"Of course Germany had the right to build a big navy if they wanted to. However, they have to accept responsibilities for the consequences, which was making England into an enemy, when there was no other reason for England side against Germany. Also keep in mind that the very construction of the fleet was an agressive & bellicose act against Britain. The fleet that Germany built was useful only against Britain. Up to about 1901, the Royal Navy was still planning for a war against France & Russia, especially in the Mediterranean. Suddenly, between 1901 & 1903, the RN realized that the German fleet was being built for the sole purpose of defeating the Royal Navy and starving Britian into surrender. It was the equivalent of the Soviets putting nuclear missiles in Cuba in the early '60s, and Britain reacted accordingly/ "
Germany did not view Britain as a natural enemy, so German fleet was built with the purpose of not starving Britain, but to force Britain and US into recognizing that Germany will no longer be willing to be shut out of colonial spoils. BTW, US was doing exactly the same thing with their own navy, which by 1905 was the third-largest in the world, but I do not see British react the same way to them!
"There was some action to Weltpolitik, although such action was failure. Germany started the two Moroccan Crises, which only served to bring the Entente powers closer together. Germany was more aggressive than any other power from 1890 to 1914. While the other powers jostled each other in the colonial sphere, Germany was the only power that repeatedly attempted to upset the balance of power in Europe. Britain & France may have nearly clashed over Fashoda in 1898, but it that was a colonial matter, which did not involve Europe. Germany, however, seemed intent on destroying its opposition in Europe. "
How is that? Outside of Morrocan crises (which can be classified as colonial affair) what did exactly Germany do which was so agressive?Austria and Russia were the only two Great Powers that were seeking annexations in Europe between 1870 and 1914.
"Germany in 1914 was actually a declining power, like I stated before. Tirpitz's "risk theory" had patently failed, the German army was declined in strength vis-a-vis France & Russia, and the viability of the Schlieffen Plan was becoming increasingly doubtful. The German domestic position was in shambles, after the triumph of the Social Democrats in the elections of 1912. Its only reliable ally was rapidly declining in strength and its long-term survival was increasingly in doubt. It is not a matter of the weaker states allying against the strongest. Rather, it is a case of the most aggressive state gambling that it still had the strength to break out of the diplomatic encirclement that it had itself created. No one else wanted war in Europe in 1914, but had war forced upon them by Germany. Britain's government would have collapsed had it attempted to enter the war prior to 3 August, but Germany's invasion of Belium united British opinion around supporting the Belgians. Germany never realized that the poor strategic position they were in was a direct result of their own actions."
Germany in 1914 was probable the world's strongest power. It had the second-largest economy, the world's best army (and only Russia's was bigger), and the second largest navy. WWI proved that Germany was MUCH stronger than either Britain, France, or Russia individually. Basically, the way I view the Triple Entente reasons for warring with Germany are those:
France - still stupidly bitter about Alsace-Lorraine. Blaming Germans for their own decline and naively thinking that Germany's defeat would allow France to reclaim the #1 slot in Europe.
Russia - hostile against Austria and Germany is Austria's ally. Also, blames Germany for blocking Russia Westwards expansion in the Balkans.
Britain - more or less knows that its days on the top are numbered. The only question is whether US or Germany will replace it as a top dog. British thinking is that Germany's rise to prominance, will necessarily mean Britain's destruction or plunge into irrelevance, due to Germany's "agressive nature" and autocratic government. Meanwhile, US rise to the position of world's top dog would still allow for Britain to retain a lot of influence and colonies, given the two countries similiar values and American traditional isolationist policy. Thus, Germany must be stopped, while nothing should be done about American rise.
Germany did not view Britain as a natural enemy, so German fleet was built with the purpose of not starving Britain, but to force Britain and US into recognizing that Germany will no longer be willing to be shut out of colonial spoils. BTW, US was doing exactly the same thing with their own navy, which by 1905 was the third-largest in the world, but I do not see British react the same way to them!
"There was some action to Weltpolitik, although such action was failure. Germany started the two Moroccan Crises, which only served to bring the Entente powers closer together. Germany was more aggressive than any other power from 1890 to 1914. While the other powers jostled each other in the colonial sphere, Germany was the only power that repeatedly attempted to upset the balance of power in Europe. Britain & France may have nearly clashed over Fashoda in 1898, but it that was a colonial matter, which did not involve Europe. Germany, however, seemed intent on destroying its opposition in Europe. "
How is that? Outside of Morrocan crises (which can be classified as colonial affair) what did exactly Germany do which was so agressive?Austria and Russia were the only two Great Powers that were seeking annexations in Europe between 1870 and 1914.
"Germany in 1914 was actually a declining power, like I stated before. Tirpitz's "risk theory" had patently failed, the German army was declined in strength vis-a-vis France & Russia, and the viability of the Schlieffen Plan was becoming increasingly doubtful. The German domestic position was in shambles, after the triumph of the Social Democrats in the elections of 1912. Its only reliable ally was rapidly declining in strength and its long-term survival was increasingly in doubt. It is not a matter of the weaker states allying against the strongest. Rather, it is a case of the most aggressive state gambling that it still had the strength to break out of the diplomatic encirclement that it had itself created. No one else wanted war in Europe in 1914, but had war forced upon them by Germany. Britain's government would have collapsed had it attempted to enter the war prior to 3 August, but Germany's invasion of Belium united British opinion around supporting the Belgians. Germany never realized that the poor strategic position they were in was a direct result of their own actions."
Germany in 1914 was probable the world's strongest power. It had the second-largest economy, the world's best army (and only Russia's was bigger), and the second largest navy. WWI proved that Germany was MUCH stronger than either Britain, France, or Russia individually. Basically, the way I view the Triple Entente reasons for warring with Germany are those:
France - still stupidly bitter about Alsace-Lorraine. Blaming Germans for their own decline and naively thinking that Germany's defeat would allow France to reclaim the #1 slot in Europe.
Russia - hostile against Austria and Germany is Austria's ally. Also, blames Germany for blocking Russia Westwards expansion in the Balkans.
Britain - more or less knows that its days on the top are numbered. The only question is whether US or Germany will replace it as a top dog. British thinking is that Germany's rise to prominance, will necessarily mean Britain's destruction or plunge into irrelevance, due to Germany's "agressive nature" and autocratic government. Meanwhile, US rise to the position of world's top dog would still allow for Britain to retain a lot of influence and colonies, given the two countries similiar values and American traditional isolationist policy. Thus, Germany must be stopped, while nothing should be done about American rise.
