Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 4th October 2008

  may not have been honored so rapidly - and may not have been honored at all - had Germany not invaded Belgium in WW1. Apparently, to adhere to the Schlieffen Plan, German troops first had to enter Belgium in order to strike the French armies on their northern flank, and the Kaiser's politicians asked that country's permission to do so peacefully. When it was refused, German armies stormed through anyhow. It was evidently dad's opinion that Britain was so incensed at this violation of a country's neutrality that she was stimulated into instant mobilization, not her treaties with the French.
  
  Does this sound reasonable to anyone?

  Link to this forum: I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Crime Lord: Four D's (Leak) (U11034905) on Saturday, 4th October 2008

  I've posted an article similar to this.
  
  The Triple Entente weren't the reason that France and Britain got involved. France got involved as they were attacked, Britain saw no other choice but to try and stop Germany, and saw the oppurtunity through Germany declaring war on Belgium

  Link to this forum: I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 23rd October 2008

  may not have been honored so rapidly - and may not have been honored at all - had Germany not invaded Belgium in WW1. Apparently, to adhere to the Schlieffen Plan, German troops first had to enter Belgium in order to strike the French armies on their northern flank, and the Kaiser's politicians asked that country's permission to do so peacefully. When it was refused, German armies stormed through anyhow. It was evidently dad's opinion that Britain was so incensed at this violation of a country's neutrality that she was stimulated into instant mobilization, not her treaties with the French.
  
  Does this sound reasonable to anyone? Β 
  
  
  
  
  Without the invasion of Belgium, there wasn't anything to "honour". Britain had no alliance with France (the Entente Cordiale settled some disputes between the two countries, but made no military commitment) and indeed it's not even clear if the Belgian treaty - the famous "scrap of paper" actually bound us to intervene militarily.
  
  It was more of a strategic issue. The Low Countries were always a sensitve spot as far as Britain was concerned. They had a lot of good ports directly opposite our coast, which would make ideal naval bases for an adversary - and several years into the Naval Race, most people saw Germany as at least a potential one.
  
  Even without the invasion of Belgium, Britain would have an interest in not allowing France to be crushed, since that would leave Germany dominating the continent (Low Countries included) and probably able to divert far more resources from its army to its navy, hence posing a major threat. We had no especial interest in French victory, but we did have one in French survival. However, without the invasion of Belgium, that situation was unlikely to arise, since the Franco-German border was heavily fortified, and any campaign limited to it was almost bound to be indecisive.
  
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Thursday, 23rd October 2008

  It has been mentioned on these boards before that British European policy has over the centuries been dominated by the idea of not having one power in control of all or most of the western seaboard of europe.
  
  Britain went to war ultimately to protect herself, her trade, her colonies and a little bit of honour thrown in.

  Link to this forum: I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Sunday, 26th October 2008

  And don't forget that one of the reasons for the treaty commitment to Belgium's neutrality was that that part of the world had been known as the Cockpit of Europe for a very long time. At the time (1839) it was to be a buffer state against any possible French expansionism: but for 1914 it served the same purpose against the German Empire. The Kaiser certainly got Britain off the hook on the issue; what would have happened without the invasion, who knows? Either more opposition to the eventual war within the UK, or a France much more embittered against "perfidious Albion" (or both together).

  Link to this forum: I recall my dad opining that Britain's treaty with France

  Report message5

Back to top