kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <1148212793.652303.135670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> black_on_white@... (Derrick) wrote:
>
> > Successive British governments followed
> > a policy of appeasement when confronted with the ambitions of
> > state-makers in the US.
>
> Britain's main concern was economic trade with South America,
> this was never threatened by the US. The other point of
> irritation was US "Open Door" policy in China.
This seems like a non-sequitir. Are you trying to imply, by this, that
British governments did _not_ follow a policy of appeasement towards
their rivals in Washington?
> > I don't understand what you mean. French power was a real
> > threat, though not an actual harm. That's why British >
> governments went to pains to settle disputes with French >
> governments.
>
> About the only colonial incident that came close to war was
> Fashoda, in that case the French backed down when Britain
> threatened war.
As an aside: I'm unclear on the extent of Marchand's brief. Was he
actually authorised by his superiors in France to confront the British?
A lot of French officers in the colonies more or less set their own
agenda.
> The main reason for the British attitude was that
> it was becoming clear that "Splendid Isolation" was becoming
> impossible and a continental ally was going to be needed.
Which is why their first ally of the 20th Century was Japan!
This "End of Splendid Isolation" stuff is utter rubbish. The Entente
Cordiale wasn't a military alliance, it was a series of documents that
settled colonial disputes. That process did a great deal to improve
Franco-British relations, of course.
> > You've got it backwards. The _British_ fleet posed a threat to
> > _Germany_.
>
> How?
By blockade.
> By the way Look up what Tirpitz said about "Risk Fleet".
I know about Tirpitz's dubious naval notions. It seems, however, that
naval planners in London were more worried about fighting a cruiser
war.
> On the other hand
> British planners were worried about a German invasion as they had
> nothing but the BEF.
And the Royal Navy.
Actually, do you have a cite on invasion worries? I know that the
public was concerned, but I must admit to being somewhat ignorant on
the professional opinion.
> You might also want to consider this. All British imports
> arrive by sea. Most of German imports arrive by land routes.
The point about the nature of British trade is true but trivial.
Coal-fired battleships simply lacked the range to blockade Britain (and
it is for this reason that I'm somewhat skeptical of your claim about
professional fears of German invasion).
As regards Germany, your claim might be true (I don't have the figures
in front of me) but it's irrelevant at best, and misleading at worst.
Maritime trade was very important to the economy of the Second Reich,
and the ability of the Royal Navy to cut that trade off presented a
grave threat.
- Derrick
|
