Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?

Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?

  • Yes

    Votes: 236 56.2%
  • No

    Votes: 198 47.1%

  • Total voters
    420
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!

Send a price quote then because gaining access through a neutral territory has a long history in European warfare. Especially in Germany/Central Europe which used be a patch work of states. It was often impossible to fight a war without crossing some neutral territory and rulers often considered granting such passage the wiser option.

Such passage of forces was usually negotiated beforehand and sometimes done with a bit of bullying but I can only recall one example of a nation misusing a passage of forces agreement to take over a country and that was Napoleon in Spain in 1807.

In hindsight, was Belgium really better off rejecting Germany's demand to pass through its country?
 
Send a price quote then because gaining access through a neutral territory has a long history in European warfare. Especially in Germany/Central Europe which used be a patch work of states. It was often impossible to fight a war without crossing some neutral territory and rulers often considered granting such passage the wiser option.

Such passage of forces was usually negotiated beforehand and sometimes done with a bit of bullying but I can only recall one example of a nation misusing a passage of forces agreement to take over a country and that was Napoleon in Spain in 1807.

Only it tended to involve the neutral party agreeing to it, right? That agreeing to it bit is key, yes.



In hindsight, was Belgium really better off rejecting Germany's demand to pass through its country?

Your joking right, truly you are upholding Germanies high principles here "it would be better for you to let us through else you might end being sucked into a 4 year industrialised meatgrinder war that we start, I sure do hope none of your civilians get killed by our troops if they perceive resistance".
 
Last edited:
By "go out of it way" you actually mean not start a general world war between the great powers, oh poor, poor Germany truly no other possible options available and forced to go to war in order to avoid the threat of war :rolleyes:. The funny thing is I think you just nicely summed up prevailing attitude in Berlin, however given that you see why maybe the French and Russians were just a tinsy bit wary of Germany?!

You argument is "but it's not fair, if Germany can't go to war in 1914 then it's less likely to win a later war", Germany is not owed a victory here

Also Germany's only in existential danger if you believe France and Russia are just dying for an opportunity to crush Germany. which is a massive and somewhat telling assumption on your part. Beaus while this might come as a shock to you no not every European great power was hell bent on solving it problem of even just achieving it's goals with a general all out war! But I get it the assumption certainly is a convenient self-justification for war.


Yes those examples are just like invading your neutral neighbours :rolleyes:


No I'm saying Germany isn't special, and doesn't get to to avoid the blame for causing a war that killed 10-20m people because it felt it was going to miss an opportunity for European dominance. Because Germany is not owned great power status let alone European hegemony even if it feels like the rest of Europe not kowtowing to it so massively unfair and sign of their belligerence towards it (that can only be safeguarded against by war)

And you know what if Germany can only feel safe by winning a war against everyone around it, that says more abut Germany that everyone else

You are very condescending and insulting.

When your neighbours, who have been in an alliance aimed against you for decades, are mobilizing all their forces, than not feeling safe and secure is somewhat understandable.

They agreed to attack Germany on the 15th day of their mobilization. They were mobilizing. Seems like they were about to attack Germany. And they did attack Germany on the named and agreed upon day - ogf course Germany has attacked before them. But It was a resonable assumption that the russian mobilization ment war.

Negotiation can only take place if they dont unrevocably alter the balance of power - like it would be if negotiations proceed while mobilization continues. If Russia, France and Germany - none of them mobilizes negotiations can happen. The german demand was that - to lay aside the weapons - it was a completely reasonable demand. If they cant agree - they still can all start to mobilize at the same time.

Finally Im getting very tired arguing about this - so I will step back from the topic for now.
 
Really so what you would have us sit it out and let Germany take control of Europe. Yes millions died on all sides and treasure was spent but freedom is more important. Should we have kept out of WW2 most no and it’s a big no how many of Europe’s Citizens would have been murdered in cold blood if we did not stop Hitler.
That's either a bad-faith argument or an indication you've mistaken WW1 for WW2.
Did the UK lose its Empire yes were we broke yes we were did we depend on America for hand outs yes to some extent but America wanted an end to our Empire no matter what.
Yes, and you alone paid for it. How does it feel to be arseplowed by your own colony? I imagine it must feel quite wonderful.
As to the empire well you will find that we planned to give it up any way it’s just a crying shame it was rushed especially in Indian that idiot Mountbatten should have been shot on the spot he rushed it and what happened hundreds and thousands died for no reason.
That was all Churchill's doing. He goaded the Indians, he broke them up in such a way that they'd be guaranteed to fight once they left British rule, same as every other colony (Cyprus, Palestine, etc).
He could have kept the Indians as late as 1939 if he'd just given them home rule and Dominion status; after the war, though, nobody was going to want any of that after the Bengal Starvation 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Mind you the Indian political leaders were also to blame in a big way tragic very tragic.
Well, what can you expect of Muslims and Hindus, amirite? Again, Churchill knew what he was working with, and he played it expertly.
Look at the state America is in now in debt to China for trillions hardly any medical cover for most of its population thousands living in trailer parks whole towns with hardly any jobs but still trying to dominate the world which it does but at the expense of its citizens for gods sake you have nut jobs walking in to shops buying guns and just killing people for no sane reason.
Please turn that into a coherent sentence I cannot bear to read it it's so godawful!
So who will have the last laugh the UK or America I’d say the UK we have free universal health care citizens in real houses etc etc why simple we do not have to fork out billions on a empire.
You're fucked, and you don't even have the benefit of a big home country like America's. Also, for more info, see these videos. ;)
Honestly, Britain and America can both go to hell; god knows, their collective efforts turned ~3/4 of the world to shit (and the rest is covered by France and Germany).
 
Last edited:
I can't be the only one who thinks WW1 threads should have a moratorium placed on them? These arguments never change and nobody's changing their opinion. Personally I think Britain was entirely right to enter World War I, but that almost seems beside the point.
 
half of the 'facts' are utter hogwash so here you go:-
1614783415567.png

1614783425583.png

1614783435125.png

1614783458825.png

1614783467230.png

Germany had decided to mobilize and go to war even before the Tsar made up his mind on general mobilization. So forgive me when i state that find german 'innocence' highly unlikely and attacked french soil even before war began, by all rights a massive casus belli for war.
 
You are very condescending and insulting.

Why thank you for noticing, You however seem to think that Germany woke up (in Belgium) one day to find itself at war with the rest of Europe with no idea why everyone was being so mean.

When your neighbours, who have been in an alliance aimed against you for decades, are mobilizing all their forces, than not feeling safe and secure is somewhat understandable.


Only what actions of Germany's and AH's were they responding to when doing that?



They agreed to attack Germany on the 15th day of their mobilization. They were mobilizing. Seems like they were about to attack Germany. And they did attack Germany on the named and agreed upon day - ogf course Germany has attacked before them. But It was a resonable assumption that the russian mobilization ment war.

But there's those missing details again. Yes Russia attacked 15 days after mobilisation but what had happened in those 15 days? Peace talks offer rejected, Germany declares war on them (amongst others), invasion of several countries etc.

maybe if some of those actions in the intervening period had been different the Russians might not have followed up mobilisation with invasion


Negotiation can only take place if they dont unrevocably alter the balance of power - like it would be if negotiations proceed while mobilization continues. If Russia, France and Germany - none of them mobilizes negotiations can happen.
What you mean here is negotiation can only happen if Germany can maintain the upper hand with regard to mobilisation and it's war plan based on attacking first, don't get me wrong it makes sense from a German POV, but that's the point actual mutually acceptable negotiations are not solely run from one POV.

This is very much like Germany looking for a do over because it's initial cunning plan wasn't shaping out like it had intended.


But you are right Germany & AH felt they would be disadvantaged at the negotiation table compared to the battlefield, so they chose the latter. But it was a choice.

The german demand was that - to lay aside the weapons - it was a completely reasonable demand. If they cant agree - they still can all start to mobilize at the same time.

Says the country who can mobilise and invade in one day.

 
Last edited:
of course i find it interesting that you omit Austria did fully mobilize, all of the Qing Armies were the northern armies and the British could only fight the russians on sea, so a royal navy mobilization was a full mobilization.

Also point stands. Mobilization =/= War as the duma stated in 1912, as the Hague Conference Defined in 1907 that a ultimatum beforehand was required. Instead we know what happened with Russia when Germany rashly declared war.
All the others were partial, and that's important, was was the issue ultimatum you brought up.
After Napoleon's rampage, European Diplomats were trying to codify things a bit, to reduce wars.
 
That's either a bad-faith argument or an indication you've mistaken WW1 for WW2.

Yes, and you alone paid for it. How does it feel to be arseplowed by your own colony? I imagine it must feel quite wonderful.

That was all Churchill's doing. He goaded the Indians, he broke them up in such a way that they'd be guaranteed to fight once they left British rule, same as every other colony (Cyprus, Palestine, etc).
He could have kept the Indians as late as 1939 if he'd just given them home rule and Dominion status; after the war, though, nobody was going to want any of that after the Bengal Starvation 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Well, what can you expect of Muslims and Hindus, amirite? Again, Churchill knew what he was working with, and he played it expertly.

Please turn that into a coherent sentence I cannot bear to read it it's so godawful!

You're fucked, and you don't even have the benefit of a big home country like America's. Also, for more info, see these videos. ;)
Honestly, Britain and America can both go to hell; god knows, their collective efforts turned ~3/4 of the world to shit (and the rest is covered by France and Germany).

Why is everybody getting so hopping mad all of a sudden? Can somebody explain to me in words of one syllable what the issue is here?
It's just that I can feel the butthurt radiating through my screen, and that's a sign nobody's actually listening to a goddamn thing their fellows are saying.

Edit: see last two posts to see what I mean.
Whoah!

Must be contagious!
 
All the others were partial, and that's important, was was the issue ultimatum you brought up.
After Napoleon's rampage, European Diplomats were trying to codify things a bit, to reduce wars.
Germany was clear enough on the Russian response to their ultimatum that they declared war on Russia the next day in response to it.

I really don't think there was as much ambiguity to Russia's position as you make out
 
Last edited:
ah what like Russia's partial mobilisation in July 26th
Soon changed to full, against both Austria and Germany.
Tsar only had limited planning options, couldn't/didn't do Full against Austria Only.
Doing a Full against Germany was certain To bring in France, leading to German plan on warplans against France and Russia, with France the more dangerous of the two.
I've often posted that Willy should have demanded an West defend/East attack plan for an July 1914 occurrence.
 
Vs the Terroristic Serbia expanding, from two previous Wars in the area?
I am not sure how this is an argument. The 1st Balkan war started due to the 1912 Albanian rebellion which saw hundreds of thousands of Serbs killed. The 2nd started due to a Bulgarian preemptive attack. Would Germany sit idly whilst Russia killed all of its Volga and Baltic German population? Would Germany sit down feebly and do nothing if one of its neighbors attacked?
 
Soon changed to full, against both Austria and Germany.
Tsar only had limited planning options, couldn't/didn't do Full against Austria Only.
Doing a Full against Germany was certain To bring in France, leading to German plan on warplans against France and Russia, with France the more dangerous of the two.
I've often posted that Willy should have demanded an West defend/East attack plan for an July 1914 occurrence.

Yes because things had changed in the intervening days, things like AH declaring war on Serbia?

(and here I thought you were complaining about a Russian lack of clear messaging ;))


Either way your point about partial and full being inherently different in terms of irrevocable crossing point to unavoidable war is not supported by anything you posted
 
Vs the Terroristic Serbia expanding, from two previous Wars in the area?
Vs. AH trying to declare war on Serbia a couple of years earlier (being reined back in by Germany and Russia for bonus irony points)

The Annexation of Bosnia that left Serbia ensconced in AH territory

I also love how you say 'two previous wars in the area' in such neutral terms as though AH was off on holiday in the Maldives blissfully unaware when they were occurring :)

Also Terroristic I like it maybe add some devil horns and blood dripping fangs I mean I'm almost convinced because Terroristic sounds bad right?

(Don't get me wrong Serbia isn't the innocent victim here either by a long chalk)
 
Last edited:
Also Terroristic I like it maybe add some devil horns and blood dripping fangs I mean I'm almost convinced because Terroristic sounds bad right?
You know what the Serbs had been doing to the Albanians, yes?
And that's in addition to the 1903 coup, and later with FF.
They had been behaving badly for a long time.
 
You know what the Serbs had been doing to the Albanians, yes?
And that's in addition to the 1903 coup, and later with FF.
They had been behaving badly for a long time.
I was more referring to you trying to reduce all this down to nasty adjectives, but how about the rest of what I posted?
 
In that case, maybe you should provide a quote to the opposite? The agreement on that principle, not only based on a single quote by Boisdeferre but on general agreement among the general staffs, was foundational to the military convention. If you assert that this fundamental attitude changed afterwards, is there anything to back that up? Because as far as I can tell, the only development in the following years was a concretization and speeding up of a coordinated attack plan following mobilization.
I think it's more up to you to provide proof that a decision had been made in St Petersburg, and Paris to attack Germany. Despite Plan 17 the French pulled back from the border to avoid a confrontation. To simple dismiss all offers of mediation as a staling tactic to buy time to mobilize, in order to invade Germany is paranoid thinking. Diplomacy takes time for human reactions, and thought. No country should put itself on a hair trigger for war, based on a ridged adherence to a RR schedule. The only thing the German Generals feared was that someone would slow the crisis down, and prevent the war they so desperately wanted.
 
Top