The old French paranoia wasn't what it used to be, not after a century of Russian war scares followed by a decade of Germanophobia. And France was an ally against both. The latter being the bugbear of the day even before the July Crisis, they'll not get a sympathetic ear in London.
Poll: Best Way to Knock out the UK? (WW1)
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
The old French paranoia wasn't what it used to be, not after a century of Russian war scares followed by a decade of Germanophobia. And France was an ally against both. The latter being the bugbear of the day even before the July Crisis, they'll not get a sympathetic ear in London.
Yes, I think it would make a difference. It would be easy to spin Lux as practically a German vassal anyway. And it has no ports.
No British leader will give a fig about Lux, and the public won't, either. IMHO.
The only significant effect France attacking through Lux might have, is encouraging them to subsequently attack southern Belgium, to secure the vulnerable lines of supply to their forces pushing up into central Lux.
One first has to assume that British leaders and public care about neutrality as a matter of principle. In fact, I think they don't. When Britain decides it's in her best interests to remain neutral, then they care about the principle deeply. When other countries resolve to remain neutral in a war that Britain supports, then neutrality is a contemptible evasion.
See how Britain treated neutral shipping rights in WW1, often violating the very same principles she insisted upon when she was a neutral in the ACW and Russo-Japanese War.
Britain's respect for neutrality as a concept was entirely subject to her interests at the time.
And keeping Belgium out of the war is an enduring feature of British interests.
Edit: Well, partly. When Churchill (a hawk if ever there was one) looked at a map of Belgium, he exclaimed that there would be no pretext for war if Germany only invaded the southern bit. Other Cabinet members apparently agreed. This suggests that Britain's commitment to even Belgian neutrality was not truly a matter of deeply-held principle, but rather of policy: an invasion south of the Meuse-Sambre didn't threaten the ports that Britain was concerned about.
As Germany (no longer France) was the nation encroaching on Britain's position of preeminence in trade and industry, and as some British leaders considered it necessary to appease the Franco-Russian Entente, France will never attract as much official hostility over invading Belgium, as Germany would in the same circumstances. And as noted, an invasion of southern Belgium is not as threatening as an invasion of central/northern Belgium. However, an invasion of even southern Belgium, even by France, must attract some onus. If Britain is already on the fence, it could be very significant.
Last edited: