Who more more to blame for the tension between Britain and Germany before WWI?

Well, this is a somewhat complicated question as it "blame" would insinuate that either side did something it ought not have done, which requires one to make a value judgement as to exactly how much of a "place in the sun" Germany was justified in seeking relative to its contemporaries (Britain and France, specifically). Personally, I'd say Britain's stubborness to try to maintain the intenational status quo/pre-German Unification balance of power certainly played a bigger role in the general escalation of international tensions, as it relegated Germany to a geopolitical-influence position increasingly misaligned with its actual economic and military importance. Take, for example, British concerns about German goods displacing British ones even in the domestic market; of course this was going to be the case if German industrial production was rising at a much higher clip than the pre-established colonial powers and she had no sphere of influence in which to 'vent' her excess production without bumping into pre-established interests. The naval race, too, was largely the result of Britain's strict aherance to an overwhelming dominance doctrine in terms of capital ships.

However, I don't BLAME Britain for any of the choices she made, as they were well in line with expected national interests (IE maintaining Pax Brittanica and the stability of her Empire, for which the bedrock was an unbeatable Royal Navy and domination of the sea lanes commerically)
 
Germany was the disruptor and Great Britain holding to a status quo, so both, each played its hand against the other, often poorly. Britain failed to appreciate that as Germany's merchant marine expanded and her trade became increasingly dependent on overseas shipping, her interest in a Navy would follow. Germany misunderstood damn near everything and the Navy she build was more a trophy case that directly played to Admiralty leverage for yet more budget. Britain created the colonial paradigm and failed to see how Germany merely followed what Britain did. The irony is that German moves were more mimicry than not. The saddest fact is that entire nations were this dependent upon the personal feelings, misperceptions or grudges of a select few individuals, in some case a mere one or two. The Kaiser was ill equipped to bear his burden, given command of a great nation, he had not enough institutional base to support, moderate or guide his actions, yet Britain did have this and still blundered into the war just as foolishly, riddled with choices at odds with policy or interests, so blame is best served in amply equal shares.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Q: Who more more to blame for the tension between Britain and Germany before WWI? - A: Britain

Q: Who is more to blame for the start of WWI? - A: Germany

 
In your view, which of the two was more to blame?

You could set the question up as a poll.

The background tensions existed due to geopolitical circumstances, for which neither side was to blame. On the German side, its militaristic style of government, naval program, and erratic behaviour of the Kaiser probably did the most damage to perception in Britain. On the British side, it's reflexive resistance to anything German and backing of dangerous and aggressive governments (such as the Russian) for purposes that were not to the end of promoting European stability, (such as the backing of Italy's worthless and destabilising war against the Ottoman Empire in 1911), contributed to the mistrust in Germany.
 
I would agree that both sides share responsibility. As indeed do France ,Russia and Austria- Hungary. The period leading up to World War One. And the lead up to it. Are classic and tragic examples of what happens when nations listen to fear. A lesson that I worry has still not been learned. Regards.
 
Top