England entering WW1

[The BigI]

With a few recent controvesial threads lately I was wondering what does everyone else think about The Empire's entry into World war 1. Would they have declared war on Germany if the German's did not enter nuetral Belgium? Me personally I don't think they would have entered the war unless the French were getting their arse handed to them(I think the French would be getting their arse handed them.)

[BlondieBC]

Mahan stated publicly by 1910 that the UK would enter on France's side, along with his statement that the Italy was moving towards the Entente. Senior A-H diplomat states that Grey told him they would enter before the war started.

Now it is not certain, may take longer, but it is the likely outcome. Britain was not going to let Germany control the channel with surface warships. To blockade France, Germany would need warships in the Channel and North Atlantic. These conflicting goals will lead to war, even if the UK initially does not go to war. The fears of foreign powers invading England was just too strong.

[simonbp]

It could be possible for the UK to enter the naval war, but restrain from any land operations. Not sure how the French would fare then...

[Ameise]

Would it be possible, once England started throwing around war talk, that Germany might offer them something such as Calais?

[Perkeo]

They would have entered as soon as they had a good excuse to do so, no sooner and no later. So I voted "other"

IMO Germany had made enough bad calls (such as a naval race with Britain) so that the British wouldn't be German-friendly - but they wouldn't have allowed themselves to look like the aggressor either. So they wait until Germany serves them a casus belli on a silver plate. They didn't have to wait long IOTL, nor would they in any scenario were the OTL German leadership is in charge.

A smart German leadership wouldn't have allowed the escalation to a two front war in the first place. Germany should have known that they had nothing to gain from a victory and everything to loose from a defeat.

[Riain]

It was an unstated war aim for Britain to kick the bejesus out of a trade and world power rival while she had some allies to do the heavy lifting. Notice that about the time Britain secured all of the worldwide CP posessions she went full tilt on the western front, and not before.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Riain

It was an unstated war aim for Britain to kick the bejesus out of a trade and world power rival while she had some allies to do the heavy lifting. Notice that about the time Britain secured all of the worldwide CP posessions she went full tilt on the western front, and not before.

Sounds great except Samoa was occupied by New Zealanders, New Guinea by Australians, Tsingtao and the Marianas by the Japanese, South West Africa by South Africans, Cameroon and Togoland with the French.

Anyway, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

[I Blame Communism]

Britain, I say, Britain, Britannia, Albion, Prydain, Breatainn, Britain! Have all them shot, shot!

Ekhem. Yes, a bit later, under a coalition government from the start is my opinion.

Originally Posted by Ameise

Would it be possible, once England started throwing around war talk, that Germany might offer them something such as Calais?

Absolutely not. The last time we were offered European territory (in 1814-15) we roundly rejected the idea.

[Fireaxe888]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Britain, I say, Britain, Britannia, Albion, Prydain, Breatainn, Britain! Have all them shot, shot!

Ekhem. Yes, a bit later, under a coalition government from the start is my opinion.



Absolutely not. The last time we were offered European territory (in 1814-15) we roundly rejected the idea.

Yeah, you look down on us Europeans so much you can't bear the thought of having (gasp) Frenchmen in your country.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Fireaxe888

Yeah, you look down on us Europeans so much you can't bear the thought of having (gasp) Frenchmen in your country.

What? But we've had them here for pushing a thousand years, owning us!

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Originally Posted by Perkeo

A smart German leadership wouldn't have allowed the escalation to a two front war in the first place. Germany should have known that they had nothing to gain from a victory and everything to loose from a defeat.

Sorry, but it seems that you did not understand the dynamics that lead to World War I.
Nearly everyone of both sides wanted the war. Germany had to fight a two front war, even if they did not start it. The alliance with Austria-Hungary made Germany a target for the Russian forces. And France was allied with Russia. With Russia in the war France will also be in the war and attack Germany. That was known to the German high command. But they did not believe that Britain will honour a treaty nearly that guarantees the existence of Belgium. Why? At that time it was normal ignore treaties.
So they could not prevent the war (although the Kaiser tried to do this) and they could also not prevent the two front war.

[Riain]

Originally Posted by Devolved

Sounds great except Samoa was occupied by New Zealanders, New Guinea by Australians, Tsingtao and the Marianas by the Japanese, South West Africa by South Africans, Cameroon and Togoland with the French.

Anyway, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Just as an aside, nothing to do with this topic, the highest ranking Australian in WW2 was John Collins. His command had one Australian ship, the one he commanded from, the rest were RN. From the Royal Navy perspective John Collins was the most senior man on the spot in the Royal Navy, regardless of him being Australian or educated at the RAN college, he was interchangeable with any RN officer of equivilent rank and experience.

On another, totally non-related topic, one of the battlecruisers disposed of under the terms of the Washington treaty of 1922 was the flagship of the RAN-HMAS Australia, sunk off NSW. It being considered that naval units of the Dominions were indistinguishable from any other RN unit. Similarly the 8 inch County class cruisers HMAS Australia and Canberra were included in the Washington Treaty allowance of 15 for the RN, despite being RAN ships.

Similarly Churchill didn`t feel the need to consult the Australian of New Zealand governments before commiting the 3 Aus/NZ divisions (the bulk of the fighting force) to Greece in WW2. Nor did he feel the need to place an Australian General in command of Australian-heavy force. They were British Commonwealth forces, so went where the supreme command in the British Commonwealth felt they should go and were commanded by who they felt should command them.

On topic at hand, aside from a few places occupied by the Japanese and the French, the British captured or were in the process of capturing all overseas possesions of the CP before making a big effort on the western front.

[krull1m]

Originally Posted by Riain

Notice that about the time Britain secured all of the worldwide CP posessions she went full tilt on the western front, and not before.

So are you trying to claim that the British intentionally did not commit their full support to the western front because they wanted to seize all the overseas territories that they could first? That they therefore deliberately prolonged the war for purely mercenary reasons?

Because if so then you are horribly wrong, and rather insulting too.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Riain

Just as an aside, nothing to do with this topic, the highest ranking Australian in WW2 was John Collins. His command had one Australian ship, the one he commanded from, the rest were RN. From the Royal Navy perspective John Collins was the most senior man on the spot in the Royal Navy, regardless of him being Australian or educated at the RAN college, he was interchangeable with any RN officer of equivilent rank and experience.

On another, totally non-related topic, one of the battlecruisers disposed of under the terms of the Washington treaty of 1922 was the flagship of the RAN-HMAS Australia, sunk off NSW. It being considered that naval units of the Dominions were indistinguishable from any other RN unit. Similarly the 8 inch County class cruisers HMAS Australia and Canberra were included in the Washington Treaty allowance of 15 for the RN, despite being RAN ships.

Similarly Churchill didn`t feel the need to consult the Australian of New Zealand governments before commiting the 3 Aus/NZ divisions (the bulk of the fighting force) to Greece in WW2. Nor did he feel the need to place an Australian General in command of Australian-heavy force. They were British Commonwealth forces, so went where the supreme command in the British Commonwealth felt they should go and were commanded by who they felt should command them.

On topic at hand, aside from a few places occupied by the Japanese and the French, the British captured or were in the process of capturing all overseas possesions of the CP before making a big effort on the western front.

You are certainly right about being off topic. The rest is wrong as most of Britain's frontline regular army was in France by the end of August 1914.

[FletcherofSaltoun]

Originally Posted by Fireaxe888

Yeah, you look down on us Europeans so much you can't bear the thought of having (gasp) Frenchmen in your country.

What was George Wiggs famous phrase? (albiet, the phrase is oft taken out of context)

[Riain]

Originally Posted by Devolved

You are certainly right about being off topic. The rest is wrong as most of Britain's frontline regular army was in France by the end of August 1914.

I notice the two qualifications of regular and frontline. The regular British Army amounted to 12 divisions, but only 7 of these were in Britain in August 1914, and only 5 of these were sent on mobilisation. Territorial units who volunteered for overseas duty were swapped over for regulars in overseas garrisons, so these could be fed into France. The 400,000 Territorials were not instantly mobilised and sent to the grinder in France, in contrast to the French and German reservists. When regulars arrived back in Britain and were formed into divisions they were sent to France.

Despite having Regulars, reservists, special reversists, Territorials, the Indian Army as well as the armies of the Dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand Britian did not split the BEF into two armies becuase it had too many divisions for one army to control until boxing day 1914, 4 months after the war started.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Riain

I notice the two qualifications of regular and frontline. The regular British Army amounted to 12 divisions, but only 7 of these were in Britain in August 1914, and only 5 of these were sent on mobilisation. Territorial units who volunteered for overseas duty were swapped over for regulars in overseas garrisons, so these could be fed into France. The 400,000 Territorials were not instantly mobilised and sent to the grinder in France, in contrast to the French and German reservists. When regulars arrived back in Britain and were formed into divisions they were sent to France.

Despite having Regulars, reservists, special reversists, Territorials, the Indian Army as well as the armies of the Dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand Britian did not split the BEF into two armies becuase it had too many divisions for one army to control until boxing day 1914, 4 months after the war started.

I used qualifications because I was sticking to facts and not using general statements to highlight so kind of political point.

[kspence92]

Without going through Belgium, they would struggle to defeat the French.

The United Kingdom (not just England btw, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the UK) would have to act eventually or look weak in the face of perceived German aggression. Or else ally with Germany.

[Laqueesha]

I don't see how England could enter the war, seeing as they lost their independence when they became a part of the United Kingdom back in May 1707. Would make as much sense as Minnesota and New Brunswick declaring war on Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[Fireaxe888]

Originally Posted by FletcherofSaltoun

What was George Wiggs famous phrase? (albiet, the phrase is oft taken out of context)

What was it, indeed? The only one I can find relates to the World Cup.