Why did Britain go to war with Germany in WWI, and why did Britain want to protect Belgium so much?

by Argon420BlazeIt

According to history class Britain went to war with Germany because of a treaty Britain had with Belgium, saying they would protect Belgium's neutrality. Germany invaded Belgium, and Britain hence declared war with Germany. But this to me doesn't make much sense, as from what I've read these treaties/alliances were not concrete promises and were very loose and malleable (Britain could have easily dropped out and not gone to war, this 80 year old treaty wasn't forcing them to do anything), and I am unsure of why Britain would want to protect Belgium so much that they would go to war with a strong country.

Because of this I assume Britain went to war with Germany for other reasons, so what are these reasons?

Orwabinalward

The built up towards World War I was long in the making and had a lot indeed to do with the German Ascendancy in Europe and in the world. But it is mistake to reduce it to that aspect only.

It is usually considered that Europe after the treaty of Vienna lived a century of peace (1815-1914). This is of course false, as military conflicts and internal struggles were still happening, but also and mainly most of the violence was vented outside in colonial enterprises, but we will get back to this later.

So the treaty of Vienna did instate a period of calm in the continent, the international umbrella provided by the conference was challenged by three elements :

  1. The competition between the European superpowers : The UK and Russia were clearly the ascendant powers, although the nature of each country was extremely different. The French were following up, but still, suffering the weight of Napoleonic wars lagged well behind. The other European countries were in a steady state of decline. The competition between Russia and the UK was characterized by little open confrontation but with a lot of espionage, diplomatic and undercover operations. The only open conflict between them was in the Crimean War.
    1. This situation changed with the rise of the Italian and German Unification, because everyone had reasons to court and worry about Germany. The French however, having been defeated by Germany in 1870-71 took a harsh "revenchard" anti German position (specially at the end of the Century) .
  2. The internal turmiol : Rapid industrialization and social changes made the traditional political framework unstable and inefficient. The first wave of revolutions in 1848 made the European rulers wary of liberal bourgeois pretensions, while the misery of the workers left the way open to the spread of socialist and anarchist ideas. Prussia (as a precursor to the German Empire, Austria, and Russia decided to side with each other and form a holy alliance, while France reverted to a new imperial form, and the UK contented with its relatively liberal system at the time, and didn't feel that much of the turmoil.
    1. In addition to these social movements another ideological element was adding to the internal disintegration of some countries : the new concept of a nation state meant effectively that multi-ethnic and multicultural Empires like the Russian, Austrian or Ottoman would suffer from these divisions, while ironically the consolidation of the "Big"Nation-States that meant the exclusion of "non" nationals, kicked a more fervent competition to build empires.
    2. It should be noted that many of the socialist movements were against the War, as they considered it a bourgeois war that would pit fellow proletarians against each other.
  3. Colonialism: Of course European colonialism didn't start in the 19th century, but I think that there is a clear difference between pre industrial and post industrial revolution colonialism. That is not only because colonial empires started competing for natural resources, but also for markets to sell these products in. The accumulation of capital in these countries meant that new investments should be done and so more production needed and markets to conquest. Colonialism was not only about controlling the markets, but also about eliminating any competition, including the destruction of local non industrialized economies, by the power of weapons or finance.
    1. This is best illustrated (but by no means limited to) by the scramble for Africa : In 1885 representatives of European powers (Including Belgium and the Ottoman Empire) met in Berlin to discuss the future of Africa, basically how it should be split between them, and then the scramble began. 30 years later, by the beginning of WWI all the continent (except for Ethiopia and Liberia) were colonized. The massive militarism that accompanied these wars and the strong economic competition made a war between these powers almost inevitable (there was basically no where else to expand except in the zones of influences of other countries).
    2. Colonialism was also considered as a good solution for internal turmoil : extra population could be absorbed into colonial schemes (as soldiers or settlers) and the extended markets of the empire made a good propaganda to workers in that the surplus of capital will directly benefit them (increase in salaries, more benefits, ..)

So if we take these elements into consideration we can realize that for the UK Belgium was nothing more than a casus belli. Germany by the turn of the century had a highly advanced economy that almost surpassed that of the UK (and if we compare Germany's colonial Empire with the British, and the industrial head start then we can have an idea of how dynamic their economy was), they were definitely getting the edge on the technological end as well. But the UK had to worry more than just about Germany : by the end of the 19th century the US GDP surpassed that of Britain, a sign of changing times.

From Britain's point of view its traditional rivalry with Russia and France had less and less meaning : Russia was a huge country, but very lagging in technology and industry, and France was now regarded more as a likeable rival, but who represented no real danger (The French after Trafalgar never really tried to challenge Britain in the seas), and the French from their end were becoming much more intent on taking their revenge on Germany (and effectively containing that much more immediate danger).

​

So when the war started, The British did cite their treaty with Belgium (it was under the double protection of France and the UK), but they didn't go to the war to protect Belgium : they wanted to stop Germany from taking their place, and (this is more of a speculation from my end) be ready to contain the US, with Europe pacified again behind its back.