|
Post by adlai52 on Jul 19, 2024 12:22:03 GMT
Prompted by listing to the latest Rest is History series this time on the outbreak of the First World War.
This highlights the extent to which Anglo-German relations were improving by 1914, with the naval arms race removed as a concern.
It also provides a perspective on the British alliances/entente's with France and Russia being defensive in nature, a reaction to both nation's threat's to British colonial interests - so why not a similar arrangement with Germany?
Dominic Sandbrook makes the case for an Anglo-German alliance here - but what would British neutrality in 1914 or even a full blown alliance have meant?
I suspect neutrality still sees the German Army halted at the Marne, but remaining much deeper in French territory than happened historically - the position of the channel ports would be contentious in this scenario.
An alliance might have deterred France from even getting involved in a confrontation with Germany - but does that lead to Russia facing off against Germany and Austria alone?
Overall, it's hard to see how a closer relationship between Germany and Britain doesn't mean a much shorter war, if war even breaks out in 1914?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jul 22, 2024 1:05:57 GMT
The above overlooks (or does it?) that the UK was only dragged in because Germany attacked France via Belgium.
Germany hoped for a quick victory against France while leaving the Austrians to keep back the Russians. Then they could turn their full forces to the east. The only way they could envisage a quick victory in the west was to bypass the French defences by going through Belgium. That brought Britain into the war.
To keep Britain out of the war, Germany would have been bogged down battering against the French along a highly fortified border. A quick victory was highly unlikely.
|
|