A smaller British role in the Great War.

During the Napoleonic wars British armies played a relatively small role in the war against France, Britain's main job was to use it navy to blockade the French and seize colonies, and bankrolling its continental allies effectively financing their war effort.
Is there a way for a first world war to develop like this? that is Britain's role would be largely naval and financial with only a small expeditionary force fighting the Boche. Britain would be responsible for arming feeding, and clothing French and Russian armies while British armies are largely confined to seizing German colonies in Africa. I'm thinking that if the initial German push is some how stopped much earlier (or there's somehow an initial French push) and the Turks never join the war this is quite possible.

VictorVanBakker said:

During the Napoleonic wars British armies played a relatively small role in the war against France, Britain's main job was to use it navy to blockade the French and seize colonies, and bankrolling its continental allies effectively financing their war effort.
Is there a way for a first world war to develop like this? that is Britain's role would be largely naval and financial with only a small expeditionary force fighting the Boche. Britain would be responsible for arming feeding, and clothing French and Russian armies while British armies are largely confined to seizing German colonies in Africa. I'm thinking that if the initial German push is some how stopped much earlier (or there's somehow an initial French push) and the Turks never join the war this is quite possible.

Click to expand...

The Germans do not go through Belgium or both Belgium and France are prepared for it and the effort is defeated further to the East - negating the reason for Britain to enter the war in 1914

Add in the Goeben being intercepted by the French Navy's "Groupe A" while still in the western Med or runs afoul of one of the 3 British Battle cruisers based in Malta and is sunk / Mission killed and never makes it to Turkey and is therefore not available to act as the Casus Belli to bring Turkey into the war with Russia and ultimately the Entente.

With the Suez not being threatened Britain can therefore act as the paymaster and concentrate on blockading Germany when she does enter the war later on than 1914.

In the timeline below:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=350912

I suggest something along these lines. Germany does not March thru Belgium but focuses its offensive to the east. Britain eventually enters the war for its own reasons (fear of German dominance in Europe and the naval rivalry) but does not commit significant land forces in France. Britain fights a war of naval blockade and colonial conquests, but the decisive break comes at Jutland, where the German fleet is virtually annihilated, while France collapses after a series on costly offensives. Both sides gain a bit of what they wanted and a peace is negotiated in 1917

VictorVanBakker said:

During the Napoleonic wars British armies played a relatively small role in the war against France, Britain's main job was to use it navy to blockade the French and seize colonies, and bankrolling its continental allies effectively financing their war effort.
Is there a way for a first world war to develop like this?

Click to expand...

You could have the Germans not invade via Belgium but in that case you could just as easily see the UK sit out the war entirely as go for a limited involvement. Rich Rostrom came up with an interesting scenario which saw the German 1st Army effectively destroyed and the Western Front 50-70km east of where it was in our timeline

Rich Rostrom said:

PoD: 9 September 1914: Lt. Col. Hentsch, Moltke's deputy charged with visiting the army HQs, leaves 2nd Army HQ, where Bülow has agreed to withdraw north immediately, en route for von Kluck's 1st Army HQ further west. While crossing the 50-km gap between the two German armies, he drives into a British advance guard patrol; his staff car is shot up, and he is captured. Von Kluck does not learn of the gap, nor of Bülow's decision to withdraw, nor of the Allied advance into the gap.

1st Army continues its attack against French 6th Army to its west, ignoring the threat from the south. 1st Army HQ is overrun by a British cavalry patrol at about 6 PM. Escaping survivors reach 1st Army's corps HQs, triggering a panic withdrawal to the north during the night of 10-11 September. Sixth Army attacks at dawn while the BEF presses further north in the German rear. By 13 September, 1st Army has been destroyed with over 60,000 prisoners taken.

With their right flank destroyed, the Germans fall back to the northeast. The Allies try to turn the German right several times; each time being checked by German reserves, as in OTL's Race to the Sea. However, the Allies push the Germans east of Lille, holding western Flanders and a corridor into Antwerp (about 50-70 km east of OTL).

Click to expand...

In such a scenario with a western Flanders still in Entente hands and a corridor to a held Antwerp the Channel ports are secure which is a major British goal, the front in general is looking much less desperate, and with less French territory captured they're not as manic to attack on all the fronts all of the time. Originally there had been an expectation by the French and Germans that Britain would be taking a mostly defensive stance carrying out few if any attacks, aside from the military objectives the Battle of Neuve Chapelle was in part carried out to reassure the French that Britain intended to be a full participant. With France much less threatened I could see this becoming partially true - whilst Britain reinforces the shattered British Expeditionary Force and holds their sections of the front carrying out the occasional offensive to keep the Germans on their toes they're not major, and costly, ones whilst the UK carries out a periphery strategy. The naval blockade is instituted, Kaiserliche Marine raiders are hunted down, and Germany's colonies seized. Potentially if the Ottoman Empire joined the war I could see the British directing the majority of their effort to knock them out as quickly as possible, maybe even a small expeditionary force to help Montenegro and keep the supply lines to Serbia open. Once they're defeated and secured respectively the British shift the bulk of their weight back to the Western Front in 1916.

Other related issues would be if the Germans are doing much worse on the Western Front they could be distracted enough for the Russians to do a bit better on the Eastern Front. Knocking out the Ottomans as quickly as possibly, assuming of course that they enter the war, allows supplies to be shipped to the Russians again. Antwerp holding out means that the Germans don't capture the large amounts of nitrates which IIRC tided them over for a short while as the Haber process was ramping up to full production. To improve the financial situation have the UK not extend loans to Russia, which IIRC the Soviets repudiated after the Revolution, but instead make them to France on the understanding that they're fully liable for them and that if they in turn extend loans to Russia that's their own affair.

Any of the scenarios where the war ends early would do the trick. If Britain tries to contribute less in a long war either 1) the entente loses or 2) everyone turns on the British when its over

VictorVanBakker said:

During the Napoleonic wars British armies played a relatively small role in the war against France, Britain's main job was to use it navy to blockade the French and seize colonies, and bankrolling its continental allies effectively financing their war effort.
Is there a way for a first world war to develop like this? that is Britain's role would be largely naval and financial with only a small expeditionary force fighting the Boche. Britain would be responsible for arming feeding, and clothing French and Russian armies while British armies are largely confined to seizing German colonies in Africa. I'm thinking that if the initial German push is some how stopped much earlier (or there's somehow an initial French push) and the Turks never join the war this is quite possible.

Click to expand...

Pretty much a no, I was just rereading the section of Garry Sheffield's 'Forgotten Victory' that discusses this idea(it's been around since at least the 1930s) and it make a pretty good case that if Britain tries this it probably leads to a French defeat in pretty short order.

I think you need to prevent Britain from building up an continental-size army.

To do that you first have to avoid the rush of volunteers to enlist. If Germany doesn't invade Belgium, and there are no stories of Hunnish atrocities (real or propaganda, in this case it doesn't matter) perhaps you won't have Kitchener's 300,000. Unlikely - everyone seemed to want to join in the fun. Then have the terrible German & French casualties of the Battle of the Frontiers pour some cold reality over the enthusiasm. Unlikely as the death tolls didn't stop recruitment in 1915 or 1916.

If you can get that far, then you need to avoid conscription. Have Asquith or one of the laissez-faire Liberals (Simon, McKenna) remain in charge. They would avoid it on principle if they could.

For a POD further back let the Second Boer War disappear, and with it a lot of reasons for sorting out the Army are hidden, which reduces their share of the defence estimates, and have Britain pour more cash into the RN (hot-tubs & gold-plated 15" guns perhaps ).

Or have the Kaiser & Tirpitz really look to challenge the Royal Navy, forcing the reluctant Admirals to demand many more millions for more, bigger & better dreadnoughts. Why spend money on soldiers when the Hun has to cross the North Sea first?

I personally don't believe there was any chance of Britain not taking larger responsibilities on the Western Front without France - or Russia (if the Kaiser needs less troops in the West, where will they turn up?) - being over-powered in turn.

Perhaps if the 'easterners' who wanted action around the world were more influential than the 'westerners' who thought that the war was going to be won or lost in France. The BEF could expand a touch more slowly and the men and equipment used IOTL at Nueve Chappelle used at Gallipoli instead. Similarly more resources could be put into the conquest of Mesopotamia to avoid the siege of Kut, while the smaller BEF simply keeps the Germans off the Channel coast. This way Britain avoids the grinding attrition of learning on the western front, is able to rotate divisions in and out of fighting on these isolated fronts and is able to build up its industry without pushing against the losses caused on the western front.

Perhaps the upshot of this is that later in the war Britain sends reasonably experienced and well equipped troops to the western front to begin offensive action when the time is better. However this is just as likely to lead to defeat in Europe which is the engine of the war, so it probably isn't the best idea.