Thread 17767872

Why did the British Empire accept the American naval expansion but see the German as an existential threat?

freemasonry, or the relative absence thereof?

>>17767872 (OP)
Wtf were the British supposed to do about it? America is too far away and too big.

>>17767872 (OP)
Because only one of those two countries was a dictatorship whose leader explicitly called on its soldiers to behave like huns sacking rome.

>>17767879
Germany and UK were both parliamentary monarchies. America is the outlier being a full republican democratic system

>>17767878
Support the CSA in the civil war for example. Or try to isolate America later in the century economically and diplomatically. It's not like the Brits defeated the German Empire militarly.

>>17767872 (OP)
They were afraid of America too but not enough unfortunately. I don't think anyone predicted how much America's rise would destroy the entire world

WW1 destroyed the world, not America.

>>17767896
America took over the world because of WW1

>>17767900
And ww1 was started and perpetuated purely over european autism. So its unfair to lay any blame on america over how things turned out.

>>17767908
>declare war on everyone because Austria wants to punish some Serbian assassins
Brits did some interesting decision during the 20th century.

>>17767888
>It's not like the Brits defeated the German Empire militarly.
??? That's explicitly what they did. Forging good alliances doesn't change the fact that WWI was literally a military conflict lol. The British Navy wasn't blockading Germany's ports using "nefarious schemes", it was a blatantly hostile military action which Germany was unable to stop with their own armed forces.

>>17767924
>Retard thinks WWI started with Britain "declaring war on everyone"
Is this what being a monolingual English speaker does to your brain? Britain wasn't even involved when France, Germany, Russia and Austria were all already mobilizing their troops

>>17767872 (OP)
Business with the US was profitable and them eclipsing Brittania was more of a slow and gradual thing that kind of escaped notice, whereas the German buildup was a direct belligerent threat to the homeland

>>17767888
>Support the CSA in the civil war for example
There were parts of Britain that wanted to, or at least would have liked to see a CSA victory, but with slavery being such a large part of the issue there it was a tricky sell in a country that had outlawed slavery and was using its navy to shut down the transatlantic slave trade as a matter of principle.

>>17767872 (OP)
The reason that German naval expansion was such a big deal for Britain was that the German Fleet was very clearly being instructed for one mission over everything else - complete domination of the North Sea. That might seem reasonable, even remarkably restrained, from the German perspective at the time - but for the UK that had all the hallmarks of an existential threat, as the only reason they could see for Germany wanting to dominate the North Sea was as preparation for a ground invasion of the British Home Islands.
>tl;dr - Britain cared about German naval expansion because it was very clearly aimed at the UK, and could only be used as a way for Germany to invade the UK.

>>17767872 (OP)
London financiers saw the US as a potential money-pot for various reasons, which turned out to be correct. There was little chance of further conflict after the war of 1812 was resolved. That's partly why stuff like the northwestern border disputes were resolved with diplomacy rather than war.

>>17767965
It’s obvious that Britain wanted the war and they were the real organisers and coordinators of the Entente. Also there is a good chance that they were involved with Black Hand and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

>>17768028
>Britain created Serbian Nationalism and assassinated the Arch-Duke in order to start a war that did horrific damage to Britain, killed hundreds of thousands of British troops, left over one and a half million British troops permanently crippled (not counting the harder to pin down numbers who were physically fine but suffering from some of the most horrific cases of PTSD on record), caused major problems for them domestically and internationally, and effectively left Britain vulnerable and unable to realistically prosecute a war for a generation
>They did this because . . . . they just did.
Anglophobia really is the bottom of the meme-ideology barrel, isn't it?

>>17768035
Who cares about countries? Do you think Britain or any country was homogenous entity with a shared will? These are modern politics where capital interests are more important than national ones. The British financiers were likely threatened by a new Berlin centered market which would overtake them especially as the loss of India was a reality by the 20th century.

>>17767872 (OP)
Because American expansion was unstoppable whereas Germany could be curbed. It is basic strategy, only expend resources fighting where you gain some sort of return for your efforts.

>>17768068
>Makes retarded point
>Gets called a retard for making a retarded point
>Starts immediate cope and seethe subroutine while talking about shit that has no baring on the conversation
At this point dude I think that the bots might actually be more self aware than you.

>>17768098
I pointed out that particular interests can and do override national or popular interests. How is that an irrelevant point in this conversation? By the way where did I claim that Britain created Serbian nationalism? You sound like a conformist who is afraid that his firm belief in his high school tier understanding of history is shaken.

>>17768109
Defend your claim that Britain was behind the Black Hand and assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Explain your understanding of their motivation for those actions.

The US central bank was created in 1913 at the best of prominent European bankers. 6 months later it's funding wwi. US gdp outpaced england in 1890 which also sparked the ascension of the US empire. The US has fulfilled its goal of becoming the largest economy in the world 100 years after independence to the detriment of all. But I guess the English would rather that happen than a German or French empire

Britain and America directly serve rothcild central banking

Germany was just a loose vassal

>>17767872 (OP)
America ruling elite = british

>>17768098
>>17768035
No argument, zog retarded

>>17767924
based
>>17768122
cringe

>>17768325
>>17768322
Samefag harder, it might actually work and not look completely retarded and pathetic next time.

>>17768122
It's more of a suspicion rather than a claim. But the Entente needed the war more as they were losing economically to the Central Powers. If that wouldn't be the case they would never have declared war on them over some dispute between Austria and Serbia.

>>17768028
>they were the real organisers and coordinators of the Entente.
Again, anglocentrism lol. It's not obvious at all, the French were always the biggest players on the land war

>>17767888
Okay. As a southerner, lets say the CSA gets its independence (as it should) then they'd just have two naval power houses to potentially deal with one.

>>17767872 (OP)
american civil war happened, north won jew york and city of london jews are one in the same, while southeners would have seen HRE take back control over central/south america/carribean, its all so tiresome

>>17769947
France was the useful idiot of the conflict.

>>17769957
>a divided America is weaker than a united one
anon...

>>17767872 (OP)
I'm not sure how the Jews were responsible but it was probably them

>>17767879
Germany was more democratic than the UK in 1914

>>17767984
Germany was a larger business partner for the UK than the US in every single moment in history. Even today once you compute services and traveling Germany is a more important bilateral partner than the US. British servilism to Amerijews will never stop being amusing

>>17768028
Britain went from the world's leading power (at least nominally) to the third one (at best) after WWI

We also have to account that the UK didn't want a real war as it was a paper tiger since the beginning. Its empire was on shaky grounds after the French and Spaniards BTFOed them in the American revolution war and before the French revolution the Franco Spanish navy was 50% larger than the royal navy and that only got reverted after the revolution caused all continental powers to overspend on land armies and dismantle their navies.
The French revolution BTFO all its main naval rivals which is the real cause of the rise of the British empire but as soon as there was a real rival the Brits showed that they were a pathetic power. Germany with a fraction of the manpower and resources had already overtaken the British empire in manufacturing output by 1910 and the Americans had surprassed them by 1899. A real war would just destroy the shaky grounds of British power which is what actually happened in WWI

>>17767888
>Support the CSA in the civil war for example.
There is very little the British could have done that would not have run the risk of backfiring spectacularly.

In 1860 the British Royal Navy was already stretched thin just trying to cover all the routes between the UK and their farther colonies like India. On paper they could challenge the US Union navy, but in practice moving enough ships to actually challenge the US continental blockade would leave the UK colonies vulnerable to all their other rivals.

On land the British disadvantage would have been absolutely disastrous. In the Crimean War they had only been able deploy 35,000 men at the Siege of Sevastopol. Which is nothing compared to even a medium sized US Union Army of 50,000 men. Considering the French army in Mexico only numbered around 38,500 men it's unlikely that the British could have brought over more.

At a medium sized battle like Shiloh both sides suffered losses (killed, wounded, captured) of around 20%. At a really bloody battle like Antietam Confederate losses were around 33%. Those kind of losses over just a handful of battles would absolutely wreak a British Expeditionary Corp. Even worse the photographs of heaps and heaps of thousands dead British soldiers would eventually cause the collapse of the British government back in London.

>>17767888
The British of the time weren't thinking about the likely probability that a unified USA would be able to surpass them in the next century for economic reasons, they were concerned about short and medium term profit for which there was absolutely zero sense in committing to a doomed war which would have alienated them from one of their biggest trading partners and driven them into the arms of their European rivals. Same reason the USA normalised relations with China and helped them develop with trade in the 20th century, because it made sense for profit in the short term to have access to that massive labour force and the Soviets were a much more immediate threat.

>>17767879
>whose leader explicitly called on its soldiers to behave like huns sacking rome.
That was in China and after a rebellion which was condemned by the UK just as harshly and firmly

America was on the other side of the Atlantic and was expanding mainly into the territorial waters of France and Spain. American expansion directly harmed Britain's two biggest competitors for maritime trade, while bolstering a nation it had normalized relations with.

Germany, meanwhile, had no access to the sea except through the North Sea, which was Britain's maritime backyard. It directly threatened their ability to control their home territorial waters which was the key to defending themselves because they did not have the land armies to match continental Europe.

>>17768468
>they would never have declared war on them over some dispute between Austria and Serbia.
They didn't. Britain declared war on Germany because it had asked both France and Germany to respect Belgium's neutrality. France replied that it would honor the request, Germany never did, then promptly invaded Belgium. Britain had made a pledge to defend Belgium if they were invaded, and so declared war on Germany.

The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary didn't come until later, when they formally declared war on Russia, thus triggering another defensive treaty that Britain and France had with Russia.

>>17770543
>Let me put a ridicolous excuse to justify entering into the war
Oh yes so righteous and unintentional

>>17770546
>the British specifically tell France and Germany that it would come to the aid of Belgium if its neutrality was not respected and they invaded Belgium
>Germans invade Belgium
>Brits declare war
>american retard 100 years later considers this a ridiculous excuse

>>17770577
That’s not how important decisions are made. A country won’t declare war if its leaders or elite doesn’t want it.

>>17770147
But what if they WERE divided, but still had a pact? I don't think the CSA would ever want full independence from the US, just really destroy whatever power the feds had (so they can racemix in peace, I respect it).

>>17770577
>Britain makes a threat that only benefits France and hurts Germany while carrying an anti German foreign policy for at least 2 decades
>Pretend it is a genuine excuse to join a war to cut down Germany's size
Sure thing Nigel

>>17770543
>>17770577
Sir this is /his/. We don't want you posting unless you're a Mexican teenager larping as a German nationalist.

>>17767872 (OP)
wtf nigel gonna do

>>17767888
>Support the CSA in the civil war for example.
They largely did. Not literally, obviously. But they were pretty much the only country on the planet that was at least willing to entertain supporting them and generally tried to support them in whatever way was politically acceptable. The issue is those were very few due to the CSA being incredibly unpopular internationally.

Literal slave owning Empires like the Ottoman generally supported the Union.

>>17767872 (OP)
They simply couldn't do anything about it and accepted their manifest destiny as an american vassal in the best possible terms. They call it "special relationship".

>>17767888
The Brits supported the CSA as much as they realistically could, especially in turning a blind eye to warships for the Confederacy built in British shipyards. After the war they paid out a good sum in the “Alabama claims” to apologize.
The political support just wasn’t there. Some of the upper crust liked the Confederacy’s cavalier LARPing and they wanted to hamstring a future Yankee empire and keep that cheap cotton coming to their mills, but public revulsion to slavery was overwhelming.

>>17770682
>>Britain makes a threat that only benefits France and hurts Germany while carrying an anti German foreign policy for at least 2 decades
I'd say that policy also benefitted Belgium, the neutral country that Germany decided to invade.