[Political Interest]

One of the many causes of WWI that I have heard about is that Germany was viewed by many in England as a potential economic rival. It was feared that the growth of German industry would result in markets being lost to German goods.

However it seems this happend anyhow. After WWII Germany became a major economic power. Therefore was it not superflous to worry about the growth of the German economy when this would happen anyhow?

[noir]

One of the reason Britain went to war was to keep its empire, something it dismantled anyway right after the war. Many questions.

[Rancid]

One of the many causes of WWI that I have heard about is that Germany was viewed by many in England as a potential economic rival. It was feared that the growth of German industry would result in markets being lost to German goods.

However it seems this happend anyhow. After WWII Germany became a major economic power. Therefore was it not superflous to worry about the growth of the German economy when this would happen anyhow?

Yea, but after WWII, Germany was integrated as an ally, so perhaps that made things more favorable for Enland.


Some shit like that.

[SolarCross]

One of the many causes of WWI that I have heard about is that Germany was viewed by many in England as a potential economic rival. It was feared that the growth of German industry would result in markets being lost to German goods.

However it seems this happend anyhow. After WWII Germany became a major economic power. Therefore was it not superflous to worry about the growth of the German economy when this would happen anyhow?

This is nonsense. Britain had as serious potential economic rivals in the US, France, Russia and Japan. Why single out Germany? Also Germany started the war long before Britain was dragged in, you know about Serbia? Also during the July Crisis the Brits were trying mediate peaceful solutions whilst Germany and Austria were for war only.

Timeline of ww1.

Austria invades Serbia

Russians support Serbia

Germany supports Austria

Most small countries declare neutrality

Germany invades Luxembourg and then on the way to invading France invades Belgium

The UK protests the invasion of Belgium, Germans tell the UK to fuck off and the UK declares on Germany.

So yeah anglophobic revisionist @Political Interest thinks WW1 just happened because the UK was just being mean because Germany might one day sell more biscuit tins or lawnmowers.

[Rancid]

This is nonsense. Britain had as serious potential economic rivals in the US, France, Russia and Japan. Why single out Germany? Also Germany started the war long before Britain was dragged in, you know about Serbia? Also during the July Crisis the Brits were trying mediate peaceful solutions whilst Germany and Austria were for war only.

Timeline of ww1.

Austria invades Serbia

Russians support Serbia

Germany supports Austria

Most small countries declare neutrality

Germany invades Luxembourg and then on the way to invading France invades Belgium

The UK protests the invasion of Belgium, Germans tell the UK to fuck off and the UK declares on Germany.

So yeah anglophobic revisionist @Political Interest thinks WW1 just happened because the UK was just being mean because Germany might one day sell more biscuit tins or lawnmowers.

Why single out Germany? Simple, it's very common for the #2, #3, etc. etc. player to join forces to knock off #1. This happens all the time in business and politics. Germany's rise in economics, technology, and military, along with the weakening Ottoman Empire disrupted the balance of people in the region. It freaked people out, hence the alliances were formed.

There was most certainly fear of Germany's rise as an industrial/economic/military power in Europe. This is what motivated the series of alliances across the continent.

- Germany was getting too strong economically, technologically, and militarily for the likes of France and Russia.
- France got in an alliance with Russia to try and contain Germany.
- Germany got in an alliance with Austria-Hungary to counter.
- France and Russia tried hard to get the UK to join the alliance, but the UK refused.
- The UK did have a protection agreement with Belgium though.
- Ottomans were a bit worried about Russia and were also weakening, so they joined in with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[fokker]

WW1 broke out due to some dirty politics played by major powers. It was about ensuring anglo-saxon world domination which succeeded. Britain and France jumped on the first chance to destroy Germany.

Germany was probably the only country willing to deescalate in the beginning. They asked Russians and French to demobilize and would not have invaded Belgium if Britain declared no intention to enter the war. Britain was asked about it and as you would expect oportunistically replied it reserved right to enter war at later stage.

Austria had a very good reason to invade Serbia. Assasination of heir of throne today by neighbouring country would be a good reason to go to war. If Libyans or Iraqis did this in these times before their regimes got toppled it would have lead to war. Serbia refused to extradite people who organized this assasination, mainly the chief of Serbian secret service, who was a criminal. Economic sanctions were out of question back then. Austria could not back off just because the big buddy Russia standing nearby was threatening to intervene.

Given the conditions France and Britain should have stayed out of this.

As I mentioned in other thread British politics in Europe was a total failure in 20th century, since a united bloc was created they cannot control and decided to leave. So many people had to die unnecessarily.

[Decky]

WW1 broke out due to some dirty politics played by major powers. It was about ensuring anglo-saxon world domination which succeeded. Britain and France jumped on the first chance to destroy Germany.

This is total nonsense, the war had already broke out before the UK even joined. How could it therefore be about ensuring anglo-saxon domination?

Did Germany give Austria and blank cheque to ensure it?
Did Austria invade Serbia to ensure it?
Did Russia declare war on the central powers to ensure it?
How about France?

[fokker]

This is total nonsense, the war had already broke out before the UK even joined. How could it therefore be about ensuring anglo-saxon domination?

Did Germany give Austria and blank cheque to ensure it?
Did Austria invade Serbia to ensure it?
Did Russia declare war on the central powers to ensure it?
How about France?

We all know how wars start. When was declaration of war when US invaded Iraq or Afghanistan? First step is mobilization. Then army invades. It is unimportant when/if declaration of war is issued. France and Russia left no option for Germany and refused to demobilize after being asked. Bullying Austria and Germany, thats the policy France and Britain pursued. To have heir of throne assasinated by little Serbia and do nothing.

Entry of Britain and US was about ensuring the war ends in the way they prefer it. Their criminal plans in Turkey never got implemented. Process to carve up Ottoman empire has started long before WW1. Creating puppets and colonies, thats what Britain did. Britain is responsible for the mess in middle east today.

There were also very good reasons for war against Russia. Existence of such large state on eastern border was a constant military threat and who cannot be defeated acts as a bully (we see this with Russia and US today too). This problem in eastern europe got eventually solved in the process of 20th century similarly like it was intended in WW1. Of course not thanks to Britain or US.

[Decky]

We all know how wars start. When was declaration of war when US invaded Iraq or Afghanistan? First step is mobilization. Then army invades. It is unimportant when/if declaration of war is issued. France and Russia left no option for Germany and refused to demobilize after being asked. Bullying Austria and Germany, thats the policy France and Britain pursued. To have heir of throne assasinated by little Serbia and do nothing.

So you belive the French and the Russians mobalised their armies as part of a plot to ensure anglo dominion? Is there any reason that you belive Moscow or Paris would have wanted that goal or are you just making this all up as you go along?

[SolarCross]

@fokker

I can understand why Austria would want to punish Serbia over that assassination and I can also understand why Russia would want to back up Serbia. And so also why Germany would choose to back up Austria and the French to back up Russia. Like a line of dominoes all these players were lined up to fall into each other. But none of that was of the making of the UK and our powers-that-be back then really didn't want to be drawn into yet another great continental war, it just wasn't in our interests as we had almost the whole god-damn world to worry after.

If you want a culprit for the UK joining that war then Germany is to blame only because of their reckless invasion of Belgium with whom we were treaty bound to protect. The UK had no obligation to protect France, France was a great power in her own right and a rival to the UK, you could have piled into France and we would not be bothered but by going into Belgium you knowingly made it inevitable that we declared against you.

The UK was the centre of a vast globe spanning empire with subjects of innumerable different ethnicities and religions whom all accepted British overlordship despite their inevitable parochialism because Britain was the mighty lion with the finest soldiers and the most modern weapons that would protect them. Consequently if we let Belgium go to the dogs then all those diverse subjects would have no more reason to believe being in the empire was in their interests and go into revolt and we would lose the whole lot.

If anyone is to blame for the UK joining WW1 it is Germany only, no one else.

[fokker]

So you belive the French and the Russians mobalised their armies as part of a plot to ensure anglo dominion? Is there any reason that you belive Moscow or Paris would have wanted that goal or are you just making this all up as you go along?

Everybody had their own interests but WW1 overall was about safeguarding anglo saxon domination. Democracy doesn't guarantee sincere politics or respect for interests of other countries. US replaced Britain and continues along its path. To stay as dominant power one has to supress competition.

@fokker
I can understand why Austria would want to punish Serbia over that assassination and I can also understand why Russia would want to back up Serbia. And so also why Germany would choose to back up Austria and the French to back up Russia. Like a line of dominoes all these players were lined up to fall into each other. But none of that was of the making of the UK and our powers-that-be back then really didn't want to be drawn into yet another great continental war, it just wasn't in our interests as we had almost the whole god-damn world to worry after.

If you want a culprit for the UK joining that war then Germany is to blame only because of their reckless invasion of Belgium with whom we were treaty bound to protect.

On the contrary Britain liked to meddle into european wars to ensure they end up in their favour. Belgium was only an excuse for public. If Britain declared no interest to join the war as Germany demanded, Germany would have stayed out of Belgium. They refused so invasion followed.

UK and later US contribution to war was significant as it brought huge manpower and industrial advantage. They didn't do it to help Belgians. WW1 was a trap Germany fell into.

[Potemkin]

The UK was the centre of a vast globe spanning empire with subjects of innumerable different ethnicities and religions whom all accepted British overlordship despite their inevitable parochialism because Britain was the mighty lion with the finest soldiers and the most modern weapons that would protect them. Consequently if we let Belgium go to the dogs then all those diverse subjects would have no more reason to believe being in the empire was in their interests and go into revolt and we would lose the whole lot.

Lol. No. Just no.

On the contrary Britain liked to meddle into european wars to ensure they end up in their favour. Belgium was only an excuse for public. If Britain declared no interest to join the war as Germany demanded, Germany would have stayed out of Belgium. They refused so invasion followed.

Precisely. Britain had an interest in maintaining the balance of power in continental Europe, to keep the rest of Europe disunited and weak while we ruled our world-spanning Empire untroubled by the Frogs or the Krauts. Of course we reserved the right to intervene in a European war if our interests required it. Why wouldn't we do that?

UK and later US contribution to war was significant as it brought huge manpower and industrial advantage. They didn't do it to help Belgians.

Indeed not. But who (apart from people like SolarCross, of course) believes nonsense like that?

WW1 was a trap Germany fell into.

If so, then somebody shouldn't have taken off Germany's training wheels. It all ended in tears before bedtime.

[SolarCross]

@Potemkin

Nice job playing up to German paranoid conspiracy theories designed to absolve them of all responsibility for the wars they started.

I've read up on the July Crisis and British actors like Sir Edward Grey it is very clear the British were for peace on the continent right up until Germany invaded Belgium.

[Potemkin]

Nice job playing up to German paranoid conspiracy theories designed to absolve them of all responsibility for the wars they started.

I am merely pointing out that Britain acted in its own interests, and had the right to do so. When Germany insisted that Britain should forgo the right to intervene in a European war if it was in our interests to do so, they were essentially demanding that Britain act against its own interests. That only works if you do one of two things: (1) bribe us; or (2) threaten us. The Germans weren't offering us any inducements to act against our interests, therefore they must have been threatening us. Why should Britain have caved in to German threats in 1914?

Besides, both world wars were a group effort; why should the Krauts claim all the credit?

I've read up on the July Crisis and British actors like Sir Edward Grey it is very clear the British were for peace on the continent right up until Germany invaded Belgium.

Indeed, and this is because it was in Britain's interests for the balance of power (i.e., peace) to be maintained in continental Europe, as I pointed out. Europe had to be kept divided and weak, so we could continue to rule our world-spanning Empire in peace. The French upset the apple-cart back in the early 19th century before we put them back in their box, and the Germans upset the apple-cart in the early 20th century before we put them back in their box. What we didn't foresee was the rise of the EU, which sought to unite Europe by stealth.

[SolarCross]

@Potemkin

Peace is not "divided and weak", war brought division and in smashing everything to pieces brought weakness where before was strength.

I don't know how much of a threat the EU is really, but if there is a danger in it then it is dwarfed by the threat of it being turned muslim through adverse demographics. I fear the next great continental war will be a continent wide reprise of the reconquista.

Imagine dhimmi German engineers cranking out high technology weapons for suicidally brave Islamic overlords to wield and what that will do for the ambitions of the ummah.

[Potemkin]

Peace is not "divided and weak", war brought division and in smashing everything to pieces brought weakness where before was strength.

From Britain's point of view, that is correct. Putting down Germany in the early 20th century fatally weakened us. But allowing Germany to overrun continental Europe would have been an even worse outcome. As soon as Germany invaded Belgium and looked like it was about to overrun France, Britain had to intervene. And the German leadership should have seen this.

I don't know how much of a threat the EU is really, but if there is a danger in it then it is dwarfed by the threat of it being turned muslim through adverse demographics. I fear the next great continental war will be a continent wide reprise of the reconquista.

Imagine dhimmi German engineers cranking out high technology weapons for suicidally brave Islamic overlords to wield and what that will do for the ambitions of the ummah.

I've warned you before about huffing that nitrous oxide, SolarCross.

[Rancid]

@Potemkin

It's well know the US had little impact on WWI. Are you saying this too is true for the UK?

[Potemkin]

It's well know the US had little impact on WWI. Are you saying this too is true for the UK? :?:

No, not at all. Britain had a huge impact on WWI. We lost more people in WWI than in WWII, and Britain's involvement changed the course of the war decisively. This is why fokker is so enraged by it. Lol.

[SolarCross]

I've warned you before about huffing that nitrous oxide, SolarCross.

I am just not being complacent, if we did not foresee the rise of the EU then perhaps it would not do to bury our heads in the sands for what looms over the horizon now.

[Rancid]

No, not at all. Britain had a huge impact on WWI. We lost more people in WWI than in WWII, and Britain's involvement changed the course of the war decisively. This is why fokker is so enraged by it. Lol.

Ok, just making sure you weren't making some bizarre claim.

Side note, I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear if I told you.... Many Americans really believe that the US was one of the main reasons WWI was won by the allies. The belief tends to be that the USes late entry was the catalyst for turning around a failing war on part of the allies. Stomping that out with a "no, that's not true" is always something I'm quick to point out if someone brings it up.