AHC WI France attacks Belguim WW1

Suppose Germany had adopted a defencive stance in the West aiming to get some victories over the Russians and dictate a Peace where Austria's actions are accepted.

Is there any chance that France would have adopted Schliefen?

If so how would Britain react?

Britain still finds a reason to wage war against Germany. Its likely that we see a joint invasion of Belgium from France and the BE.

But brining France to do this, iffy one. Perhaps the French general staff goes so mad that their elan tactic dont work, they come up with a plan like this in 15 or 16.

MrHaakwood said:

Britain still finds a reason to wage war against Germany. Its likely that we see a joint invasion of Belgium from France and the BE.

But brining France to do this, iffy one. Perhaps the French general staff goes so mad that their elan tactic dont work, they come up with a plan like this in 15 or 16.

Click to expand...

Balderdash. Britain won't stand for any world power sat in Antwerp. At best they will sit out with sufficient guarantees of Belgian restoration. Sanctions are likely. France is screwed. The Anglo-German showdown is postponed...

TheKnightIrish said:

Balderdash. Britain won't stand for any world power exept it is Britain in Antwerp. At best they will sit out with sufficient guarantees of Belgian restoration. Sanctions are likely. France is screwed. The Anglo-German showdown is postponed...

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you!

Germany was the rival, France not. You dont really believe the BE went to war for Beligum, do you?

And thanks for making me google what Balderdash is.

I highly doubt France would, to attack a neutral country like that would just be an insult to their honor (give them a reason and it is a different story).

You would have the World War II equivalent of the "phony war". Britain would formally remain neutral although they might commit some troops to Belgium defense. There would be no naval blockade which would help Germany. Look for Balfour and Woodrow Wilson to broker a peace.

I'm not even sure France would launch such a plan even if they knew for a fact that it would work. If it didn't, they'd be going it alone (or at least without Britain) against Germany. It would be diplomatic suicide to violate Belgian neutrality. The Germans did it because they thought their war plan would work and they'd knock over France in something like six weeks.

Derek Jackson said:

Suppose Germany had adopted a defencive stance in the West aiming to get some victories over the Russians and dictate a Peace where Austria's actions are accepted.

Is there any chance that France would have adopted Schliefen?

If so how would Britain react?

Click to expand...

The fact of Belgium's violation would compel British entry into the war, to ensure Belgium's restoration at its conclusion. Since Britain could take the position that Germany had provoked France by attacking France's ally Russia, London has an obvious out for blaming Germany for France's actions.

The Kiat said:

I'm not even sure France would launch such a plan even if they knew for a fact that it would work. If it didn't, they'd be going it alone (or at least without Britain) against Germany. It would be diplomatic suicide to violate Belgian neutrality. The Germans did it because they thought their war plan would work and they'd knock over France in something like six weeks.

Click to expand...

One has to be very careful with the idea of 'diplomatic suicide' with a country as powerful as Germany. Britain simply did not have the margin for morality on the matter - turning against France would lead to German domination of the continent and tremendous Franco-Russian bitterness at Britain.

Best never to have made an Entente at all than to have lead France and Russia onwards, only to stab them in the back over, to borrow a term, a scrap of paper.

Derek Jackson said:

Suppose Germany had adopted a defencive stance in the West aiming to get some victories over the Russians and dictate a Peace where Austria's actions are accepted.

If so how would Britain react?

Click to expand...

I always say that when Germany entered Belgium, it guaranteed that Britain would enter the war on the side of France. If France would enter Belgium, it would guarantee that Britain would stay out of the war. Britain will not attack France, or declare war on France or even sanction France (although it is possible it will sanction both Germany and France). If France is so stupid to attack though Belgium (and I doubt they are), it will just mean that Britain stays out of the war and not even be a pro-French neutral (which is a likely scenario in a Germany doesn't attack belgium WWI).

I don't think they woould do it in any circonstance, they didn't want to be seen as the agressor.

Would an aggressive move like this give strength to the anti-war movement in France?

The French would have approached the British first and mentioned their intentions to move thru Belgium. The British would pressure the Belgians to stand aside and let the French thru.

However, I can see how the French would rather not want to widen the front if possible.

pompejus said:

I always say that when Germany entered Belgium, it guaranteed that Britain would enter the war on the side of France. If France would enter Belgium, it would guarantee that Britain would stay out of the war. Britain will not attack France, or declare war on France or even sanction France (although it is possible it will sanction both Germany and France). If France is so stupid to attack though Belgium (and I doubt they are), it will just mean that Britain stays out of the war and not even be a pro-French neutral (which is a likely scenario in a Germany doesn't attack belgium WWI).

Click to expand...

You do realise that if Germany wins the war, and Germany will win the war if Britain is neutral, that Britain would be second fiddle to Germany?

David S Poepoe said:

The French would have approached the British first and mentioned their intentions to move thru Belgium. The British would pressure the Belgians to stand aside and let the French thru.

Click to expand...

No, they'd just do it - no announcements, no muss, no fuss. One day, no violation, the next day, French cavalry is halfway across the Ardennes. When asked, the French will say the Germans caused their actions, and the British will have the luxury of pretending to believe them. The idiotic German method - loudly sending ultimatums all over Europe that force governments to resist because they are public, presumably is a mistake the French will avoid.

However, I can see how the French would rather not want to widen the front if possible.

Click to expand...

Without Belgium, the French army could not have a major impact on the war - the common border just is too difficult. This would allow Germany to defeat the Russians at their leisure (the French bleeding themselves out on the border forts), then coming around on France.

Pretty much agreed.

The United Kingdom's agreements with France were exceedingly ambiguous, a situation that was very deliberately engineered by Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, in order to ensure that the British government could essentially act as it saw fit.

The Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgium's neutrality was not, as it is often crudely misrepresented, a British guarantee for Belgium. It was a multinational guarantee for Belgium. The UK might have felt some extra responsibility because it had hosted the treaty, but there were many Britons of the opinion that the UK had no more duty to defend Belgium than any of the other signatory great powers. Ultimately it is my contention that the duty to Belgium was a major part of the British justification for entering the First World War IOTL, not a major part of the British reasoning.

Another major part of the UK's justification for going to war against Germany IOTL was that France had (rather foolishly) been so sure of British support that they had coordinated their naval strategy with that in mind, thus leaving their western coast virtually undefended in the expectation that the British Grand Fleet would take that area; thus, the argument went, the UK had to protect France, rather than leading France to believe in British intervention and then betraying the French. This argument will hold just as fully in this scenario as it did IOTL.

As for the United Kingdom's actual reasoning for going to war (mainly the growing economic power of Germany and the idea of a two-pronged problem: either Germany and Austria-Hungary win, in which case they're hostile to the UK, or France and Russia win, in which case they're hostile to the UK for betraying them by not entering the war) none of it will change.

So in my opinion the result of this would be that the UK's justification for entering the war would look much flimsier but it wouldn't stop the UK from entering the war. The major effect, in turn, of this would be that it decreases the probability of the United States entering the war against Germany.

Perfidious Albion said:

So in my opinion the result of this would be that the UK's justification for entering the war would look much flimsier but it wouldn't stop the UK from entering the war. The major effect, in turn, of this would be that it decreases the probability of the United States entering the war against Germany.

Click to expand...

>
>
>
I can see UK and France and maybe Belgium -claiming- Germany entered Belgium. UK could cut all the undersea telegraph cables, not just German ones as in otl. In the early days of war rumor chaos who would know? If attacked by UK/French/Belgium units on the Belgium/German border the Germans would counter attack into Belgium and the lie would become truth. Germany did something similar to Poland in 1939, after all.

Reader347 said:

>
>
>
I can see UK and France and maybe Belgium -claiming- Germany entered Belgium. UK could cut all the undersea telegraph cables, not just German ones as in otl. In the early days of war rumor chaos who would know? If attacked by UK/French/Belgium units on the Belgium/German border the Germans would counter attack into Belgium and the lie would become truth. Germany did something similar to Poland in 1939, after all.

Click to expand...

But why would Belgium ally with the Entente when they attacked them? Isnt is more plausible to ally with Germany?

Glenn239 said:

No, they'd just do it - no announcements, no muss, no fuss. One day, no violation, the next day, French cavalry is halfway across the Ardennes. When asked, the French will say the Germans caused their actions, and the British will have the luxury of pretending to believe them. The idiotic German method - loudly sending ultimatums all over Europe that force governments to resist because they are public, presumably is a mistake the French will avoid.

Click to expand...

If they don't announce their intentions (at least to the government) it would count as an invasion. If they secretly negotiated it however, I could see it happening.

MattII said:

If they don't announce their intentions (at least to the government) it would count as an invasion. If they secretly negotiated it however, I could see it happening.

Click to expand...

and why would the belgians allow? i do see them voluntarily being drawn into a conflict with germany.