British Reward for WWI Neutrality

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Take a relatively common* ATL where Britain in neutral in WWI, and the CP beats the remaining Entente (in, say, 1917) -- what would the aftermath be like in Britain and in the British Empire?

For example, how is the political landscape changed -- do the Liberals now stand a better chance of remaining one of the chief political parties? Does Ireland get Home Rule sooner? And what of the empire at large? AIUI, WWI was among the most significant blows that brought it down OTL; if Britain is neutral in it, does that mean the empire endures longer?

*though admittedly, somewhat contested
 

ThatGuyOverThere

I imagine that the Home Rule Act would have been passed, although there would be intense Unionist opposition. Britain might get some of Frances colonies-maybe Germany offers them in return for neutrality, or more likely, Britan joins in on the German side late in the war to deny them colonies that might be in a position to threaten the Empire in the future. If WW1 still sees the mass casualties and trenches of OTL, Britain might retreat into "Splendid Isolation", concetrating on the Empire and maybe making reforms-Imperial federalism perhaps? Relations with the US would probably be close-Japan is still going to be a threat, and Germany and eventually Russia will both potentially be hostile. The US might want to largely ignore the outside world, but with a resurgent Russia and a Germany with possessions in the Pacific I doubt this would be possible
 

Lord Brisbane

Without the war, it is likely that Ulster will turn into a total mess. The UVF will be ready to fight the conflict it had been planning and preparing for years. Once things are set in motion, even the grandees like Carson are unlikely to be able to control events once 'the balloon went up'.
 

abc123

Banned
ThatGuyOverThere said:
I imagine that the Home Rule Act would have been passed, although there would be intense Unionist opposition. Britain might get some of Frances colonies-maybe Germany offers them in return for neutrality, or more likely, Britan joins in on the German side late in the war to deny them colonies that might be in a position to threaten the Empire in the future. If WW1 still sees the mass casualties and trenches of OTL, Britain might retreat into "Splendid Isolation", concetrating on the Empire and maybe making reforms-Imperial federalism perhaps? Relations with the US would probably be close-Japan is still going to be a threat, and Germany and eventually Russia will both potentially be hostile. The US might want to largely ignore the outside world, but with a resurgent Russia and a Germany with possessions in the Pacific I doubt this would be possible
Click to expand...


My opinion too.

Also, profits of selling food, weapons, ammo and other things to the both sides would be pretty big. Also loans for both sides.
Reputation of "Perfidios Albion" would IMHO become even stronger.
;)
 

KillerT

Yup a nation of shopkeepers :) We should have stayed out. After all what has Belguim ever been but a pain in the arse for the UK? Now its the sodding European Union. I'd have had shot of it. Let the Germans exercise themselves around the Champs d'Eylesse and flog a load of obselete tat to both sides (pretty much as the States did to us in any case). Keep an eye on new developments so that you can keep developing industry and technology and jobs a goodun. Come 1916 and there are millions fewer Germs and Froggies decide which ways best to go and join in with the victor and get some spoils...That was and should have remained the way we played it but George V and his boy wanted that damned Entente...
 

abc123

Banned
KillerT said:
Yup a nation of shopkeepers :) We should have stayed out. After all what has Belguim ever been but a pain in the arse for the UK? Now its the sodding European Union. I'd have had shot of it. Let the Germans exercise themselves around the Champs d'Eylesse and flog a load of obselete tat to both sides (pretty much as the States did to us in any case). Keep an eye on new developments so that you can keep developing industry and technology and jobs a goodun. Come 1916 and there are millions fewer Germs and Froggies decide which ways best to go and join in with the victor and get some spoils...That was and should have remained the way we played it but George V and his boy wanted that damned Entente...
Click to expand...


I agree. And even then in 1916. or 1917. just limit yourself to naval warfare with some puny forces in Euroe, and snatching of enemie's colonies. So, if with Germany- go for Belgian Congo, and if with France go for Namibia and Tanganyika.
;)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
So you basically get about a million more british youth alive, which is good.
You get a tremendous loss of face as Britain has decided to let its diplomatic obligations towards Belgium fall to the wayside.
And you still get a situation where economically, the US (already), Germany (soon) and, eventually, even Russia and France will overtake the UK in a few generations. Especially given that Britain will still hurt if a worldwide economic crisis hits.
In terms of impacts for the UK it's not so bad, in terms of impact for the prestige of the imperialists it's pretty bad.
 

Pax Britannia

Staying out of the war would have undoubtedly lengthened the life of the British Empire however I think the diplomatic consequences are often underplayed.

Seeing as we just ignored our obligations to Belgium and allowed our allies France and Russia to go it alone I think the Empires standing in the world would go down. However if we intend to go into another 'splendid isolation' then who cares?
 

abc123

Banned
archaeogeek said:
So you basically get about a million more british youth alive, which is good.
You get a tremendous loss of face as Britain has decided to let its diplomatic obligations towards Belgium fall to the wayside.
And you still get a situation where economically, the US (already), Germany (soon) and, eventually, even Russia and France will overtake the UK in a few generations. Especially given that Britain will still hurt if a worldwide economic crisis hits.
In terms of impacts for the UK it's not so bad, in terms of impact for the prestige of the imperialists it's pretty bad.
Click to expand...


So who cares about french or russian opinion?
France and Russia will be defeated and destroyed nations, so who gives a s*** about their opinion?! And if we side with Entente, they would be overjoyed that we helped them at all.
UK will have more population, more money, more colonies and stronger Royal Navy. In 4 years of war, by continuos shipbuilding Royal Navy could remain by far the strongest in the World.
Also, demise of British Empire and his transformation in Commonwealth ( some sort of NATO/ European union ) in 2000. sounds much better to me than OTL situation.
;)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
abc123 said:
So who cares about french or russian opinion?
France and Russia will be defeated and destroyed nations, so who gives a s*** about their opinion?! And if we side with Entente, they would be overjoyed that we helped them at all.
UK will have more population, more money, more colonies and stronger Royal Navy. In 4 years of war, by continuos shipbuilding Royal Navy could remain by far the strongest in the World.
Also, demise of British Empire and his transformation in Commonwealth ( some sort of NATO/ European union ) in 2000. sounds much better to me than OTL situation.
;)
Click to expand...

Ah yes... the typical rule britannia bullshit.
I knew I should have avoided yet another thread where you're going at it.

And given France and Russia carried most of the war manpower-wise, honestly, losing Britain will be harsh but not that harsh as to be a 100% chance of defeat, especially with the french navy being second in the world.

Should I also remind that when the French tried their landing in the Balkans, they didn't fail.

Also it's not just French and Russian opinion.
They now have the US which doesn't like british colonialism and is now already wealthier and more powerful (the London Naval Treaty? It was Britain asking for it because they knew the US could outbuild them), and Germany will be shortly even if not navally quite yet. As continental hegemon.
And they don't like Britain.
 

Wozza

archaeogeek said:
So you basically get about a million more british youth alive, which is good.
You get a tremendous loss of face as Britain has decided to let its diplomatic obligations towards Belgium fall to the wayside.
And you still get a situation where economically, the US (already), Germany (soon) and, eventually, even Russia and France will overtake the UK in a few generations. Especially given that Britain will still hurt if a worldwide economic crisis hits.
In terms of impacts for the UK it's not so bad, in terms of impact for the prestige of the imperialists it's pretty bad.
Click to expand...

I don't see any particular reason France should overtake Britain in this timeline. Not that it couldn't necessarily.

This whole concept is highly flawed - the fact remains that the British weren't convinced the Central Powers would beat France and Russia. This whole idea depends on a crystal ball.

Isolation would indeed be a massive loss of face. and was seen as the riskiest options. I'm not sure that Germany would offer any concession. and what do they even have to give?

The POD needs to be noticeably earlier to be plausible.
 

Kelenas

Actually, without Britain, there's a good chance that the Schlieffen plan to knock out France shortly after the war will be successful; the BEF was critical in stopping the German advance at some points, and later France relied heavily upon British loaning money to (or for) them to buy war materials with. Without either, France might fold in early '15, after which Germany turns east. With the Ottomans likely to join the fray against Russia, the war might be over in '16, with far less casualties on all sides. Not the worst outcome, I'd say.

- Kelenas
 

Wyragen-TXRG4P

Banned
archaeogeek said:
And they don't like Britain.
Click to expand...

Germany would actually appreciate that the UK didn´t go to war on Franco-Russian side.
Without UK involvement in WW1, perhaapse London might decide to take a more radical approch with Japanese help if the US keep seeking to outbuild the RN.
 

Wozza

archaeogeek said:
And given France and Russia carried most of the war manpower-wise, honestly, losing Britain will be harsh but not that harsh as to be a 100% chance of defeat, especially with the french navy being second in the world.
Click to expand...

This ignores the economics, and slightly differently, the finances of the situation.All Allied borrowing was controlled through a single commission dominated by the British, without British credit the financial position will be incredibly weak.

They are also of course the ones vulnerable to blockade in this situation.

It's hard to see France and Russia lasting beyond 1916 I think.
 

ThatGuyOverThere

I think it depends when neutrality is decided upon. If its before alliances with France and Russia are finalised, perhaps with a less ambitious German shipbuilding programme not worrying Britain as much, neutrality seems the way to go. Let Europe fight it out, and if Britain is really lucky the war will be as long and painful as it was in OTL, giving the Empire even more of a lead. A Britain that stays largely out of Europe would possibly see Japan's ambitions as its main threat, and even if something cant be worked out with the US, Britain can easily deal with Japan on her own. On the other hand, Britain abandoning her allies in the run up to war would be diplomatically isolated, staring across the Channel at a continent who's only thing in common would be resentment towards the UK.

In an ideal world, something like this would happen:

thebestthebest.jpg
 

baldy46

Kelenas said:
Actually, without Britain, there's a good chance that the Schlieffen plan to knock out France shortly after the war will be successful; the BEF was critical in stopping the German advance at some points, and later France relied heavily upon British loaning money to (or for) them to buy war materials with. Without either, France might fold in early '15,
Click to expand...

My guess is that there's no "miracle on the Marne" and Paris and then France falls before Christmas 1914.

Kelenas said:
after which Germany turns east. With the Ottomans likely to join the fray against Russia, the war might be over in '16, with far less casualties on all sides. Not the worst outcome, I'd say....
Click to expand...

With Britain never in and France knocked out, my guess is that the Kaiser and the Czar come to an "agreement" in early 1915.

There will certainly be a WHOLE LOT less casualties in Europe during this "abbreviated" WWI. Unfortunately this leads to the colonial empires lasting longer and the casualties in India alone after the Indian revolution starts are liable to dwarf what was seen in the European theater during WWI in our time line.
 

Bernard Woolley

We'd get a Europe dominated by one power. Something the UK and England before it have striven for hundreds of years to prevent. We'd probably also get a potentially hostile power in Flanders, another thing we've gone to war to prevent in the past.
WW1 was essentially a continuation of previous British Foreign and Security policy.

Our reward, if you want to call it that, would be a possible confrontation with Germany in the near future without any help from France, or Russia.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
I don't see it lasting beyond 1915, and I don't think France and Russia will be destroyed. The CP will probably insist on a restitution of Poland, somewhat ironically, but otherwise give Russia an easy peace. France won't be so lucky but instead of homeland territory willl probably lose colonies and foreign influence to be replaced by Germany

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top