I read an interesting article on this subject and that quoted some sentences of English military politician at the end of the first world war.
"As France was then the only power to have preserved a powerful military aviation since the First World War, these programs of increase, judged imperialist, were strongly criticized abroad", will note R. Danel and J. Cuny.
During the Air Inquiry of 1923, Tranchard (considered as the father of British aviation) "it was accepted, for the purposes of reasoning, that France should be considered as the potential enemy in Europe.
King George V himself, relaying the views of the Air Ministry, warned the government of the grave danger threatening England, "so vulnerable to French air raids on her territory".
This was also the opinion expressed by the CID two years earlier. "In the future, a very dangerous situation may arise if France is strong at sea, on land and in the air, while Great Britain is weak in all respects. If this were so, the Empire would exist only by the goodwill of its neighbor - a situation which has not been tolerated in the past and cannot be tolerated in the future."
Lord Curzon, who was secretary of state for foreign affairs, said: "To a certain extent, France's present enormous military power allows her to behave like a dictator with regard to the other European countries. This explains why Belgium, the Little Entente [Central European countries allied with France] are constantly forced to align their policies with French injunctions. This country [the United Kingdom] is not for the moment affected to the same degree, because we have no military ambitions on the continent; but to allow France to have air supremacy and an increasing submarine force, [would] enable her to dictate her policy to the whole world... It is impossible for [the United Kingdom] to accept a situation which would forbid her to consider even the slightest possibility of war, because we would know that we would be beaten there. >>
Updates
1 y
Of course his fears were greatly exaggerated and France had no intention of invading the United Kingdom or dominating Europe. It is therefore astonishing that some of the British, up to the king himself, could have thought for a moment seriously that France had, at least in theory, a real capacity to harm British interests, and that they aspired, as in the time of their former greatness, to domination of the globe.
Why did the United Kingdom, for some time after the First World War, consider France a serious threat to peace in Europe and their security?
Keep in mind the nature of international relations. Here to preface again with three relevant quotes:
From Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
Finally, Cavour's response when asked what he would do for the liberal revolutionaries who helped him - an aristocrat - to unite Italy under the House of Savoy: "Astonish them with my ingratitude."
It may horrify those sitting at homes in the comfort of their living rooms to see such things, but of course the problem is that human beings are imperfect and imperfectible. That being the case, to ignore the lessons of history and geopolitical strategy is to invite disaster. (Interesting, in a small way, the United States is learning that lesson vis-a-vis China now.)
That all said, to the specifics of the question, recall that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom had been "splendid isolation." Basically, to stand aside from the continent of Europe unless and until the balance of power was threatened. This because - as the UK learned from Napoleon, interestingly enough - a continental hegemon would be in a position to threaten the British Isles and the UK's maritime empire.
So long as Germany, France, Italy and Russia were balancing each other, the United Kingdom was relatively safe. No one of those powers would be in a position to threaten the UK because if they did, the odds were that the other continental powers would move in to take advantage of the fact that the power threatening the UK would be distracted from the protection of its' own continental interests.
Indeed, recall that in 1914 it was not clear that the UK would enter the war until Germany invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, at which point London saw Berlin as a direct threat to itself. This, and the fact that Germany looked to be asserting itself as a continental hegemon.
Long story short, by 1918, Russia was engulfed in revolution and civil war, Germany was defeated and in chaos, and Italy - though on the winning side - was the weakest of the great powers and itself in some domestic turmoil. This left France, though bloodied and war weary, in a position to become the sole hegemonic power on the continent.
At first, the UK had hoped that the USA - as it would do after WWII - would stay engaged in Europe and thereby secure the continental balance of power. However, when the USA withdrew back into the Western Hemisphere, the UK was left with prospect of a dominant France. The memories of Napoleon adding some urgency to this, British foreign policy moved to viewing France with a wary eye.
This beginning to change as Germany and Italy recovered under the Nazis and the Fascists respectively. Also as the Communists consolidated their power in Russia.
As these three totalitarian states consolidated their positions and threatened the European balance of power, the 1914-1918 Anglo-French alliance reasserted itself. Even then, they remained colonial rivals and even today - as Brexit suggests - good relations do not necessarily imply harmony.
Again, such is not the nature of international relations.
I totally agree. Although the British government had to consider different scenarios, as did the other nations, the British knew that France had no intention of dominating Europe and moreover it would not have had the military means to do so with the demographic and economic loss that France had suffered during the war. Besides, France insisted on having a guarantee of help from the United States and the United Kingdom in front of Germany, proof that France was sacredly limited in its capacities of action.
Thanks, the computer is working better, but something is still not right. UGH! However, for now I will make do.
As to your point, I think you are still focusing a bit too narrowly. France wanted assurances against a resurgent Germany, but the British wanted assurances that France would not replace Germany as the dominant continental power.
Recall, France wanted a dominant position as an assurance against Germany. The UK wanted a balance against either or both.
As to he USA, both France and the UK wanted the Americans to remain engaged with the "old world." However, none were in a position to assure it and - as history shows - it was not to be. (At least not in the 1920s and 30s.)
So each was seeking a continental balance that secured their respective positions without relying on the USA. Hence, particularly in the early, the Anglo-French tensions. Tensions that, by the way, have been the norm through most of modern European history.
Yeah, the guy was kind of an idiot, and since France was the greatest threat, but not in the way, he was saying his fans would never have attacked England in 1920 France was devastated after ww1 the reason I could see on why France would be the enemy of Europe was because they were weak. They 60% of French industries were destroy and There population devastated. So they were weak which of course Hitler knew going into ww2 that France was weak and he was right why do you think the French surrender to the Nazis? Why do you think there’s still the printer unreliable Ally jokes today?
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
1 y
Likely because they need a stick to measure themselves against and France at the time was the only power capable on projecting force on the UK even if they never would have.
The US at one point considered the possibility of war against the British empire and even planned for the invasion of Canada in the post ww1 era.
Also in the post war era the British were trying to develop strategic airpower and were using a lot of different justifications based on potential enemies, need, as a deterrent and that the bomber will always get through which was due to budget constraints which was always a problem with the British military since ww2 in that one or two of their service branches would suffer from underfunding as each of the other services would get a bigger slice of the pie in this case during post war ww1 it was the British army.
Do you know the funny phrase by Lloyd George to Clemenceau? At the end of the First World War, Clemenceau met Lloyd George who did not seem to be in very good shape, Clemenceau asked him what was wrong, and Lloyd George replied that since the end of the war, he had become anti-French again. British humor is a delight
England always seems to need an enemy and France is just a stone's throw away is a pretty convenient one. When you raise a public with stories of Napoleonic wars, still with visible fortifications and umpteen war memorials it's easy to convince the public of a boogyman on your borders and get more tax funding.
A major reason for UK's involvement in WWI stemmed from Germany's ambition to become a bigger naval power than the UK. From memory I think the UK's standard was it's navy should the twice the size of any other nation and bigger than the next two largest navies.
I think the UK was always going to be worried about potential European rivals. France was more innovative with aircraft and submarines had proven their worth in WWI.
Germany had temporarily been subdued so that just left France. Probably the logic was no more complicated than that I'd suggest.
The British and French have fought each other on and off for a thousand years since 1066. History suggested they were more likely to be the next enemy. The King and the Kaiser were cousins. Hitler's rise wasn't expected after the German losses by 1918.
It is the nature of late-stage empire to verge toward paranoia. To wit, the USG’s current goal, as described in a 2019 Rand report that recommended provoking a war between Ukraine and Russia, of crushing all potential rivals whether or not they wish to challenge global American hegemony.
Probably a convenient ruse from the British military and old-Empire militarists to ensure continued funding for new weapons and troops after the "Great War".
I guess at that point in time Germany was wake and would not become a threat until the 1930s. So instead some saw France as the enemy again for a brief period.
Haha, more seriously the English politicians knew that France had no ambition of this kind and that anyway she could not afford it, for obvious reasons, economic and demographic ruin after the war. At the same time, they were obliged to imagine all the possible scenarios
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Why did the United Kingdom, for some time after the First World War, consider France a serious threat to peace in Europe and their security?
