someone saying Belgium was an excuse) which I point out why. Note, being right in entering does not pass comment on the conduct of the war.
As for the "excuse to fight Germany". That is just rubbish. There was a fear of Germany. Since the Battle of Trafalgar, the Royal Navy controlled the trade routes of the world, maintaining the Pax Britannica. The Germans decided it would be a good idea to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy, not only putting the trade routes at risk but the United Kingdom itself, forcing a naval arms race.

The risk could have been avoided if Germany maintained itself as a land power rather than acting in a way which would alarm the British government.

As for the "excuse to fight Russia". That is just rubbish. There was a fear of Russia. Since the Unification, the German industry controlled the production of Europe, maintaining the Pax Germanica. The Russians decided it would be a good idea to challenge the supremacy of the Germans in their field, not only putting the Production levels at risk but Germany itself, forcing an arms race.

The risk could have been avoided if Russia maintained itself as a backwards power rather than acting in a way which would alarm the German government.

Because i stayed as close as possible to your manner of wording, there are exagerations at certain places in the text. But the basic motivation of Germany wasn't that different from British motivation. They both thought they were fighting defensive wars. Both versions are incorrect and both ways of thinking led to WW I eventually.

 

[TDM]

Germany only invaded Belgium to get to France, they had no interest in conquering it until Britain joined the war, after which they wanted it as a staging post against Britain in a future conflict (hence the promise in the draft ultimatum of French territory if they let German troops through).

The German government would have agreed to almost any condition Britain set on neutrality, and were willing to promise no annexations of French core or Belgian territory (a promise that just angered Asquith and Grey more if anything because it basically admitted designs on French colonies).
Whether they would have gone so far as to stay out of Belgium for a promise of neutrality (as Prince Lichnowsky hinted to Grey) is questionable looking at the Schlieffen Plan, but Grey didn't even try to negotiate such a deal. For reference Gladstone had done this in 1870 and been successful.

The trading relationship between Britain and Germany was far more complimentary than competitive pre-war and would likely have stayed this way. Germany was mainly interested in exploiting the Eastern lands of Russia, not a trade war with Britain.

Britain was also not really in terminal decline compared to Germany. In some specific industries like steel Germany was out-competing Britain. But the century of British dominance meant it had so many overseas investments by 1914, they profited as much as Germany or America did from their expanding economies.

What really set Britain in decline was WW1, having to basically fund both of its allies from 1915 whilst also having to build their own army capable of routing the Germans in 1918. As such they had to liquidate a century of carefully built up investments. Wilhelm was unpredictable and Germany obviously expansionist having started the conflict, but the nation would have been tied up trying to hold its new Eastern colonies, as well as fearing a war of revenge from Russia at the first chance. The naval arms race was over by 1912, had Germany chosen to restart it with the plunder of France and Russia, Britain would have won it again.

Ultimately staying out of the conflict guaranteed a powerful Britain, entering it, as seen did not (I also think it is underestimated just how close we came to losing the war several times, without American aid from 1917 we'd have had to stop fighting).

If you think Germany was going to leave or give Belgium territory back or respect it's sovereignty in any meaningful way if they win a European land war with France. Weather or not that involves Britain. I've got a bridge to sell you!

 

[Nenshou Yuuki]

If you think Germany was going to leave or give Belgium territory back or respect it's sovereignty in any meaningful way if they win a European land war with France. Weather or not that involves Britain. I've got a bridge to sell you!

Yeah. From what I've researched their plans ranged from annexation to forcefully splitting it in to two states.

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Yeah. From what I've researched their plans ranged from annexation to forcefully splitting it in to two states.

This was after Britain had entered the war. Once that happened of course they came up with these wild schemes, they had no one to stop them if they won the war. The only reason for the invasion of Belgium prior to this was to strike a knockout blow at France quickly.