Obviously there are several reasons that led to the First World War and of course the Sarajevo attack is often considered to be the immediate and ultimate cause which gave rise to the First World War.
But Germany turned out to be a formidable competitor to England. While Bismarck will always be part of a policy of European equilibrium which suited the English very well, William II will have a real world policy, Germany will experience great economic growth, and its production will increase from 13 to 16 percent then that of England will fall from 32 to 16 percent and France from 10 to 6 percent.
and especially Germany will build a formidable navy.
At the end of the First World War England will obtain the abandonment of the freedoms of the seas and the German navy will no longer be a threat to them.
Of course, we must not neglect the other causes of the war but I see in this rivalry between England and Germany one of the main causes of the First World War.
Was one of the main main causes of the First World War due to the rivalry between England and Germany?
The fundamental cause of World War I, as summed up by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger - himself of German ancestry - the cause of The Great War was that "Germany was too weak to rule the world and too strong to be secure within the European balance of power." That was a whimsical way of saying it, but it is essentially correct and that is where the Anglo-German naval (and colonial) rivalry fits in.
To start, Germany - after its unification under the Prussian auspices of the Hohenzollern dynasty in 1871 - was the most populous nation in Europe (outside of Russia) and its largest economy. Yet it was deeply insecure. It had been French foreign policy since the Middle Ages to keep the Germanic states divided and this Paris had achieved until its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.
Yet after that war Germany was united but its margin over its great power rivals - grant that it was the largest economy and therefore military power - was not wide. Germany looked to the west and saw its old rival France. It looked east and saw a Russia that was initially allied to it, but less out of conviction that convenience and after the Franco-Russian entente, was basically seen as hostile. (That entente born of German support of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the expense of Slavic nationalism, especially in the Balkans.) Italy throwing its weight to whatever side it perceived as being stronger.
In the midst of this was the United Kingdom. Its' foreign policy having been described as "splendid isolation." The idea being that Britain would stand aside from the European alliances unless the balance was threatened, in which case London would join the weaker side, thereby stabilizing the balance and maintaining the peace.
Such policy allowed the UK to stand aloof from European affairs, maintain its empire and secure that empire with a powerful navy. Such navy not being needed by the continental powers in their rivalry with each other.
Germany had initially not wanted colonies. As Bismarck would famously say, "My map of Africa is in the Balkans." However, as Germany grew, there was a growing national feeling that it should have an empire and a navy to protect it and - in wartime - that would be strong enough to break any British naval and economic blockade should London join the opposing side.
Thus, Germany acquired a few colonies and began to build a navy both to access those colonies and to challenge what it regarded as an unjustified British naval supremacy. Suffice to say, the UK saw this as a direct threat to its empire and its national security. The German navy was, as one historian put it, "the luxury navy," and since such a prestige force could only be aimed at the UK, a naval rivalry was born.
Yet even then, it is not likely that the UK would have intervened had not Germany violated Belgian neutrality in 1914. The British had committed to the defense of the Low Countries as a way of insuring that neither Germany nor France would dominate the whole coast of Europe nearest the British Isles.
Thus the immediate cause of World War I. Had the UK - with its globe spanning empire - not joined, the war still would have been large in scope, but as likely as not France would have been defeated and a prolonged world war would not have transpired and it is, in that sense, that the Anglo-German naval rivalry was a cause of The Great War.
Yes exactly. I know the British are going crazy with Belgium lol. Besides, Belgium only exists thanks to England and the treachery of Talleyrand. In the 19th century for England Belgium represented a double importance, the first is for its protection and secondly in the past the port of Antwerp represents one of the only accesses for England to be able to sell its goods in Europe.
Well, I am not sure that I would characterize it as "going crazy." Nations have interests and they define those interests and their relative importance and act accordingly.
By your logic, France "went crazy" over the Germanic states and Prussia. No, actually, France understood what was in its best interests and after German unification, Paris found its freedom of action reduced.
As to Talleyrand, I will let you be the judge of your nation's historical figures. Other than to add that had there been no Belgium in 1914, the UK might have stood aside and France would have been left to its fate. Given what a near run thing the Great War was for France as it was - the army mutinies at one point and all the rest - history probably worked out for the best.
Paris' possibility of action was already reduced long before German reunification. But France of the 19th and even of the 20th centuries devote an incredible hatred to the Germans.
You are mistaken, without the "creation of Belgium" the Belgian territory would in reality be French, the existence of Belgium is due to the French defeat
On the point regarding Belgium, you misunderstood me. I did not suggest that Belgium would have been part of France. Rather I suggested that had the UK no obligation to intervene in Belgium's defense, France might have been left to fight alone on the Western Front. Recall that the BEF closed the gap on France's left flank.
Also, as regards German unification, it had been French policy to prevent it going all the way back at least to Napoleonic times. Whatever the ups and downs of French power, the unification of the German Empire represented a fundamental defeat and a diminishing of France's freedom of action. Once faced with a unified Germany, France's ability to deploy elsewhere was fundamentally weakened.
As to Joseph de Maistre, yes I am familiar with him.
Oh ok it's because of my bad English lol. If you will, but honestly, reunification was a problem for France in Europe, but for its international policy, France could not do anything without the agreement of England. Consequently any political ambition of France was already impossible.
On the first point, as we have discussed before, none of the great powers, given the network of alliances and security interests and so forth, could act unilaterally without the aid of at least some of the other of the great powers. Indeed, given the British policy of standing aloof from the continent - see also "splendid isolation" - and the existence of Franco-British rivalries particularly in Africa (see also Fashoda) - by your logic France could do nothing.
In fact, France remained one of the great powers with a considerable scope for action. However, once the German Empire was unified, France could not act without putting herself at immediate risk as she now shared a common land border with a rival great power that had a larger economy and population than her own.
As to Joseph de Maistre, although I cannot say that I have read his works extensively, what I am familiar with I have been impressed by. In fact, with his emphasis on social hierarchy, aristocracy and monarchy in some respects I think of de Maistre as a sort of French Edmund Burke, albeit a Burke who was intellectually influenced by the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Yes I quite agree with that, but honestly France before really leading a great international policy it needed the agreement of England. Fashoda clearly shows the submission of France to England and there are other examples of this style. But you are absolutely right Germany was at a much higher power level than France, a more powerful army, a bigger economy, and population. Germany was fighting for world domination with England. Unfortunately for her, she failed.
Yes Joseph de Maistre is a bit like the French Burke. I really like and then he wrote a sublime Frenchman. Even if I don't consider myself to be conservative I always try to read different thinkers lol
Just one last thing. You have a tendency to exaggerate a bit. See also, "Germany was at a much higher power level than France..."
Actually, though Germany was larger in terms of the size of its economy and population, in military terms Germany had really only a slight edge. Thus part of why World War I was a prolonged stalemate. The military balance was, on balance, roughly equal.
Remember again Kissinger's line - "Germany was too weak to rule the world and too strong to be secure within the European balance of power."
In other words, in the wider context in which Germany had to operate, her advantages were narrow and by no means overwhelming. To be sure, France was a relatively weaker power. However, the key word is "relative." France was by no means powerless and in a direct one-on-one conflict, although I agree that she probably would have lost in a prolonged conflict, in a short war, given the proper strategy, she may have been able to pull off a victory.
Of course, there is no way to know for sure. MY point to you is that you tend to paint the picture in either/or and black/white, when in fact such judgments need to be more nuanced and made in the shades of gray.
@nightdrot I already told you Night that you're wasting your time talking with this girl, damn it. She doesn't understand anything about politics and geopolitics. No wonder, remind us @Julielamar2 at what age did you stop studying? Good god, Night it's like you're talking politics with a chicken, he wouldn't understand a thing
@Manon1998 Sir, how I spend , my time on this site is not your concern. The young lady has never been anything but pleasant to me and the conversations congenial. If she finds profit in the conversation, then I am happy - this being a discussion site - to chat with her, regardless of her age or other factors.
By contrast I find your characterization of the young lady as gratuitously offensive. Yes, we know that you are in your own estimation, wise and gifted with profound insights. That said, you may do well to recall that the first characteristic of a gentlemen is the respect he gives to those who can be of no use to him.
Sadly, you are all too characteristic of the ethos of the current age.
Thanks @nightdrot. @Manon1998 I don't understand what I did to you to be honest 🤷
I stopped my studies at 17, I am not proud of it and certainly if I had to do it again I would not start again like that. I don't pretend to know everything and in reality I think I accept other people's ideas quite easily if the argument seems right to me. I didn't do as much education as you did, but I tried to fill in my gaps by reading. So yes I did not do any major studies but even the chicken that I am at least deserves respect 😔
No need to thank me. My discussions with you have never been anything but cordial and it has never been anything but pleasant to exchange ideas with you. Further, I have found you to be open to reasoned discussion and, whatever the limitations of your formal education, you seem well versed certainly on your own country's history.
Indeed, at least to the best of my recollection, any debates we have had have been on issues that historians themselves are still debating. That speaks well for your own sense of objectivity.
Besides, for all that, your English is still better than my French. So put it all together and my advice would be to ignore the gentleman. He seems more intent on proving his virtue than in having a civilized discussion. In this he is exemplary of the age in which we live - and it is not to his credit.
You, on the other hand, are well mannered, intelligent even if not formally educated, reasonably well versed in the various issues we have discussed and more than willing to admit when you think you have been wrong. To which you add a high level of civility, which in this day and age is nothing short of miraculous - especially in one coming from your generation, if I may say. In short, it is a real pleasure to tall with you.
@nightdrot Of course you talk to whoever you want lol. I was not lacking in civility I just say that intellectually speaking it must be difficult to have a debate with her, hence my reference to the chicken, which I must say was badly chosen , and is disrespectful to the chicken. Moreover this girl is an admirer of the Corsican devil (Napoleon) therefore we can deduce that she does not understand anything about politics.
Hey @ Julielamar2 you said you read to make up for your shortcomings, you know Dora The Explorer is not a reference in political books and neither coloring books for that matter 😂
Thank you very much @nightdrot for these incredibly kind words, it touches me a lot 😊
I also like chatting with you a lot because you have a great intelligence and with your job a great experience of politics therefore I can only learn things from you.
People can't know everything so when you're lucky to be able to chat with someone of your caliber you take advantage lol.
Of course I try to defend my ideas with my arguments but I don't mind saying if the person had a better argument or reasoning than me
Europe was pretty much at war’s step but just needed that final push to justify it. I’m gonna go on a little rant because I’m interested in the world wars so sorry in advance. Britain had the largest empire and was the most powerful country in Europe and pretty much the world although america was catching up. To actually understand the origins of imperialism in Europe, you kinda need to know about empires but I’m just gonna take you back to the napoleonic wars in the early 1800’s. So Napoleon and france invaded much of continental Europe because he wanted his own french empire in Europe and during that time germany as a country didn’t exist and it was instead split into different kingdoms and they joined after napoleon was defeated because they realised they would be stronger united. Austria was also another powerful figure on the world stage at this point but anyways, germany united and they waged wars on its neighbouring countries to establish themselves, most importantly i would say, is that they won against france and france’s defeat was so humiliating and big that it was kinda in the background by the time of ww1 and even ww2 and this was in the 1860’s bear in mind. So germany was now established as a big figure and they were kinda quiet until wilhelm ii became the kaiser and wanted germany to be the most powerful country (he was actually queen victoria’s grandson) and rival with britain. Colonies overseas and action in Europe took place up to ww1, including the Balkans in east Europe which many link to ww1. There was also the naval arms race between uk and Germany although uk won it but uk was definitely spooked by germany and their growing power. Now, of course it was the assassination of the austrian heir which was the direct cause of war because austria declared war on serbia with germany’s backing, serbia declared war back with russia’s backing, france declared war because they were russia’s ally and uk declared war because of belgium they said. This takes you onto the alliance system. Europe was basically split into blocs with the triple alliance and triple entente and the ww1 and ww2 sides split according to them, excluding italy. For me, i would say the alliance system influenced the uk-germany competition because it all goes back to imperialism and foreign policy and how each country had something hanging on the balance - both uk and germany wanted to be the top guy, russia had to keep it’s influence in the balkans and this is linked to serbia and its nationalism, france was dragged in because they were russia’s ally and that was part of their alliance but they probably also wanted revenge and what they lost to germany all those years ago, britain tried to be the peacekeeper with failed results obviously and couldn’t be dragged in by its alliance with russia or france and instead dug up some old treaty for belgian neutrality. But either way, historians place blame on all those named countries and traditional blame was placed on Germany what with the treaty of versailles. But the look deeper into the scenes dating back years and years. All the countries kinda knew war was near, it had to be because they needed something to establish the winner and the most powerful figures, i would personally say that germany and co went on the offensive and britain and co went on the defensive as a direct leadup to war although i do think foreign policy and their relations influenced this - it would be hypocritical to criticise germany for their aims of colonialism when britain, france and russia had colonies all over the world. So I would say imperialism as the biggest factor was the influence behind all the other factors like relations, policy and alliances etc!
Admiral Jackie Fisher converted the British navy from coal-fired to oil-powered ships. The German navy did the same, but they didn’t have any oil-producing colonies, so began the ‘Drang Nach Osten’, the ‘drive to the east.’ The spine of this policy was the Berlin-Baghdad Railway.
But there was huge opposition to this plan among all the European powers and Russia.
Britain had a special reason, for opposing the railway. Once the track is laid, there’s nothing to stop a Munich businessman alighting at the Baghdad terminus with a Deutschebank chequebook, undercutting the British concession and smashing their oil cartel.
We are all taught about the fight for Belgian neutrality, the Treaty of London, the various alliances that drew countries into the war. But the fact is, the very first British regiment to be deployed in the First World War (the Dorset Regiment) - was sent to Basra. Where it was immediately joined by 51 other British divisions.
The first Battalion of the Dorsets fought in Mons in August 1914. The 2nd Battalion of the Dorset regiment fought the the grandmother of all battles for Basra, occupying the city from November 22nd 1914.
All of which is more or less deleted from the history books you're given in school, but is freely available if you use the internet.
In 1914 secretary of the War Cabinet Sir Maurice Hankey wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that ‘control of Middle Eastern oil supplies’ has become ‘a first-class British war aim.’ And yet Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and oil are definitely not part of the official World War One story.
Germany wanted oil. Britain didn't want Germany to get the oil. That's WW1 in a nutshell.
Franz Ferdinand's assassination was just an excuse; note that he was shipped home and given a third-rate funeral; hardly what you'd expect for a figure worth starting a war over. Mahan's book set Wilhelm's imagination aflame and helped set it all off, but it was arguably him throwing off Bismarck's principles for maintaining peace in a post-Napoleonic Europe that set them up. And since the politicians of his time ignored their father's rules for peace, but not their rules for war, we got the brutal slaughter that the war became.
So yes, it was a contributing factor, but only one of them.
Of course as I said I don't want to summarize the first world war in this rivalry. I know you are becoming crazy with Belgium lol, you know that our two countries have been at war enough to know each other well enough lol.
Still, I feel like we have just been the armed wing of England in this war. The French could not get what they really want because of the English and of course the Americans, while you, you got what you want perfectly lol
France didn't want that either lol. We especially want the division of Germany into small states but the English never wanted, I guess it is because of this imbecile of European balance systems.
What's fun about the English is the way you name things, eg your awesome creation "European Balance" Frankly it sounds so cute, so logical, so peaceful, who could be against something that s' calls "the European balance", it's like cats, we love all cats🤣
Honestly, I prefer the Europe that de Gaulle wanted to do, you know the Europe of the 6, if you look the map of the Europe of the 6 wanted by de Gaulle you have the napoleonic empire. There is the English minister at the time who told De Gaulle that if he succeeded in making this Europe, there would be a war again lol. Alas this fucking May 68 kicked out of Gaulle 😥
It was certainly a cause. I would however think the greatest causes were entangling alliances and far too much confidence in knowing how the other side will react.
Yeah, and I think it is actually the main reason. The interlocking alliances between the two camps were due to that rivalry and ensured the war would turn pan-European.
It came down to England's agreement with France and Belgium, and the development of Germany's Navy. Without naval power, Germany basically wouldn't have mattered to England.
Yes lol, if the Germans had not invaded Belgium and built a powerful fleet, England would not have entered the war and the war would have remained a European war and not a global one.
18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Ehh, based on books like the Guns of August and alike, it was a rivalry for land and resources. And over confident egos of regals. The domino effect of treaties was more of an excuse to go to war.
@ChrisMaster69 Russian Revolution of 1917, Ottomon empire and Austria Hungary lost their monarchies bc of the war. And then I was referring to jfk, etc…
Cause and reason are two different things. ;) The cause was the Archeduke's assassination. It's what triggered the chain reaction of events. The reasons are multiple and yes one of them is what say.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
What do you think about Alsace Lorraine problem before WW1 between Germany and France?
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
