Anybody buy the "Edwardian appeasement" argument

Germany's 'risk theory' did not envisage German Naval superiority over Britain. It was intended to build a navy large enough and modern enough to deter Britain from risking its own fleet in action against it. The UK simply did not have enough resources to keep up with the race. To do so would mean bankruptcy.

It was the implied threat this strategy raised against British national interests that turned public opinion and national diplomacy around. If Germany was prepared to threaten British naval dominance, then GB better start looking around for suitable allies to counter the threat. Who better than the French, defeated by Prussia in 1870?

British national survival depended entirely on its control of the seas. It depended for the ocean for trade and for food and to maintain its empire. In other words for its survival. This cannot be overestimated in the change to public and offical opion.
 
MarkA said:
Germany's 'risk theory' did not envisage German Naval superiority over Britain. It was intended to build a navy large enough and modern enough to deter Britain from risking its own fleet in action against it. The UK simply did not have enough resources to keep up with the race. To do so would mean bankruptcy.

It was the implied threat this strategy raised against British national interests that turned public opinion and national diplomacy around. If Germany was prepared to threaten British naval dominance, then GB better start looking around for suitable allies to counter the threat. Who better than the French, defeated by Prussia in 1870?

British national survival depended entirely on its control of the seas. It depended for the ocean for trade and for food and to maintain its empire. In other words for its survival. This cannot be overestimated in the change to public and offical opion.
The British built a fleet twice as large as the German one, and not only that, they loaned the Germans the money they used to pay for the German fleet!
 
Britain did loan the Germans money to build their fleet. They did not build twice as many dreadnoughts as Germany and their fleet was intended to patrol the sea lanes of empire not be concentrated in the North Sea.

Without the four 'contingent' battleships ordered in 1909/10 Germany would have had as many as Britain in 1914.
 
Actually, it occurs to me that calling the ententes "appeasement" is absurd. Appeasement is supposed to involve making concessions to a hostile power in the hope that this will make them more friendly. But the ententes were tough negotiations involving concessions by both parties.

In 1904 Brtain agreed to allow France to swallow Morocco, but in exchange secured her hold on Egypt and boundaries in West Africa that gave her essentially everything she wanted in the region. In 1907 the Russian sphere of influence in Northern Persia was complemented by a British counterpart in the SW and the Tsar had aditionally to recognise British superiority over Afghanistan and Tibet. This was imperial horse-trading, not appeasement, and was really no different from the Anglo-German settlement of East Africa in the 1890s.

They were of course motivated in part by fear that continued colonial hostility might lead to war, but they only took on a specifically anti-German character when combined with the British establishment's fear of German power. In this context our assessment of the level of German threat is imaterial, what matters is what the Edwardian British leadership thought and it's very clear from memoirs, diaries, FO memorandum, newspaper comment and popular literature that Germany was seen as a very real threat in 1904-1911/12, which, afer all, was when the triple entente came into being.

After this period fear of Germany did decline, but this decline was matched by a change in British policy. Anglo-German disputes over the Berlin-Baghdad railway were resolved by negotiation, and there were attempts to do the same for the naval race. The problem was that the Germans launched an essentially unprovoked invasion of western Europe before this process was complete.
 
MarkA said:
Britain did loan the Germans money to build their fleet. They did not build twice as many dreadnoughts as Germany and their fleet was intended to patrol the sea lanes of empire not be concentrated in the North Sea.

Without the four 'contingent' battleships ordered in 1909/10 Germany would have had as many as Britain in 1914.

Err the British had plenty of money. The Germans were the ones who were running out. British spending of GDP on defence was still very small. British financial resources were collossal. You are completely wrong on this point, though very much right on the risk theory issue.
 

Redbeard

Banned
A very interesting debate and I can't resist adding a few points.

The French naval programme around year 1900 caused great concerns in UK. Not because the British feared being beaten in a traditional clash of the lines, but more becuase the french had recognised that they newer could do that, and so had developed/adopted new weaponry and tactics which to a large degree the existing British battlefleet obsolescent.

For instance the tradtional British close blockade of French ports was fast approaching an impossible job due to new weapons like mines and torpedoes and "jeune ecole" tactics. On the open sea great numbers of French armoured cruisers caused many worries and started an AC race, which only ended when Fisher introduced the battlecruiser. British military leaders seriously expected the possibility of the French seizing control of crossing zones in the Channel and landing forces big enough to overwhelm the tiny British Army. I'm NOT trying to start another Sea Lion thread, and I don't necessarily say that their fears were justified, but apparently big enough to be taken serious by some. Could perhaps be compared to the many "scares" of the cold war, some were quite real and some far out, but it is often difficult to see what belonged where.

Russia in early 20th century had the fastest industrial growth rate of any major power, and could in that context be compared to China today. Seen from a British strategic viewpoint of around year 1900, that potential had to be taken very serious. I guess the Russian setback in 1904-05 caused great relief in London, but by 1914 the Russians had a very impressive naval programme again. If they hadn’t by that time been in the Entente I wonder what London would have done, or what they expected to happen after the war? The Russians in Afghanistan (pre-Entente) was not a problem in the context of a sweeping campaign taking all of India, but Afghanistan contained the important passes between Russia and India. With control over Afghanistan Russia would have a foothold for threatening what is now Pakistan and Northern India, eventually the Russians could get access to the Indian Ocean, which really would be scary seen from London. Likewise the Russians gain access to the Med. through Bosperus or to the North Sea through the Danish Straits were British nightmares. If not both in the Entente I guess Afghanistan, Bosperus or Denmark would sooner or later have been the subject of a British-Russian major conflict.

At the same time the Germans could see the growing Russian power becoming a real threat in combination with a vindictive France. IMO the last German real chance (not requiring miracles like that at Tannenberg) for taking out the growing French-Russian squeeze was in 1905 and in that context the Germans alienating also the British though the rhetoric and the naval programme must be considered one of the greatest strategic blunders of history, but there probably wasn’t much the British could have done differently.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Wozza said:
Err the British had plenty of money. The Germans were the ones who were running out. British spending of GDP on defence was still very small. British financial resources were collossal. You are completely wrong on this point, though very much right on the risk theory issue.

Plenty of money is a realtive term. The British did not have plenty of money to spend on all the programs it needed to spend money on. Like all gvts. it had to have priorities.

The Liberal Party was elected on a program to provide social services which GB sorely lacked. Compared to Germany it was a disgrace that a supposed enlightened democratic society lagged so far behind. No pensions or health care. Wages had not increased more than a couple of percent for nearly half a century before 1914 while the cost of living rose substantially. Poverty was acute. Lack of education was seriously threatening Britain's place as an advanced nation. Engaging in a naval arms race meant this money was not used where it was desperately needed.
 
I wonder. What if the British used the money they loaned the Germans (that the Germans used to avoid raising taxes to pay for their fleet) for purposes of defence spending. Say, they built up their armaments factories and airforce capability.
150,000 troops was a contemptible army, maybe, but combined with even 1,500 attack aircraft they could have really slowed down the German attack on Belgium. Horse drawn wagons don't handle machine gun straffing well. They tend to panic and run wild. Takes a while to get your unit back together, and then here those bastard Limeys come again!
 
MarkA said:
Lack of education was seriously threatening Britain's place as an advanced nation. Engaging in a naval arms race meant this money was not used where it was desperately needed.

In actual fact there were plenty of social services available in Britain, they were simply not provided by central government. There was no particular lack of education and Britain clearly has no problems as an "advanced" nation for the next several decades, continueing to lead or keep up with the other great powers in most key technologies.The sums involved were actually small by today's standards.

I wonder. What if the British used the money they loaned the Germans (that the Germans used to avoid raising taxes to pay for their fleet) for purposes of defence spending. Say, they built up their armaments factories and airforce capability.150,000 troops was a contemptible army, maybe, but combined with even 1,500 attack aircraft they could have really slowed down the German attack on Belgium. Horse drawn wagons don't handle machine gun straffing well. They tend to panic and run wild. Takes a while to get your unit back together, and then here those bastard Limeys come again!

The "British" lending the "Germans" money is neither here or there. The money does not come from the British government, it comes from an international money market that Germany is bound into and actually helps to prop up.
Oddly enough raising loans does not mean you do not have to pay taxes ... the money has to be paid back.
The reasons for not investing vast sums in an untried and still evolving technology should be obvious. I think the benefits are only clear with hindsight - by the 1920s of course air power was seen as a powerful alternative to a mass army, but you would have been ahead of your time wkwillis.
 
Britain is a democracy, its not as simple as just taking money off private companies and putting it to your own uses.
As a free nation our banks were free to lend money to whoever they wanted.

For a lack of education...Pre WW1 Britain had what was probally the best education system in the world with free education for all. Then we had some of the best universities in the world.
 
PJ Norris said:
Germany,by no means could have successfully invaded the British Isles, not in this forum anyway. I think you're forgetting about the british navy.

Their attempt to match the RN was a dire threat to Britain, as Germany had the industrial power to do so if left unchecked. Further, although Britain would likely be able to stay ahead of Germany, what if Germany allied with another signifgicant naval power? Then Britian is screwed. Whereas previously Britain was able to maintain the two-power standard, the buildup of the HSF made that impossible.
 
wkwillis said:
I wonder. What if the British used the money they loaned the Germans (that the Germans used to avoid raising taxes to pay for their fleet) for purposes of defence spending. Say, they built up their armaments factories and airforce capability.
150,000 troops was a contemptible army, maybe, but combined with even 1,500 attack aircraft they could have really slowed down the German attack on Belgium. Horse drawn wagons don't handle machine gun straffing well. They tend to panic and run wild. Takes a while to get your unit back together, and then here those bastard Limeys come again!

Attack aircraft in 1912? The armed forces of the world were still trying to adapt to the use of automobiles and telephones by 1908 or so. Given the state of aircraft in 1912 I think it would have been very hard to convince anyone that they could have been used for anything besides scouting. There is just alot of new things to be intigrated into the modern army between 1900-1914 I doubt the British could have done anything else - except in retrospect.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Their attempt to match the RN was a dire threat to Britain, as Germany had the industrial power to do so if left unchecked. Further, although Britain would likely be able to stay ahead of Germany, what if Germany allied with another signifgicant naval power? Then Britian is screwed. Whereas previously Britain was able to maintain the two-power standard, the buildup of the HSF made that impossible.

Britain's philosophy was to have a navy strong enough to succesfully defeat any possible combination of foreign naval powers. Germany's naval building was never a serious threat to Britain, they gained on us a lot for the first few years (12 dreadnoughts to our 4 and the ilk) though after that Britain stayed well ahead of Germany (18 dreadnoughts for their 8...)
Also you must consider that in the case of co-operation between the militaries of different nations in this time period 1 + 1 does not = 2. When the British and French fleets tried to work together things did not go well at all...

Besides, there is no other decent naval power for Germany to ally with.
France was on Britain's side.
The USA was neutral though friendly to Britain.
Japan was also on Britain's side.
Below there we are getting even further onto B listers...
 
Leej said:
Britain's philosophy was to have a navy strong enough to succesfully defeat any possible combination of foreign naval powers.
Also you must consider that in the case of co-operation between the militaries of different nations in this time period 1 + 1 does not = 2. When the British and French fleets tried to work together things did not go well at all...

Besides, there is no other decent naval power for Germany to ally with.
France was on Britain's side.
The USA was neutral though friendly to Britain.
Japan was also on Britain's side.
Below there we are getting even further onto B listers...

Not by the beginning of the 20th c - then the RN is on a two power standard. Then it goes onto a specifically against Germany policy. I think Erskine Childers sets out quite well in the Riddle of the Sands that the threat is of beating Germany but then being vulnerable. This brings us back to the original question - is Britain actually afraid of its allies? part of the answer to this must be yes, potentially at least
 
The point is does Britain not trust Russia, not France. Britain has always been on decent terms with France even when we were at war with each other.
By the 20th century we are beginning to officially recognise this on the world stage.
By the 20th century the two power idea is becoming outdated as there are not two powers out there who could challenege Britain. The original idea of the plan was to cover France and maybe Spain or the USA.
By the end of the 19th century the USA is no longer aggressive towards Britain and Spain is a joke. The only nations who could potentially challenge Britain if they ganged up together are out of the USA, France and Germany.
The USA is very neutral in most things and Britain is the closest thing to a ally it has. It would take something major to set them against us.
That leaves France and Germany. Even if they both decided they hated us I very much doubt you are going to get them working together post Franco-Prussian war...

There are just no other naval contenders after here. Japan is still pretty weak, it only just beat Russia. Then obviously it is Britain's ally.
Italy is not even up to WW2 standards, it has a few good British built ships though not enough to do much.
The Ottomans...Well they are even worse then Italy. Super proud of their possession of some second rate ships sold to them by Britain.
Russia...Come on. The Russian navy. Got beaten by Japan and you expect it to challenge Britain?
That leaves no one else of note. Some of the South Americans have one or two good ships, the same for the scandinavians. The Netherlands...Nah, they are long past it, too small a tonnage.
 
Your figures are wrong. At the commencement of the war, Britain's margin of superiority without the 2 Ottoman dreadnoughts was not great. Britain had 20 Dreadnoughts and 5 battlcruisers; Germany had 13 Dreads and 4 BC, with the Konigs about to enter service. Until the QE-class was available in 1916 the balance was dangerous.

You are also missing my point that Germany combined with other powers was a serious threat. The RN had long given up the aim of being able to defeat any TWO powers (it was never 'any possible combination'), replacing that with a policy of maintaining a 10-6 ratio of superiority over the HSF. Britain allied with France BECAUSE of fear of the German naval buildup. Britain allied with Japan in order to concentrate its assets at home. You are putting the chicken before the egg.

Leej said:
Britain's philosophy was to have a navy strong enough to succesfully defeat any possible combination of foreign naval powers. Germany's naval building was never a serious threat to Britain, they gained on us a lot for the first few years (12 dreadnoughts to our 4 and the ilk) though after that Britain stayed well ahead of Germany (18 dreadnoughts for their 8...)
Also you must consider that in the case of co-operation between the militaries of different nations in this time period 1 + 1 does not = 2. When the British and French fleets tried to work together things did not go well at all...

Besides, there is no other decent naval power for Germany to ally with.
France was on Britain's side.
The USA was neutral though friendly to Britain.
Japan was also on Britain's side.
Below there we are getting even further onto B listers...
 
You are really just totally wrong about all of this. I am really astounded at the assertions you are making as they run counter to the entirety of historical research and all of the available documents from the time in question. Britain NEVER trusted France's intentions until forced to by increasing German power - ALL of the RN's building was to keep up with French and Russian power until the 20th c. The RN gave up the two-power standard because it had become impossible to maintain in the face of Germany's buildup. If Britain was far-and-away unassailable, what would be the point of allying with France and Russia? None. Germany posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Britain's imperial interests. Zero.

The "Two Power Standard" was explicitly aimed at countering France + one other power, most likely Russia.

All of Britain's diplomacy was directed at dealing with the increasingly uncertain naval situation. Alliance with Japan was to secure her Pacific interests allowing withdrawal of British battleships from the region; the Entente with France was explicity to counter Germany. You don't make committments to defend other countries unless you have a great need for mutual defense. Other than navally, what possible threat to British interests is Germany?

Leej said:
The point is does Britain not trust Russia, not France. Britain has always been on decent terms with France even when we were at war with each other.
By the 20th century we are beginning to officially recognise this on the world stage.
By the 20th century the two power idea is becoming outdated as there are not two powers out there who could challenege Britain. The original idea of the plan was to cover France and maybe Spain or the USA.
By the end of the 19th century the USA is no longer aggressive towards Britain and Spain is a joke. The only nations who could potentially challenge Britain if they ganged up together are out of the USA, France and Germany.
The USA is very neutral in most things and Britain is the closest thing to a ally it has. It would take something major to set them against us.
That leaves France and Germany. Even if they both decided they hated us I very much doubt you are going to get them working together post Franco-Prussian war...

There are just no other naval contenders after here. Japan is still pretty weak, it only just beat Russia. Then obviously it is Britain's ally.
Italy is not even up to WW2 standards, it has a few good British built ships though not enough to do much.
The Ottomans...Well they are even worse then Italy. Super proud of their possession of some second rate ships sold to them by Britain.
Russia...Come on. The Russian navy. Got beaten by Japan and you expect it to challenge Britain?
That leaves no one else of note. Some of the South Americans have one or two good ships, the same for the scandinavians. The Netherlands...Nah, they are long past it, too small a tonnage.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Other than navally, what possible threat to British interests is Germany?

What about the British losing overseas markets to German exports? Weren't they steadily losing market percentages each year? Germany was seen as an economic threat.
 
Not to mention the amount of their bloodline came from Germany or that they had once held personal union with Hannover. Disreali called the Unification of Germany the greatest distaster of the Century...
 
Top