In 1914 War exploded in Europe. After a few months the major focus was on the fight between Germany, France and Britain. While conflict between Germany and France had been characteristic of European warfare in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, to the best of my knowledge "British" people had not been to war with "German people" (by that I mean people coming from modern day Germany and not other Germanic nations like Holland or Norway) as unified nations since the Late Antiquity. I'm aware that Britain was on the opposite side from minor German states who acted as allies of Napoleon but against Germany "proper", which was at that time probably best characterised by Prussia or to a lesser extent Hanover, the only time they were on opposite sides was in the Austrian War of Succession and they did not actually engage in battle. Or did they? You see the thing is I don't really know. Was Prussia in paticular at any time hostile to Britain in the early modern period? There are instances of indirect military action. For example the several Prussian officers who aided the Continental Army. I wondered if anybody could tell me of any more. Specifically after 1871 when Germany became a major player in European politics as a nation. I suppose the reason for the generally peaceful relations between these two countries in what was quite a tumultuos time, from 1700 to 1914 any way, was because a German Royal House was on the British throne. Tell me if you no any more factors.

What Interest did the British have on the continent before 1914 ?

Germany did not challenge the British on Sea before that, and the Brits didnt have the huge land Army to mess with Germany. Germany kept out of the Colonial Race too until the end of the 19th century, so we didnt interfere with the British Colony plans as well.
After the Kaiser fired Bismarck and started his new, expansional policy, things changed.

---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !

It was mainly a clash of strategic doctrines.

Britain's long term strategy was to create a balance of power on the continent. That meant that "Germany" or Prussia mainly were useful allies against the prime power at that time (France).

With the German unification the Prussian doctrine (having to fight against many enemies due to being surrounded) became the German one. Britain's desire for "balance" was diametrically opposed to Germany's desire for control and security in middle Europe.

Additional factors were also the alliance systems present, the ultranationalism prevalent in Europe, Germany outgrowing Britain and taking away their markets, foreign influence (France, Russia etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elaborating a bit more...

Germany aspired for a Empire abroad, but Britain would have nothing of it. A Strong Germany overseas and an expanding navy from 1898-1914 saw a massive clash between rather close German and British Crowns.

The Morocco incident sealed the strife between Britain, France and Germany. This incident saw Germany support Morocco in defiance of Britain and saw this a threat to British interests and a open challenge to it's oversea hemogony.

Germany's industrial growth was unchecked by the other powers. France was growing slowly as was Britain which both reached a Apex around 1880-1890, while Germany was needed to fuel it's continual growth from 1871 onwards. At the time the Germans and every other Great Power saw colonial possessions as a means of fueling growth, gaining resources and creating monopolistic markets and influence zones.

If you study the industrial capacity and over growth of the three European Powers, Germany outstripped the other two by at least double.

Russia saw a massive problem with a powerful Germanic alliance on it's doorstep, and the idea of a resurgent Ottoman Empire with friendly ties with Germany saw a massive friction between the states.
Russia always aspired three things...

1) Controlling all former Polish territories.

2) Controlling or influencing the Orthodox majority Balkan states.

3) Conquering Constantinople.

These 3 things essentially came into direct friction with Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Ottomans.

With the Alliances formed by the Central Powers, the Entente was a natural step even with historical enemies.

Essentially Germany's ambition along with European mindset saw a climate ripe for war as no state could resolve the minor problems the other had with each state.

The 43 year peace (a extremely long time in European terms) was seen by all European powers as a Eye before the Storm.



Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

"Elaborating a bit more...

Germany aspired for a Empire abroad, but Britain would have nothing of it. A Strong Germany overseas and an expanding navy from 1898-1914 saw a massive clash between rather close German and British Crowns."

Not quite like that. At first Britain wanted Germany to have colonies to prevent France from claiming them. Only later in KWII's did they oppose further German colonial ambitions. Under Bismarck Britain supported Germany.

As to the fleet building it certainly was seen in Britain as aggressive, but in reality, colonies or no colonies, Britain was in no position to request restraint in this field from other powers.


"Germany's industrial growth was unchecked by the other powers. France was growing slowly as was Britain which both reached a Apex around 1880-1890, while Germany was needed to fuel it's continual growth from 1871 onwards. At the time the Germans and every other Great Power saw colonial possessions as a means of fueling growth, gaining resources and creating monopolistic markets and influence zones."

Actually there was one power that grew faster than Germany. Russia. This is also the reason why the military actively sought war with Russia specifically, because they knew that in two decades they would be at a severe disadvantage. Of course as we saw during the war, Russia was massively overestimated, it had massive potential, but was a hollow state with far too many people not loyal to it.

"If you study the industrial capacity and over growth of the three European Powers, Germany outstripped the other two by at least double."

Agree.

"Russia saw a massive problem with a powerful Germanic alliance on it's doorstep, and the idea of a resurgent Ottoman Empire with friendly ties with Germany saw a massive friction between the states.
Russia always aspired three things...

1) Controlling all former Polish territories.

2) Controlling or influencing the Orthodox majority Balkan states.

3) Conquering Constantinople.

These 3 things essentially came into direct friction with Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Ottomans.

With the Alliances formed by the Central Powers, the Entente was a natural step even with historical enemies.

Essentially Germany's ambition along with European mindset saw a climate ripe for war as no state could resolve the minor problems the other had with each state.

The 43 year peace (a extremely long time in European terms) was seen by all European powers as a Eye before the Storm"

Indeed, ironic that the two weakest of the 5 great powers (Austria and Russia) basically brought this war upon Europe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an incident in Samoa in the late 1890s but I'm unsure if the there was any direct confrontation. It involved an Anglo-American force in opposition to the appointment of a guy called Mataafa after the death of the King. They instead back his son I think and it basically evolved into a civil war.

"You see the thing is I don't really know. Was Prussia in paticular at any time hostile to Britain in the early modern period? '"
________________________

first of all, Britain most of the time played a role of isolation and concentration to her inner problems, especcialy after her "democrasy" in 1668. Prussia on the other hand, an extraordinary power for the time being always acted competitevly towards england, and more accurately on economical and warfare basis.
one thing that really helped england throughtout these centries is the fact that none war had involved in her soil thus left her with no particular difficulties of recovery.
About the hostility, at that time no, at that time prussia and england needed each other to establish monarchy in europe and drown every rebel movement. later with bismark and the unification of german states the two countries adobe a more hostile character.

cheers,
geo

--------------------

" H gis dn exei krikelia
gia na tin paroun ston omo kai na figoun
mhte boroun, oso k an einai dipsasmenoi
na glikanoun to pelago me nero miso drami."

Fwni kyriou epi twn ydatwn.
Nisos tis esti.

Salamina, kypros, noevris '53
SeferiS.
. . . . . . . . .
When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, Republic)

@ Georgia

Actually Georgia, Prussia had very benevolent relations with Britain and it's main concerns were Russia, Austria and France. When Britain took Hanover through linage The Prussians saw no problems at all, actually they allied with Britain and used Hanover as a staging ground against Napoleon for instance.

It was not merely a mutual need but a close relational ties (the Aristocracy in both countries were very mixed between each other). After the Republican ideals spread both Britain and Prussia sought its destruction as both were extremely Centralised Aristocracies.

Also Prussia was not consider a great power till around the turn of the century near 19th when it finally annexed Polish territory (Warsaw, Wielkopolska, Poznan) and moved towards the West into Cologne, Pfalz, Mainz and Kleves being the main provinces.



Success is commemorated; Failure merely remembered.

Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

As has been mentioned, there was no need for Britain & Germany to be rivals until the very end of the 19th century.

Until then they (And Prussia beforehand) more often than not shared common potential enemies in France and Russia. Prussia was forced into its alliance with Napoleonic France until breaking free to join Britain in the 6th Coalition. I assume the same was also true of other German states.

Previous posters have made some good points. After finally abandoning attempts to regain territory in France in the 16th century Britain had little interest in the continent beyond maintaining a balance of power and preventing any single country (Alternately Spain, France, Russia & finally Germany) from dominating the area.

And in earlier years the German states, busy in continental wars and undergoing unification, didn't have the ability to get involved in the race for colonies or the need to embark on a big naval programme.

However, I would disagree with Rzecz on his first point:- "Germany aspired for a Empire abroad, but Britain would have nothing of it."

I've just read Robert K. Massie's 'Dreadnought - Britain, Germany And The Coming Of The Great War.' I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the subject.

As Reaver has mentioned, Britain had no problem with Germany seeking some colonies and when relations were still good there was talk of German trade routes being protected by the Royal Navy.

Britain was very keen to keep good relations with Germany and saw it once again as a natural ally against France and to a smaller degree Russia. However, rather than enter into agreement Germany kept pushing for more and more demands in return for its goodwill.

This did not deter Britain, and it was prepared to give Germany a lot of leeway in order to secure its favour. Only when the German Navy Laws came along did relations start to sour, and this was long before the Morocco incident.

A natural balance for the two countries at the turn of the 20th Century is a strong Royal Navy and a strong German Army. That way both countries are safe from one another, can do little damage to each other and can both bring something to an alliance between the two.

This balance was threatened by the German naval building programme - specifically designed to fight the RN. The UK could not allow a hostile (As it was by then) power to have superiority on land and sea.

Many many attempts were made to negotiate a settlement but the German government, supported by the Kaiser, would have none of it.

When you read about it in detail the stupidity behind the German policy is staggering. They could have had it all! Britain was almost desperate for an alliance and they pissed it away.

If European tensions had continued it could so easily have been Britain, Germany, Turkey & Austra-Hungary vs France, Russia & Serbia and no US involvement - with the former winning comparatively easily (Compared to WW1).

That means no Hitler, a much easier defeat of Japan and probably no Cold war.

But that's a story for another day...

While I agree with most of your points, I disagree about the alliance bit. Large parts of the British political system were vehemently opposed to an alliance with Germany even in the early years. While the Kaiser's behaviour certainly worsened ralations, Britain's overly sceptical tone did not improve matters either.
While the navy law is seen as a provocation, Britain's alliance and rapprochement to France (a power with the stated aim of conquering now German soil) also put immense pressure on Germany.

All in all I would say that Germany did not grasp the importance the British attached to their sea control. On the other hand the British could not understand Germany's strategic position and its perpetual sense of being surrounded.

All in all I would agree, the First World War was indeed a massive waste.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've dug out my books again and there were very earnest discussions on the question of an alliance from at least March 1898.

These were conducted by Joe Chamberlain & Paul von Hatzfeldt.

But Britain finally realized it was wasting its time and stopped trying in January 1902.

It then turned its attention to France and the rest - as they say - is history.