A Continent Asunder, an alternate World War 1

Hello all. Found this site recently and have spent the last few months reading timelines. I decided to get started on my first contribution. Hope you enjoy

It was in 1906 set to the back drop of a war between Russia and Japan, and rising tensions between Germany and France over Morocco at the Algeciras Conference that Bernhard Von Bülow whispered in the ear Sir Edward Gray. “In the case of an war between Germany and France what would it take to secure British neutrality.”

Grey, who feared the rise of Germany remained silent. However after the conference an aide of his reported the question to his prime minister.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman response was in private talks with Prince Bernard, almost a year later that, “The sentiments of the English people would be totally averse to any troops being landed by England on the continent without due cause. However Great Britain has made commitments to Belgium and France. The Royal Navy will not tolerate warships in the Channel nor will His Majesty’s Government tolerate an invasion of Belgium.”

In London these words were forgotten about, however in Germany Prince Bernhard von Bülow this reduced feared of British intervention in a European conflict should the Schliefen plan not be executed. For this reason he drew up orders that the Prussian general staff should create an alternate plan to the Schlieffen Plan on the basis of a Russia first war.

Von Molkte’s protests were met with the answer, “Sometimes military expediency must be tempered by diplomatic necessity.”

The Von Molkte Plan, was thus drawn up. The greatest irony is that Von Molkte himself was in favour of the Schlieffen Plan and argued steadily against the Von Molkte Plan.

With the ascension of Asquith to the role of Prime Minister of Great Britain Sir Edward Grey’s hand was strengthened as foreign secretary. With this change in British policy it seemed that Von Molkte would assure the supremacy of the Schlieffen Plan.

It was in 1909 when Von Bülow saw the coming end of his Chancellorship that he felt that he did not wish to go down due to domestic issues without one of last coup in his earlier stomping ground of foreign affairs.

As the debate on inheritance tax spread through the Reichstag Von Bülow was in London. He wished to speak with Asquith and not with Grey with whom he had spoken to at various conferences. “Mr Prime Minister, can we discuss the prospect of a European war between with Germany and Austria Hungary on one side, and France and Russia on the other side.”

Asquith cocked and eyebrow, “and where would Britain be in this discussion Chancellor.”

Von Bülow nodded, “Exactly the question that all of Europe wonders, Mr Prime Minister, your late predecessor once said ‘The sentiments of the English people would be totally averse to any troops being landed by England on the continent without due cause. However Great Britain has made commitments to Belgium and France. The Royal Navy will not tolerate warships in the Channel nor will His Majesty’s Government tolerate an invasion of Belgium.’ Do these sentiments apply to your government as well.”

He was putting Asquith on the spot and both knew it. Asquith didn’t have advisors or ministers to hide behind. It was just the two heads of government present. This of course was Von Bülow’s ambition seeing Grey as preferring to remain evasive. In truth Von Bülow had the measure of Grey’s character. The man felt that as long as no one knew Britain’s position Germany wouldn’t attack France and Russia and France and Russia wouldn’t attack Germany without certainty of British support.

Asquith nodded, “In principle I support my predecessor’s comments however I would add further comments. Britain will not accept a Dogger Bank incident anywhere in the world. A single British ship fired upon by German warships could well be taken as an act of war. In addition there is a difference between an offensive war and a defensive one. I cannot see Britain joining a Franco Russian declared war on Germany however should Germany fire the first shot and invade France it could paint a different picture.”

Von Bülow returned to Berlin and was promptly defeated on the subject of inheritance taxes. Von Bülow immediately announced his resignation. However at the same time he briefed his successor and the Kaiser on the words of Asquith and went into his Italian resignation confident that in getting a direct answer from Asquith that he had won a great foreign policy victory.
 
Last edited:
It was in the year of our Lord 1909 that Theobald Theodor Friedrich Alfred von Bethmann Hollweg ascended to the chancellorship of the Empire of Germany. In foreign policy his priorities were peace with the British empire, war with France and Russia and alliance with Austria and Italy.

British peace non-involvement was considered essential for any war with France and Russia to have a significant chance of success.

Theobald knew that British intervention could easily scare Italy out of the Triple Alliance so it was essential that he Germany remained within the terms of the guarantee issued by Asquith.

The first declaration of war with a great power would have to come from France and Russia. Unfortunately the Balkan crisis had died down without a Russian declaration of war.

Russian industrialisation means that war would have to come before 1920 at the latest in order for Germany to have a reasonable expectation of success and the earlier the better.

In order to reduce British fears of Germany and reduce the tensions between the two countries Theobald convinced Admiral Tirpitz that the Kaiser class of Dreadnaught battleships should consist of three and not five vessels. Effectively this move conceded the Naval arms race to Britain early.

In addition 1911’s König consisted of just three vessels and 1912/1913s Derfflinger class Battlecruiser consisted of just two vessels.

A flash point was needed to provoke a declaration of war by Russia and France, one that would not inflame the British people.

A flashpoint came in 1911 in the form of the second Moroccan crisis. However it was deemed to difficult to take advantage of without provoking a British response. A rebellion against the Sultan provoked an effective French invasion. A German Naval intervention was met with a deployment of British Dreadnoughts. It was for this reason that Germany backed down with a public statement deferring to Britain given its significant presence in the area the role of mediating the conflict between France and the Sultan.

This left Britain in an awkward position. Germany had put Britain in a position publically where Britain was expected to find peace. An attempt to find peace would be denying France an opportunity to annex Morocco as a colony which was the German plan.

At Britain’s request France backed down withdrawing forces from Morroco. Spain, France, Germany and Britain would jointly stand as protectors of Moroccan independence.

This served to separate British and French relations slightly.

On June 28 1914 Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was shot and killed in Sarajaevo. Europe sat on the brink of war.
 
This is good.
Thanks
subscribed!
Thanks, I'm glad to see that I provoked your first post ;)
Interested to see which way this timeline takes.

Interesting - I am wondering how you manage it that the French or Russians to declare war first...

We won't France or Russia will declare first, that's just German thinking on what is necessary. However we will see some butterfly's from the few changes during the July crisis.
 
So a possible "Russia First" war-plan for the Germans and British neutrality? The First World War might just end with a German/Central Powers victory at the end of all this. Either way, you have my attention.

Also, without Tirpitz's fleet building program. How is the German Imperial Army compared to the OTL one? Seeing as the ITTL German Army would have had more funding available to them than their OTL counterparts.
 
I think this is a great idea; I applaud your understanding of the competing factions in German policy and also your bravery in starting a TL so soon after joining the site. I'm also especially fond of the topic of diplomatic manoeuvrings in the pre-WW1 era, and I'm happy to see a TL about it.

That's why I don't mean to seem harsh when I give this quibble:

Sir Edward Grey was secretive by nature and had a great tendency to hide things from Parliament and the rest of the Cabinet alike. I doubt that he would report something so potentially disadvantageous to his anti-German position as this to the Prime Minister.

However, I don't think this makes your TL unworkable. In 1904 there was a meeting between Wilhelm II and Leopold II, King of the Belgians, in which Wilhelm essentially told Leopold that Belgium had to pick Germany's side in the event of a German war against France or the UK or else Germany would invade Belgium; that's not the only occasion such a thing happened, as there were at least two other occasions on which Wilhelm II threatened the King of the Belgians (Leopold II and Albert I) with invasion, even once in 1913. If one of these slips out to the press, not just to the British, French and Belgian governments (as it did IOTL), there could be sufficient uproar in the UK as to clarify to the German civilian government (though probably not to much of the German Army) that the British would react very badly to a German invasion of Belgium—which will be especially good if it's the 1913 occasion, where Moltke the Younger was also present and participating while the German Emperor threatened Albert I, since it'll discredit Moltke's advocacy of the Schlieffen plan. The main problem, in turn, with that is the opinion (generated by Wilhelm II's behaviour) that, as the Prince of Hohenlohe put it while he was Chancellor, "It seems that His Majesty is recommending another new programme but I don't take it too tragically; I've seen too many programmes come and go", but even that might be solved in the case of the 1913 occasion, since Moltke (a fairly senior figure) was involved too, not just Wilhelm II.

In any case, I hope you don't mind me throwing in a few thoughts (if you do mind, please feel free to say so and I'll stop giving them) and I'll be happy to read some more.

And, of course, subscribed.
 
So a possible "Russia First" war-plan for the Germans and British neutrality? The First World War might just end with a German/Central Powers victory at the end of all this. Either way, you have my attention.

Also, without Tirpitz's fleet building program. How is the German Imperial Army compared to the OTL one? Seeing as the ITTL German Army would have had more funding available to them than their OTL counterparts.

There isn't a massive cut in naval building. Two Kaisers and a Konig less as well as one less battlecruiser which OTL wouldn't be commissioned till 1917 anyway.

That leaves Germany with 14 battleships by the end of 1914 (IOTL 17) and 5 battlecruisers (as OTL). Its not a massive financial saving but enough to reduce British fears. Trying to work out if this confidence and British non involvement is enough to butterfly away Erin and Agincourt and what effect it will have.

The German army is very similar to OTL with the addition of a few companies of railway engineers and a stockpile of rolling stock capable of using Russian railway guage.

I'm not sure Britain will remain permanently neutral, through World War 1 the military gained influence through the war IOTL and I would imagine that the same will happen hear. These military figures are unlikely to pay as much attention to the niceties of neutrality as the civilian pre war administration.

I think this is a great idea; I applaud your understanding of the competing factions in German policy and also your bravery in starting a TL so soon after joining the site. I'm also especially fond of the topic of diplomatic manoeuvrings in the pre-WW1 era, and I'm happy to see a TL about it.

That's why I don't mean to seem harsh when I give this quibble:

More like lazy, I've been reading for month's its just a timeline idea was needed to motivate me to actually fill out the registration ;)

Quibble away

Sir Edward Grey was secretive by nature and had a great tendency to hide things from Parliament and the rest of the Cabinet alike. I doubt that he would report something so potentially disadvantageous to his anti-German position as this to the Prime Minister.

Perhaps I should change it slightly so that an aide of Grey's reported the question to the Prime Minister. After all the German's were trying to ask the question openly enough so that Grey had to commit so they wouldn't ask in private although its private enough that there are no French or Russian's around. He didn't but word got back to the Prime Minister.


In any case, I hope you don't mind me throwing in a few thoughts (if you do mind, please feel free to say so and I'll stop giving them) and I'll be happy to read some more.

And, of course, subscribed.

Your thoughts are welcome
 
Last edited:
All across Europe the assassins were publicly condemned. Never mind the fact that the German General Staff were rubbing their hands with glee.

Von Molkte was particularly delighted. Here was the opportunity for war and it did not appear as if the German politicians would steal the opportunity from him. There appeared to be a legitimate cause for Austrian war with Serbia which would surely pull in the French and Russians.

Von Molkte pushed for immediate mobilisation. This was rejected on the basis that “Germany could not be seen to be the attacker.”

War was certain the question was as to the scale of the war. The Russian government hoped for Russian and Serbia against Austria Hungary, while the German government hoped for France Russia and Serbia against Germany, Austria Hungary Italy and perhaps the Ottomon Empire and Bulgaria could be convinced to join the Triple Alliance.

At all cost’s Britain was to remain outside the war.

On the 23rd of July 1914 Austria presented its demands to Serbia. The Serbian reaction was to visit the Russian embassy in Serbia to "express his despair over the Austrian ultimatum, compliance with which he regards as an absolute impossibility for a state which had the slightest regard for its dignity."

On the same day the British Prime Minister offered mediation, promising to influence Russian in order to prevent the outbreak of a general war. This was encouraged by Germany hoping that Britain trying to influence Russia away from war could prevent British interference.

A report reached the German Chancellor Theobald Hollweg that the Russian ambassador in London’s response to the idea of mediation by Britain France and Germany between Austria and Russia would break apart the Triple Entente.

His response, in simple words “Gut!” and to pen a missive to the British Prime Minister informing him that it is regretful that Russia will not listen to British requests to peace.

The Russian’s hoped that Britain would join a greater European war with themselves and France against Germany and Austria-Hundary. Russian planning hoped that British involvement would scare Italy out of the Triple Alliance and into the allied camp.

“Russia is trying to drag us in. The news this morning is that Serbia had capitulated on the main points, but it is very doubtful if any reservations will be accepted by Austria, who is resolved upon a complete and final humiliation. The curious thing is that on many, if not most of the points, Austria has a good and Serbia a very bad case. But the Austrians are quite the stupidest people in Europe (as the Italians are the most perfidious), and there is a brutality about their mode of procedure, which will make most people think that is a case of a big Power wantonly bullying a little one. Anyhow, it is the most dangerous situation of the last 40 years.”

On the 26th of July the German foreign minister Jagow stated that “neither London, nor Paris, nor Berlin wants a war, Vienna does desire revenge against Serbian terrorists, but not a great European War, and who can blame them, would not London desire the same were the Prince of Wales to be murdered by Serbian terrorists. Moscow however has a bloody minded ambition to defend slavs of all stripes, even murders and terrorists.”.

Asquith informed a friend of his that "...the situation is just about as bad as it can possibly be. Austria has sent a bullying and humiliating ultimatum to Serbia, who cannot possibly comply with it, and demanded an answer within forty-eight hours-failing which she will march. This means, almost inevitably, that Russia will come to the scene in defence of Serbia and in defiance of Austria, and if so, it is difficult for Germany and France to refrain from lending a hand to one side or the other. So that we are in measurable, or imaginable, distance of a real Armageddon. Happily, there seems to be no reason why we should be anything more than spectators."


Please note that there is a minor change in the first post.
 
Nice update.

I do like your usage of OTL quotations (though minus the affair of Irish home rule—which butterflies are you proposing in Ireland ITTL?) in this very different context. The interesting thing is that they manage to remain appropriate; in particular Asquith's quotation sounds like it must surely have been invented for TTL and couldn't possibly have occurred IOTL, and yet we already know that that isn't the case.

I'm not sure Britain will remain permanently neutral, through World War 1 the military gained influence through the war IOTL and I would imagine that the same will happen hear. These military figures are unlikely to pay as much attention to the niceties of neutrality as the civilian pre war administration.

I think there is a brief window of opportunity in which the UK might enter the war, between the time when Germany attacks France (which was always going to be contentious unless Germany submits to British conditions that make the German navy essentially unable to be used against France) and the time when the horror of the Western Front becomes fully apparent. The issue of the Kaiserliche Marine vs the French Atlantic coast, except of course Belgium, is the one issue that has the serious potential to serve as a British casus belli; IOTL, of course, both flashpoints went hot. Germany won't dare to try to restrict British trade with France because such an attempt would be obviously doomed to inevitable failure, so that's not an option for a casus belli, and there's little else that Germany could do, during wartime, that would antagonise the UK enough to bring it into the war at a time when the Western Front's horror (which I think would be more easily noticed in a neutral UK than in a much-further-away USA) is widely known. So I don't think that even an aggressive military government in Germany dominated by the likes of Moltke is enough to bring the UK into the war unless the war has only been going on for, roughly, half a year at most.

More like lazy, I've been reading for month's its just a timeline idea was needed to motivate me to actually fill out the registration ;)

Fair enough. :D

Quibble away

Then I will…

Perhaps I should change it slightly so that an aide of Grey's reported the question to the Prime Minister. After all the German's were trying to ask the question openly enough so that Grey had to commit so they wouldn't ask in private although its private enough that there are no French or Russian's around. He didn't but word got back to the Prime Minister.

The problem there is that Sir Edward was not just a secretive man but a very successfully secretive man. He managed to keep the content of his negotiations with France secret from the Cabinet, both major political parties, both houses of Parliament and the monarchy at the same time. Clearly he must have been exceptionally careful. Some other crisis, such as the 1913 Germano-Belgian royal meeting or anything else that anyone might think of, puts the potential for leaks into the hands of people who aren't so extremely competent at preventing leaks: for instance, the 1913 Germano-Belgian royal meeting has the fatal information passing through the French and Belgian and British governments (as it did IOTL), not just through Sir Edward alone, so there's more potential for something to go wrong.

Your thoughts are welcome

Thank you.

Oh, and something has just occurred to me that ought to have been blindingly obvious already: having had their hopes of British entry to the war, strongly implied by Sir Edward, dashed by the UK (I presume that you're not writing TTL merely to have the British enter the war a few weeks later than they did IOTL), the French are going to absolutely despise the UK after the war, whatever its outcome.
 
Nice update.

I do like your usage of OTL quotations (though minus the affair of Irish home rule—which butterflies are you proposing in Ireland ITTL?) in this very different context. The interesting thing is that they manage to remain appropriate; in particular Asquith's quotation sounds like it must surely have been invented for TTL and couldn't possibly have occurred IOTL, and yet we already know that that isn't the case.

I take more pride in the mildly altered and target completly changed quote from Sir Henry in the first post.

As to Ireland well thats still to be determined. I would imagine that Home Rule of some sort will go through as scheduled.Or maybe delayed slightly in order for a commission to address unionist concerns.

I think there is a brief window of opportunity in which the UK might enter the war, between the time when Germany attacks France (which was always going to be contentious unless Germany submits to British conditions that make the German navy essentially unable to be used against France) and the time when the horror of the Western Front becomes fully apparent. The issue of the Kaiserliche Marine vs the French Atlantic coast, except of course Belgium, is the one issue that has the serious potential to serve as a British casus belli; IOTL, of course, both flashpoints went hot. Germany won't dare to try to restrict British trade with France because such an attempt would be obviously doomed to inevitable failure, so that's not an option for a casus belli, and there's little else that Germany could do, during wartime, that would antagonise the UK enough to bring it into the war at a time when the Western Front's horror (which I think would be more easily noticed in a neutral UK than in a much-further-away USA) is widely known. So I don't think that even an aggressive military government in Germany dominated by the likes of Moltke is enough to bring the UK into the war unless the war has only been going on for, roughly, half a year at most.

I'd say its more likely to be a civilian government committing to respect Belgium neutrality and the English channel but changing their mind after the victory in the East. "Britain wouldn't stand with France and Russia against us then, why will they now"

But I haven't exactly worked through the details as of yet.

The problem there is that Sir Edward was not just a secretive man but a very successfully secretive man. He managed to keep the content of his negotiations with France secret from the Cabinet, both major political parties, both houses of Parliament and the monarchy at the same time. Clearly he must have been exceptionally careful. Some other crisis, such as the 1913 Germano-Belgian royal meeting or anything else that anyone might think of, puts the potential for leaks into the hands of people who aren't so extremely competent at preventing leaks: for instance, the 1913 Germano-Belgian royal meeting has the fatal information passing through the French and Belgian and British governments (as it did IOTL), not just through Sir Edward alone, so there's more potential for something to go wrong.

I'll do some research and maybe adjust this slightly. Perhaps Von Bulow refuses to deal with an evasive subordinate and pushes for a direct meeting with the Prime Minister in which he asks.


Oh, and something has just occurred to me that ought to have been blindingly obvious already: having had their hopes of British entry to the war, strongly implied by Sir Edward, dashed by the UK (I presume that you're not writing TTL merely to have the British enter the war a few weeks later than they did IOTL), the French are going to absolutely despise the UK after the war, whatever its outcome.
I would imagine that that would happen all right.
 
On July 28 1914 the Austro Hungarian Empire declared war on the Kingdom of Serbia. This act was condemned in the capitals of St. Petersburg, Paris and London. Rome issued a statement expressing its regret that peace could not be found and wishing for a speedy resolution. Berlin on the other hand issued a statement that a Russian or French mobilisation would be considered by Germany an act of war.

In a telegram to Asquith, Von Bethmann-Hollweg expressed that simple pragmatism required that Germany by the nature of its position between a pair aggressive behemoths in France and Russia required that Germany respond to mobilisation and not a declaration of war.

The response from London was confused as Sir Edward Grey and Asquith sent separate responses to the German Chancellor.

Asquith’s reasonable response was that His Majesties Government understood and accepted the German stance that mobilisation was equal to a declaration of war. Grey’s telegram stated that invasion of Belgium or France would be considered an act of War by Britain.

Early on the 29th of July word reached Berlin that Grey had resigned from his position as foreign secretary. This was celebrated in Berlin as Grey was seen as the biggest Hawk in the British Government.

On July 30 Tsar Nicholas of Russia sent a message to his cousin the Kaiser informing him that he had ordered partial mobilization against Austria, and asking him to do his utmost for a peaceful solution. Kaiser Wilhelm’s response was that a mobilisation would be a declaration of war, knowing as he did that Russia did not have the capability to partially mobilise her army, instead only a full mobilisation was possible.

On 30 July the German army ordered a full mobilisation. The, ironically named ‘Von Molkte Plan’ would be implemented by General Hindenburg while Von Molkte was responsible for the western defences of Germany.

In London, Asquith wrote to Stanley that “the general opinion at present—particularly strong in the City—is to keep out at all costs”. While in the backrooms of London a faction around Churchill (who had not resigned from Cabinet) and Grey coalesced with the aim of bringing Britain into the war.

Their lobbying seemed to be futile however they along with Bonar Law of the conservative party managed to ensure a moderate build-up of the armed forces.

On the 1st of August Britain declared its neutrality in the continental conflict, in addition the British neutrality red lines were spelled out, Britain would intervene if either side sailed warships through the Channel or if either side invaded Belgium.

Gunnar Knudsen the Norwegian Prime Minister reached out to Britain seeking a request that Norwegian neutrality would be guaranteed by Britain on the same level as Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality. Britain agreed and on the 15th of August announced that Norwegian neutrality was considered on the same level as Belgium neutrality by the British Empire.

The Italian government declared that it was felt that the Triple Alliance was a defensive arrangement and that while Austria and Germany was under attack by Russia and France Austria had started the war with an invasion of Serbia.

That said Italy mobilised her armies. All knew that it would be unlikely for Italy to stay neutral in an extended war with mobilised army and her entry into the war was considered imminent.

It was considered likely that Italy was stalling for the completion of 4 dreadnought class battleships that had been launched but were not yet commissioned.

A treat had been signed between Germany and ministers of the Ottoman Empire however as the Sultan himself had not signed it was not considered to be worth the paper it was signed on and was not relied on. It was known that the Ottoman Empire would not ally with Russia under any circumstance. Ottoman neutrality was confirmed with the "Notification of Neutrality" issued by the Ottomans on 18 August.


I know I skipped a couple of weeks at the end but I wanted to deal with a lot of the diplomatic stuff here. I will go back as appropriate.
 
Thanks for the update. Some interesting stuff, and I like your butterflies.

A few comments:

I won't speak of the things which I like, the things with which I agree, the things which I think are realistic/correct et cetera because if I did I'd have to write a comment saying "Nice!", "I agree!", "Alright!", "I think this is definitely realistic" or "OK!" after very nearly every statement. I agree with almost everything you've written; I just have a few further quibbles to make.

Grey had resigned from his position as foreign secretary.

It would take something pretty extreme for this to happen. Sir Edward Grey had the political advantage that he was important among the right wing of the governing Liberal Party and he had views sympathetic to the Conservative Party. If he were thrown out with anything less than an excellent excuse it would greatly please the Liberal left but it would infuriate the Liberal right, it would probably bring down the government and it would probably bring to power a Conservative government that would probably implement most of his views anyway. This why IOTL he couldn't be got rid of.

This was celebrated in Berlin as Grey was seen as the biggest Hawk in the British Government.


Sir Edward wasn't seen as the biggest hawk in the British government; he tried to keep his views ambiguous, being generally secretive. Winston Churchill would be likelier to merit that description. Of course, it's only a minor point about a throwaway comment.

knowing as he did that Russia did not have the capability to partially mobilise her army, instead only a full mobilisation was possible.


I know that this was the case, but I haven't ever heard that Germany knew so; indeed, I've heard the exact opposite, that the German leadership took the Russian general mobilisation as proof that Russia evidently was going to fight Germany as well as Austria-Hungary. Perhaps I'm wrong, but where did you hear.

On the 1st of August Britain declared its neutrality in the continental conflict, in addition the British neutrality red lines were spelled out, Britain would intervene if either side sailed warships through the Channel or if either side invaded Belgium.


This will have some interesting implications on the naval conflict. Either side might realistically disobey it hoping not to be found out (the British, I'd think, would be especially likely to overlook the French disobeying it) but if we presume that they don't, the Germans have a major naval advantage over the French but the Kaiserliche Marine has to take a long way round to get to France, which will be difficult for ships with 'short legs'. In the Mediterranean Austria-Hungary is still doomed when it's up against France, of course. I'm not sure what the Germans will do to get around the restriction that hinders them from utilising their naval strength against France.

Gunnar Knudsen the Norwegian Prime Minister reached out to Britain seeking a request that Norwegian neutrality would be guaranteed by Britain on the same level as Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality. Britain agreed and on the 15th of August announced that Norwegian neutrality was considered on the same level as Belgium neutrality by the British Empire.


A populist measure done to present the UK to the British public as 'great defender of small neutral nations' or something, I presume. I wonder what this will do. 'League of Armed Neutrality' perhaps coming to fruition?

The other neutral powers might also seek this kind of guarantee. It's probably good news for the preservation of neutrality in the future, though I'm not sure.

The Italian government declared that it was felt that the Triple Alliance was a defensive arrangement and that while Austria and Germany was under attack by Russia and France Austria had started the war with an invasion of Serbia.


Is it unfairly cynical for me to say "SURPRISE!"? :p

It was known that the Ottoman Empire would not ally with Russia under any circumstance.


Of course. An unrelenting campaign of on-and-off Russian aggression since 1686 would do that…

Ottoman neutrality was confirmed with the "Notification of Neutrality" issued by the Ottomans on 18 August.

I presume, then, that the British give the Ottomans their dreadnoughts ITTL. That removes the reason for the Anglo-Ottoman split and probably means that the Ottomans stay neutral for good.

I know I skipped a couple of weeks at the end but I wanted to deal with a lot of the diplomatic stuff here. I will go back as appropriate.

Essentially, I like the update very much, not least because of the subject matter but not only because of that. I'm enjoying this and I look forward to reading more of it.
 
Overall credible.

So the major differences here are (aside from Britain)

the OE is staying neutral
Italy is agressive neutral (mobilisation too place - no one expects Italy to stay neutral)

I assume if Britain is neutral so will be Japan (OTL Japans "casus belli" was its alliance with Britain)

But I think at some time Japan will set its eyes to expansions, but TTL it might bid its time and scavende the losing side a bit - or better the side thats currently losing.

This might have severe implications in the Pacific. If Japan stays out dor some time there is a sizeable CP fleet on the loose to attack (and seize) French posessions (2 armored Cruisers + 3 "small" Cruisers + a old "small" cruiser from the k.u.k Marine) - even OTL this fleet was causing headaches - what could it do if teh RN is NOT hunting it down...)
 
Hmm, interesting. I agree with PA about Grey's resignation. It will be interesting to see what Italy does, now that there is no danger of the Royal Navy intervening and her coal supplies will be secure in the event of war with France.

I look forward to your next update consider me subscribed:)
 
It would take something pretty extreme for this to happen. Sir Edward Grey had the political advantage that he was important among the right wing of the governing Liberal Party and he had views sympathetic to the Conservative Party. If he were thrown out with anything less than an excellent excuse it would greatly please the Liberal left but it would infuriate the Liberal right, it would probably bring down the government and it would probably bring to power a Conservative government that would probably implement most of his views anyway. This why IOTL he couldn't be got rid of.

He pretty much played his own game foreign affairs and sent a contradictory message to his PM Thats big enough. He is seen as a loose cannon now in London


Sir Edward wasn't seen as the biggest hawk in the British government; he tried to keep his views ambiguous, being generally secretive. Winston Churchill would be likelier to merit that description. Of course, it's only a minor point about a throwaway comment.

Fair point. I was actually thinking more about most important anti german but its a throwaway comment that didn't come out as I expected.


I know that this was the case, but I haven't ever heard that Germany knew so; indeed, I've heard the exact opposite, that the German leadership took the Russian general mobilisation as proof that Russia evidently was going to fight Germany as well as Austria-Hungary. Perhaps I'm wrong, but where did you hear.

I know it was true but I'm not certain I'm right about if Germany did. I have the impression that they did but this comes from the willy-nicky letters telegrams. In one Nicholas of Russia mentions something about having no chance but to mobilise against Austria and Wilhelm's response is that if Russia does so he would have no option but to mobilise. I'm not sure if Germany knows that Russian mobilisation was an all or nothing afair but thats the impression I had.
This will have some interesting implications on the naval conflict. Either side might realistically disobey it hoping not to be found out (the British, I'd think, would be especially likely to overlook the French disobeying it) but if we presume that they don't, the Germans have a major naval advantage over the French but the Kaiserliche Marine has to take a long way round to get to France, which will be difficult for ships with 'short legs'. In the Mediterranean Austria-Hungary is still doomed when it's up against France, of course. I'm not sure what the Germans will do to get around the restriction that hinders them from utilising their naval strength against France.

I am thinking that a Russia first plan might feature naval landings up and down the baltic sea and on the coast of Finland supported by battleship gun fire. Am doing research to see how feasible it is. There will also be something of a cat and mouse game at the demilitarised channel with German forces prodding and British Fleet deployments scaring them off. Also with Norwegian neutrality they will refuse German ships coaling rights.
A populist measure done to present the UK to the British public as 'great defender of small neutral nations' or something, I presume. I wonder what this will do. 'League of Armed Neutrality' perhaps coming to fruition?

Defender of small nations, sure, a more cynical person might suggest that Britain is looking for friends in the post war period. After all France and Russia won't be running for best friends.


I presume, then, that the British give the Ottomans their dreadnoughts ITTL. That removes the reason for the Anglo-Ottoman split and probably means that the Ottomans stay neutral for good.

Can you really see the Ottomans remaining neutral when Russian blood is in the water? As for the dreadnoughts well the next update features them.

Hmm, interesting. I agree with PA about Grey's resignation. It will be interesting to see what Italy does, now that there is no danger of the Royal Navy intervening and her coal supplies will be secure in the event of war with France.

I look forward to your next update consider me subscribed:)
Glad to have to a board. Italy will join the war but they will wait till their fleet (three dreadnoughts launched but not ready for combat) is ready, at which point they will probably look and see which side looks like winning.


Overall credible.

So the major differences here are (aside from Britain)

the OE is staying neutral
Italy is agressive neutral (mobilisation too place - no one expects Italy to stay neutral)

I assume if Britain is neutral so will be Japan (OTL Japans "casus belli" was its alliance with Britain)

But I think at some time Japan will set its eyes to expansions, but TTL it might bid its time and scavende the losing side a bit - or better the side thats currently losing.

This might have severe implications in the Pacific. If Japan stays out dor some time there is a sizeable CP fleet on the loose to attack (and seize) French posessions (2 armored Cruisers + 3 "small" Cruisers + a old "small" cruiser from the k.u.k Marine) - even OTL this fleet was causing headaches - what could it do if teh RN is NOT hunting it down...)

The ottomans were neutral at this point IOTL as well. You seem to be reading Japan's ambitions well.

The German East Asian squadron will cause some mischief but a small squadron is unlikely to seize major French possessions. Maybe a Pacific Island or two but there isn't really the manpower to do much more.
 
In the largest office in the Admiralty sat the three men who were considered the most important men in Biritsh naval affairs. First Lord of the Admiralty Sir Winston Chuchill, First Sea Lord Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg, and retired Admiral of the Fleet, and First Sea Lord Baron Fisher.

“The Royal Naval Air Service has for a nascent organisation grown rapidly over the last few months. It has 93 airplanes, six airships and 2 balloons. It will serve us a major scouting arm over the English channel. It is our intention to have regular eyes in the air, combined with scounts and patrols from heavy units to enforce a blockade on all military shipping through the channel. Patricular attention will be shown to the German entrance as they would have more reason to violate this neutral zone.”

Fisher was nodding agreeing with Battenberg, however Churchill seemed to have reservations. “If the Germans violate the channel it will mean war. If the Germans violate in Channel in force there should be but one battle in this war a crushing defeat of the German fleet. I want your opinions on how this should occur.”

Fisher nodded, “If the Germans manage to keep a fleet in being their fleet will serve its purpose and give them the will to remain at war with us. I propose that the response to a German incursion should be two fold. A heavy sortie of battleships and a sortie of battlecruisers to cut them off behind. Obviously we will hope for them to cross the T in advance and in retreat.”

Battenberg nodded, “The German fleet consists of twelve dreadnought type battleships and two more that are in the process of being fitted out, in addition to this there are four battlecruisers and another two in the process of being fitted out. These sixteen capital ships are outnumbered by 20 Royal Navy Battleships, four more in the process of being fitted out, along with three more foreign battleships in the process of being fitted out which the Royal Navy is entitled to purchase in case of war and eight battlecruisers, with another in the process of being fitted out. We are fully able to put a force of battleships ahead of the German fleet and force the Germans to flee into the full broadsides of the battlecruiser squadron which we should be able to get behind the German fleet.”

Churchill nodded. “I like that plan, work on it and refine it. Now tell me about these dreadnoughts we are entitled to purchase.”

Fisher was the one to speak, “Almirante Latorre, built for Chile by Armstrong, based on our own Iron Duke Class. Reşadiye, built by Vickers and Sultan Osman-ı Evvel, built by Armstrong again, are being built for the Ottoman empire, well originally the Brazillians in the case of the Sultan Osman-ı Evvel but the Ottomans have purchased it. Both Ottoman ships will be ready for commissioning before the end of the month while the Chilean ship won’t be ready till 1915.”

Churchill nodded “Should we ‘buy’ them.”

Fisher and Battenberg laughed, “Shall we have war sir?” was Battenberg’s response, “Diplomatically it will be a mess if we do, and practically the worst thing we could do if any of the three ships ends up sailing against us. I imagine that with the cooling of the South American arms race that we could buy from Chile easily enough but the Ottomans.”

Churchill nodded, “Look into it. As for the Ottomans, to protect the reputations of British ship building we have no course but deliver their ships. the Reşadiye, and the Sultan Osman-ı Evvel. We couldn’t have them sunk before arrival. For this reason the Royal Navy will sail them to Istanbull, and in order to avoid the war they will travel around Africa and through the Suez.”

Fisher looked surprised, “The long way around Africa that will take at least 35 days.”

Churchill nodded, “Time for everything to settle down, by that time we should know if we are at war with Turkey or not. That said delay it a bit. They leave England with a Convoy of Royal Navy escorts on the last day of August. A day in Gibraltar, South Africa and Alexandria for refuelling should be stretched out, two days for each. Arrival in Istanbul should be expected mid to late October.”
 
Last edited:
Top