The Balance of Power
King’s College naval
historian Andrew Lambert has written an over-detailed evaluation of British
geopolitical strategy from 1793-1914. After fighting France for 22 years
Britain settled on a strategy of offshore balancing and maintaining order in
Europe enforced by the Royal Navy and a small expeditionary force. The initial
goal was to prevent a revanchist France from regaining control of Europe. The architects
were Prime Minister Lord Liverpool, Foreign Secretary Castlereagh, and the Duke
of Wellington. The latter initially as the hero of Waterloo and later as prime minister.
Their policies were enhanced by Lord Palmerston as both foreign secretary and
prime minister.
Britain’s greatest
fear was that a continental power could launch an invasion from the low countries.
Hence it was crucial to keep France out of the Scheldt Estuary and the Port of
Antwerp. When Belgium split off from Holland the 1839 Neutrality Treaty
orchestrated by Palmerston kept France out. The result of that treaty and Britain’s
troop presence in Belgium in 1870, kept both France and Germany out of Belgium
during their war. This would not be so in 1914.
The linchpin of the
strategy was the power of the Royal Navy whose goal was to be at least twice as
strong as any two powers. Aside from a quantitative advantage the Royal Navy had
the most technologically advanced fleet by taking advantage of steam power,
screw propellers, gunnery, and hydrology. The Royal Navy truly ruled the waves and it enabled
Britain to become a global power through its colonies, but for that power to be
maintained there had to be an offshore balance in Europe.
For most of the 19th
century the policy succeeded largely because France was in a long-term relative
decline while Britain was moving to its heights. However, after 1870 Britain
entered into a relative decline in relationship to a newly reunified Germany.
As a result, it required an alliance with France which severely limited Britain’s
freedom of action. Britain learned the hard way in the trenches of France.
Given all of Britain’s interest in Belgium, it is a wonder why Germany was
unsure about Britain’s entry in World War I after it invaded Belgium.
Although Lambert
discusses the 1815 Vienna settlement, he makes little note of Count Metternich
of Austria whose interest in a stable Europe was greater than Britain’s. He
also does not cite Henry Kissinger’s “A World Restored” on the Congress of
Vienna. He also left out a discussion on the 1878 Congress of Berlin where
British Prime Minister Disraeli played a leading role in settling, at least for
a time, the Balkan question. There is way too much information in this book,
and I would only recommend it to history nerds.
No comments:
Post a Comment