WW1

[ronnybabes]

It is a given, that Germany started WW1, but why did we get involved?

Why would, it have mattered to us if Germany had won, or lost domination of Europe?

We sent our young men to die, and die they did en mass. We squandered our wealth (yes, we were actually a wealthy nation then) we squandered our foreign investments, and lost both our Naval Supremacy, and our Empire.

If Germany had won in 1914, there would have been no Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, or Mussolini atrocities, and no holocaust.

Germany in anticipation of winning WW1  drew up a treaty/programme for September 1914 (yes they were that sure of a quick victory)  for a united Europe.

This treaty did not envisage Britain as a subject province of Europe, whereas we are one now.

Therefore, because of two big wars, an unimaginable amount of deaths, and destruction, we are far worse off then we would have been in 1914, had we not entered the fray.

We may have had to get used to, and had to recognise a German dominated Europe,

.........but isn't that what we've got now, anyway?

[merehazle]

Would we have had the second world war had the daft buggers made sure that the Germans had not been secretly re-arming?

How on earth could we and the rest of the world not have figured out that they would do just that?

What ever the cost that had to be done. And how much would that have cost compared to the second world war?

Dresden Hamburg and other German city's were bombed mostly without need, just to teach them a lesson, because the Germans had a habit of starting wars.

Unforgivable that they were even allowed a bow and arrow. 

[bankhaunter]

It is a given, that Germany started WW1, but why did we get involved?

Germany didn't actually start the war.

Very simply the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian patriot lead Austria to declare war on Serbia.

Russia then declared she would support Serbia so Germany being allied to Austria declared war on Russia.

France was allied to Russia so declared war on Germany, to attack France under the Schlieffin plan meant marching through Belgium who had a treaty with Britain who then declared war to defend Belgian neutrality.

Going to war over a scrap of paper (Treaty of London 1839).

There is a photograph of a German artillery reserve unit which includes two cannon, one has a sign saying 'To France' and the other 'To England'.

It was taken in 1911 which does rather give away the expectations of Germany at the time.

As for there being no Lenin or Stalin had Germany won, it was Germany who enabled Lenin to return to Russia thus doubly ensuring Russia was out of the war.

[ronnybabes]

It is a given, that Germany started WW1, but why did we get involved?

Germany didn't actually start the war.

Very simply the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian patriot lead Austria to declare war on Serbia.

Russia then declared she would support Serbia so Germany being allied to Austria declared war on Russia.

France was allied to Russia so declared war on Germany, to attack France under the Schlieffin plan meant marching through Belgium who had a treaty with Britain who then declared war to defend Belgian neutrality.

Going to war over a scrap of paper (Treaty of London 1839).

There is a photograph of a German artillery reserve unit which includes two cannon, one has a sign saying 'To France' and the other 'To England'.

It was taken in 1911 which does rather give away the expectations of Germany at the time.

Most of us are aware of the above facts, which do enforce the statement that it is a given Germany started WW1.

The First World War was perhaps the most important event in modern history, rightly compared to the fall of the Roman Empire in its significance. The UK's entry was the biggest mistake ever made by British politicians. Of course all serious historians know that Germany started it, but the really puzzling question is why did we join in?

"As for there being no Lenin or Stalin had Germany won, it was Germany who enabled Lenin to return to Russia thus doubly ensuring Russia was out of the war." (BH)

I agree Germany did enable Lenin and Stalin, but, out of sheer  desperation. ......   had Germany won though, Lenin, and Stalin would have been non-entities, and would definitely not have obtained any prominence whatsoever.

Their enablement by Germany, was done grudgingly , and out of sheer desperation.

[renomarvinm]

The conventional historical reasoning is that Great Britain always sided against the strongest continental power in Europe, forming coalitions with the underdogs in an effort to keep the strongest nation from becoming too powerful.  (Likewise, they attempted to maintain a navy equal to, or preferably stronger than, the two largest other opposing navies in the world, whether they be friend or foe.  

Napoleon may be compared to hitler in many ways - he, too, ran wild all over Europe.  Sure, the French were very civilized about it (they would never have had death camps, for one thing), but they were conquerors too.  Had Napoleon conquered all of Europe,  Great Britain would have been in a very tight spot indeed.  The British government remembered this during the days before WW1.  

And, during that weird period of time just before "The Great War" (WW1) there was a massive, unparalleled battleship construction arms race (battleships were the "nukes" of their time), and things were getting out of hand.   While all of this was going on, the Germans were suffering from a massive, unparalleled inferiority complex, fed by their recent cohesion as a nation, and they definitely had a chip on their shoulders.  The British knew something was coming, so they prepared for it - hence a lot of interlocking treaties.  The Germans, not wishing to be left out, did the same thing, and then BANG!

I think it was von Moltke who said something to the effect that if war ever came to Europe it would be over some stupid thing in the Balkans.  Boy, did he get that right.

[not-another-one]

In 1914 the British Empire was at its height, there was no way we would tolerate a country such as Germany being the controlling force in Europe.

[bankhaunter]

but the really puzzling question is why did we join in?

Two reasons, the Treaty of London 1839 was signed by the European Powers recognising Belgium as an independent country and guaranteeing her neutrality.

Because Germany needed to pass through Belgium in order to attack France, the direct route was well defended, they broke their agreement but Britain did not.

The second reason was that Britain was not going to accept Germany having control of an important part of the Channel coast particularly the port of Antwerp, national security was threatened.

The German Chancellor said he couldn't believe Germany and England would go to war over a 'scrap of paper'.

Incidentely some of the terms of that treaty were invoked as recently as 2004 concerning the transport by rail of goods from the Ruhr to Antwerp passing through Holland.

It could be said that Germany started the war as opposed to a war by taking a risk in giving Austria a blank cheque of support in their desire to attack Serbia, thinking at the time such declared support would be sufficient to keep Russia from active support of Serbia and the Austria-Serbia war would be a local affair.

A gamble which failed though no doubt not to many in Germany, a disappointment, the flexing of military muscle was desired by a goodly number.

Had Napoleon conquered all of Europe,  Great Britain would have been in a very tight spot indeed.

Not necessarily, first he would need to defeat the British navy to prevent trade with her colonies and avoid blockading.

Plus being able to control all of Europe especially given the slowness of transport, would have been incredibly difficult, he referred to Spain as a 'Spanish Ulcer'.

An embroidered postcard from my grandfather to my father in 1916, they were popular among the soldiers.

[rosestudios]

Always amazed by the declarations that it was this, that or the other country that started a war.

Yet it was the British that actualy declared war on those countries, not the other way round.

In the year 1914 we declared war on Germany followed by Austria-Hungary then The Ottoman Empire followed up in 1915 with Bulgaria.  1939 it was Germany again and 1940 Italy. 1941 was a busy year Finland, Hungary, Romania,Japan and Bulgaria again, 1942 it was Thailand.

Luckily after that period they were all State of Emergencies or Undeclared Wars. Even Falklands (Argentena), 3 Iraqi conflicts, Yugoslavian (Kosovan ), Afghanistan(again) and the latest one Lybia

[renomarvinm]

There was also another major factor contributing to WW1 - Kaiser Wilhelm II was insane!  He was certainly a "blue blood," with far, far too many inbred lines behind him, deleterious dominant genes, affecting lord knows what all.   And he was a cripple to boot.  In a normal world, being crippled would be a disadvantage, but nothing more than that.  But in his world, it was a major flaw that helped twist his mind.  His upbringing was a mess as well.

And he was in control of the German forces.

It is strange that the German leaders in both world wars were mad..

[ronnybabes]

The conventional historical reasoning is that Great Britain always sided against the strongest continental power in Europe, forming coalitions with the underdogs in an effort to keep the strongest nation from becoming too powerful.

Sorry, that is not the conventional historical reasoning, it is  the conventional historical American reasoning.

[renomarvinm]

Well, yes, I suppose that is true, and I did not realize it.  I assumed, incorrectly it seems, that the British line of thinking went along similar lines.  My education  is American, so I as absorbed that idea without questioning it.   Perhaps I should have.  And you may be right - that is interesting.  Either way, from our standpoint, the British have always opposed tyranny, so I guess it's an easy mistake.  Your country almost went bankrupt in two major wars, fighting evil.