Keeping Britian Out of WWI.

How long could Britian keep out of WWI?

If Germany did not invade Belgium or Belgium let the German's though to France, would Britian declare war?
If not how long would it be before Britian does and why?

This is a very open question and therefore could have some very different ideas comming up.

Over to you.

For starters you need som POD round, say, 1905, or so. You need Willie to be much less arrogant and unpleasant person, or ideally no Willy at all. Arguably, Germany aims collided with British on fundamental level anyway and without changing international dynamics in a way that probably butterflies entire WWI away, no can do, I think. As long as there is great war on the continent and UK is what it is, they will get involved. They always did.

Shaby said:

For starters you need som POD round, say, 1905, or so. You need Willie to be much less arrogant and unpleasant person, or ideally no Willy at all. Arguably, Germany aims collided with British on fundamental level anyway and without changing international dynamics in a way that probably butterflies entire WWI away, no can do, I think. As long as there is great war on the continent and UK is what it is, they will get involved. They always did.

Click to expand...

Yes we did. It is not in the UK's interest, nor arguably Europes interest as a whole to have a hegonomic power on that continent.
Belgium was a trigger for entry that enabled the UK to enter from a moral and legal high ground. Come what may though before 1914 is over The British empire is at war

Britians was the most responsible for the war in the first place.

Their entire european policy was forcing Germany into a corner.

And your sources for this statement would be ?

Much depends upon Krupps...

...The long-range heavy guns like 'Schwere Gustav' might have been the death of the Verdun forts and the French forts near the Alsace-Lorraine border. If these guns and the railway timetables were available, I could see the invasion route being well to the south of Luxembourg. Blitzing the French defences with a barrage of heavy shells could make it possible to get through to Paris before the French can mobilise their reserves.

Kaiser Bill might, of course, suddenly realise that his surface fleet is too weak and (a crib from Prince Henry and the Rise of the U-boats) get a blockade force of U-boats across the supply routes to threaten/sink without warning in mid 1914. Cripple/sink enough Royal Navy tonnage (a la Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy) and the Kaiserliche Marine has half a chance to blockade Britain and force her to stay out of the war.

A third possibility (discussed in some TLs) has Britain continuing to act as a naval power and providing arms to France 'but not one man'. It has always amazed me that Britain did not hold to this rule in 1914, despite intervention in the Peninsular War and in Crimea - the Boer Wars should have been as severe a lesson as was the American Civil War.

corditeman said:

the Boer Wars should have been as severe a lesson as was the American Civil War.

Click to expand...

They were a lesson. The British army put less effort into training for drill, and a lot more into training for rifle-handling (for both marksmanship and rate of fire), after that... which is why the German army's official estimate, after the initial clashes, was that we had 28 machine-guns per battalion although in fact the actual figure was only 2!

WI Germany simply decided to be defensive in the west.

hugh lupus said:

Yes we did. It is not in the UK's interest, nor arguably Europes interest as a whole to have a hegonomic power on that continent.
Belgium was a trigger for entry that enabled the UK to enter from a moral and legal high ground. Come what may though before 1914 is over The British empire is at war

Click to expand...

The British cabinet was very divided on the issue of declaring war, without Belgium there might have been a considerable delay in the declaration and who knows what would have happened if the threatened resignations took place?

Derek Jackson said:

WI Germany simply decided to be defensive in the west.

Click to expand...

And attack Serbia with the Austrians? Which brings in Russia ,which brings in France ,which brings in the UK.
WW1 is like a bar room brawl in a John Wayne western, once the first punch is thrown every one is drawn in ...even the piano player

IIRC, there were some in the Cabinet who suggested that Britain might still stay out of the war, despite the German invasion of Belgium, provided that Germany give guarantees that her fleet would remain in harbor.

I would say that the only real way to keep Britain out without rejiggering the entire balance of power would be to have Britain already engaged somewhere else when the shooting starts in Europe. While that wouldn't be too hard to bring about the problem then becomes that France very much had the mindset that in the event of a war with Germany they needed Britain on their side so you'd likely need to tweak thinking across the channel a bit as well in this scenario.

Difficult, since German and British interests before the Great War are contradictory. The UK does not want any power to have a hegoemony over all of Western Europe; Germany wants exactly that. So even if Germany delayed an invasion of France, hoping that doing so would keep Britain out, allowing them to keep being connected to the global market (no blockade) as well as letting the French bleed themselves out while strorming German defenses in Elsass-Lorraine - once the Germans go to the offensive, the British would join in to protect France and have fresh troops at their disposal. So to keep Britain out of the war you would have to substantially change both German and British policies. Germany would have to be less aggressive, not challenging Britain in a naval race, be less pushy about colonies and its "place under the sun", assure it it has no interests in the Low Countries and France. Technically, Germany doesn't need an alliance with Britain - it just needs its neutrality towards a continental war to achieve its objectives.

Britain too would have to be more defensive, less willing to protect France, as that was what it fought for (aside for keeping the empire). Alliances with Russia, Italy or Yugoslavia are irrelevant - the UK has no interests in fighting over the South Slavs, Italians in Alps or Poles. On its own, it had actual reasons to dislike Russia (the Great Game in central Asia, Persia, Russia's march to the Bosphorus). Less aggressive Germany could do that, by keeping the British policy as its "interests ending on the Channel" rather than changing it to "interests ending at the Rhein" if Germany isn't seen as a navalor colonial threat. Wilhelm II not making so many blunders to alienate the Brits would help too (no Kruger Telegram, pushing for an alliance, and so on). Eventually however it still would be hard - Realpolitik tells you to judge others based on their capabilities, not intentions. If Britain stayed out of the war and Germany pushed east, the UK would eventually realize that Germany controlling Mitteleuropa is just as dangerous (maybe even more) as a Germany controlling the Low Countries and Normandy. This would be reason enough to go to war to put it down.

hugh lupus said:

WW1 is like a bar room brawl in a John Wayne western, once the first punch is thrown every one is drawn in ...even the piano player

Click to expand...

Does this make the U.S. the piano player?

but in all seriousness, i believe the British would have remained neutral, leaning towards the Entente if Germany didnt invade Belgium. im in the middle of reading The Guns of August, and i have to say that Belgium Neutrality seems to be the biggest issue for Britain.

i understand that England's biggest problem with the German Empire was the fact that they were building a navy to rival the UK's. perhaps a pod were Germany isn't all about building a navy would keep England neutral. or better yet make the Curragh Munity explode into something bigger forcing England to look to its self first.

deathscompanion1 said:

Britians was the most responsible for the war in the first place.

Their entire european policy was forcing Germany into a corner.

Click to expand...

So Britain told Billy to grant Vienna a blank cheque to do whatever Vienna wanted?

Difficult, since German and British interests before the Great War are contradictory. The UK does not want any power to have a hegoemony over all of Western Europe; Germany wants exactly that.

Click to expand...

Not really...

Like has been pointed our ealier in the thread, the Great War analysed as the Great War was the result of a system of alliences that once it kicked off brought all the power-that-be into a conflaguration of war.

If we look at Germany through the late 1800s it very much didn't want war with France and Russia and even signed an allience with Russia to help prevent this. As things go, the Kaiser Wilhem didn't renew the Allience, which ended up allowing France to sign the Russo-Franco Alience (1890), and it was only as late as 1904 when Britian joined the Allience to make it the Entente Allience.

What can be seen as a major contributing factor to the hostilities was Germany's wish to challenge the Royal navy thus leading to the naval arms race between 1909 and the beginning of the Great War.

This is inself corresponds to a tension between GB and Imperial Germany, but if a suitable detente is formed anywhere in that period to 'align' Anglo-German relations in naval power, then you defuse the Anglo-German tensions.

Indeed, if Germany doesn't mobilise offensively against France and instead mobilised to border regions and only joins with Austria-Hungary against actions against Serbia and Russia, once Serbia capitualates the triple allience can sue for peace.

A peace that would likely be accepted by the French, but not by the Russians leading to a fragmentation of the Entente Powers.

Britian never gets involved because the German millitary doesn't threaten the Low Countries.


Counterpoint: The French and English were in talks through the late 1900s about Germany's industrilisation, but in the context of things one has to realise this is the legitermate 'jelosity' of France and Britian against accepting a new Great Power in Europe, and bugger all to do with German 'warmongering' if anything its the French beginning these talks and alliences that could be considered the 'warmongering', since the Russo-French Allience is designed to counter Germany specifically.

From the English point of view, it is the fate of France that nessitates their action.

What the British fear is that a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war will lead to France becoming 'annexed' or 'controlled' by Germany, and hence giving Germany access to the Channel and the Atlantic. This coupled with Germany's naval build up, looks like some grand strategic plan to control Europe. Especially after Britian starts creating propaganda to that effect.

In reality Germany's naval build up is her flexing her new industrial power for her colonial ambitions as a new nation of European importance. To be an important European nation, you need to have colonies and a decent army. Which is her rationale.

Which means, if Germany during the Balkens crisis makes clear that Germany won't invade against France, but will stand by Austria-Hungary, then Britian has no 'Just Cause' to enter the war, and most likely won't because the geopolitical propaganda has just backfired on the government, and after the first few losses start rolling in by the end of 1914 its going to look dicy for the French offensives if conducted (if the French don't conduct offensives, then a late entry may be more likely).

The key points of divergence;

1. Some time during 1905-1914 Anglo-German relations reach a detente over German naval ambitions, be it treaty or simply a reduction in expenditure.

2. Germany rules against the Schlifen Plan, in favour of a defensive stratergy against France. (This could be the result of Austria-Hungarian-German communications being simply better; since the AHs wanted help against Russia, not France and France was only being dragged in by relations ostentaibly; although see counterpoint)

3. Germany makes clear that she is only supporting Austria-Hungaries position in the Balkens, and against Russian influence and has no 'quarrel' with France. Which to some degree Germany didn't, sure there was bitterness between the nations, but there were not any large claims Germany could make on French territory in Europe or fessibly any way to control the entire french nation.


These points are not extensive, but they do require the change of focus, over changes in inderviduals. Therefore it is unlikely to occur, unless you can create some POD that creates a change in the zeitgeist of the time PPPN.

I read on a previous thread that apparently the Kaiser urged his General Staff not to implement Schlieffen but to attack in the east and just sit behind the fortified frontier of Alsace-Lorraine, the French tried to attack there IOTL and got absolutely minced, until Russia had been dealt with and then attack west. However the Generals insisted on sticking with the plan, had the Germans done that then British entry would have been a lot later in coming.

Genmotty said:

3. Germany makes clear that she is only supporting Austria-Hungaries position in the Balkens, and against Russian influence

Click to expand...

Do you really think that Germany went to all that trouble just to support Asutria-Hungary? I've read some convincing claims that it backed A-H specifically to draw Russia into a war, with the intention of carving large areas of lebensraum -- maybe even as much as they managed to get ceded under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in fact -- out of Russia.

Maybe a POD is that Billy took more notice of his grandma, Victoria. If so the little buggers could play nice?

hugh lupus said:

Yes we did. It is not in the UK's interest, nor arguably Europes interest as a whole to have a hegonomic power on that continent.

Click to expand...

from the tone of your answer I've surmised you thought I somehow criticize or believe it is wrong for UK to get involved in European affairs. I just meant to say that British have always been involved in European affairs matter of factly. Britain as great power could not sit in the audience and allow any one power take over hegemony of Europe. They viewed as their interest and perhaps intentionally or not also served best interests of Europe.

IMHO, it was impossible for both France and UK to stay out of war. If Germans and Russians clashed and France stayed neutral, they would betray their Alliance. If France got involved, UK would betray the allance if they stayed neutral. There is simply no way to have European war in this period and that anyone stays out of it. As has been pointed out in the thread.