Later intervention by UK into WW1 - different scenario

IanBertram

I've asked questions on this before but would now like to get views on a different scenario, but with the same starting point of a late entry by Britain because of trouble at home.

  1. War breaks out as OTL with German invasion of Belgium and into France.
  2. Balfour wants to send army as per OTL but can't get support because of problems at home. Liberal Party split.
  3. Calls Election.
  4. Outcome indecisive yet again (like the two in 1911). Tories depend on Unionist support. Liberals need Irish. Bigger block of Labour and ILP seats. No clear winner, but Tories have largest number of seats so Bonar Law becomes PM.
  5. Bonar Law declares intention not to proceed with Home Rule or Suffrage Bills. All hell breaks loose at home.
  6. Germans almost take Paris. French govt retreats to Bordeaux but French Army holds on by skin of its teeth. Germans control much of Channel coast as far as but not including Cherbourg peninsula, which is cut off.
  7. Germans attempt to blockade channel. British ship seized. War in May 1915.
  8. Royal Navy retakes control of channel and North Sea, German fleet bottled up as OTL.
  9. Possible landing in Antwerp? (I seem to remember this as being considered) Possible landings on Cherbourg peninsula?
  10. Empire forces from India and Canada land in S of France with permission of French Government. Earliest feasible date probably late 1916? Move north.
  11. Turks attempt to seize Canal – Lawrence etc as OTL?
  12. Easter 1916 – German support for Irish rising on much larger scale. Some troops but mainly weapons. Dublin Cork, Wexford Waterford Galway Donegal all rise up. German forces land in Galway.
  13. Brutal repression of uprising. German forces quickly surrender – poorly armed and no support.
  14. Russia 1917 as OTL
  15. Allied counter attack pushes into Germany but Eastern provinces fall to Soviet style revolution in 1919. Germany falls apart into blocs based on pre unification states.
  16. No US involvement.
  17. War fizzles out 1920 with Truce. All sides exhausted
  18. Alt Versaille in 1921. Different Europe to OTL results but no clear dominant country, although no united Germany.
  19. I'm still working on implications for Britain. There will need to be another election and I suspect it would in these circumstance be a minority Labour Government but more Nationalists too, perhaps in Scotland too.
Any thoughts?
 

kung Zog

Point 15 is quite implausible, and a fine argument can be made for Germany winning the war under these circumstances. The most common argument for this is the lack of security for more loans with US.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Isn't point 7 a bit unrealistic? The British aren't intervening and the Germans just provoke them over a ship? And the public is going ape over a ship being seized but not the destruction of Europe's balance of power?

What about Italy? Wouldn't British non-intervention change their calculations as well? Italy declares war on Austria in May 1915 after long deliberations and negotiations with the Entente- with Britain out, isn't she highly unlikely to be joining so early if at all? Wouldn't the Italians be very inclined to join Austria and Germany with the Germans deep inside France and Britain neutral?
 

matzeskatze

Wouldn't it be legal to seize a ship if it carries contraband into a belingerend nation, neutral or not.
Only thing that could warent the DoW would be the unilatteral sinking and such of British ships in the channel. And that is still questionable, Imo, in view of the postulated internal turmoil.

Next, before that. The events before Paris. Ok, the Germans will be pushed back. But would that stand if France is allone, or would the Germans try again and do it? Because without the BEF the French miss some man up north...

Later the Indians, would the British realy use colonial non-white troops if the situation is not totaly FUBAR? They at that time did not have the bleed out population as in OTL later. Not to mention, would there be sufficent troops and equipement for them. Again a thing of the postulated internal turmoil.

Then German troops in Ireland, after the Chanel is retaken? Sorry I find that hard to belive. While the intention may be there, that would neccitate a full fleet action to do.

Point 15 and later is Imo pure wishful thinking, because the Germans would be better of, no Italy and "easier" France, together with no US? ALso if there was no revolution in OTL, why here?
 

Richter von Manthofen

With the Channel coast in german hands I doubt that France can survive Long. As Said by Kalvert - Italy? - No way Italy sides with France. France between the Hochseeflotte and the Austrian Navy might have troubles to import. Italy will likely be ttempted to join the CPs for "spoils" of war.

When Britain joins in how do the Germans manage to "land" in Ireland? (Smuggling some weapons and ammo by Subs, OK, but Operational Sea mammal Whiskey style????
 

IanBertram

OK, points in turn.

6. I did say the French held on by the skin of their teeth and lost a lot of territory. I'm assuming they would dig in and try to prevent Paris being taken almost at all costs.

7. I'm assuming that both Tories and Liberals would split over war so Bonar Law is also under pressure. The idea of Germany controlling the Channel, blockading British ships would be anathema anyway, so seizure of a British ship is to a degree a pretext seized upon by anti-German factions. With all the trouble at home and the conciliatory stance taken by Grey - at least so far as the Germans saw it - I think they would believe they could push Britain a long way without response. Trying to control the Channel would be a critical miscalculation.

10. Empire forces in South of France seems to be the quickest way to get involved once Britain is in the war. If Germany controls the Channel coast as far as say Avranches, British forces landings would need to be somewhere like St Malo or more likely Brest to be unopposed. Depite my OP I can't see why the Germans wouldn't have the Cherbourg peninsula too, unless perhaps some cut off French units manage to dig in. As to use of Indian troops, even in OTL, Indian troops landed in Marseilles in September 1914 and more were on the way.

12. German troops in Ireland is a push I know, but I don't see it as more than a few hundred men, traveling on the same ships as the weapons. It also assumes Casement and others are more persuasive than in OTL of opening up an Irish second front. On the other hand if the Easter Rising takes place in 1915, with proven German support in the form of arms (no troops) that could become a casus belli in its own right. The TL so far already has much greater unrest in Ireland so not too much of a push.

15. Once Britain is in the war, and with Germany holding a slightly larger part of Northern France than OTL, I'm assuming it settles down to something like the stalemate of OTL and follows a similar pattern (including tanks), except that instead of the Armistice we get a slow grind into Germany, over a fairly wide front. The revolutionary elements and mutinies that existed OTL and were a factor in Germany seeking an Armistice would still be there. With part of Germany occupied I can see the rest breaking down. Communist revolutions in Germany could also be a factor in triggering a Truce, given that all sides are pretty worn down already.

Role of Italy - I ignored Italy for simplicity, but I think it may stay neutral, although seizing parts of the Adriatic Coast in the general confusion wouldn't be unlikely either.

Have I missed anything?
 

matzeskatze

IanBertram said:
OK, points in turn.

6. I did say the French held on by the skin of their teeth and lost a lot of territory. I'm assuming they would dig in and try to prevent Paris being taken almost at all costs.

7. I'm assuming that both Tories and Liberals would split over war so Bonar Law is also under pressure. The idea of Germany controlling the Channel, blockading British ships would be anathema anyway, so seizure of a British ship is to a degree a pretext seized upon by anti-German factions. With all the trouble at home and the conciliatory stance taken by Grey - at least so far as the Germans saw it - I think they would believe they could push Britain a long way without response. Trying to control the Channel would be a critical miscalculation.

10. Empire forces in South of France seems to be the quickest way to get involved once Britain is in the war. If Germany controls the Channel coast as far as say Avranches, British forces landings would need to be somewhere like St Malo or more likely Brest to be unopposed. Depite my OP I can't see why the Germans wouldn't have the Cherbourg peninsula too, unless perhaps some cut off French units manage to dig in. As to use of Indian troops, even in OTL, Indian troops landed in Marseilles in September 1914 and more were on the way.

12. German troops in Ireland is a push I know, but I don't see it as more than a few hundred men, traveling on the same ships as the weapons. It also assumes Casement and others are more persuasive than in OTL of opening up an Irish second front. On the other hand if the Easter Rising takes place in 1915, with proven German support in the form of arms (no troops) that could become a casus belli in its own right. The TL so far already has much greater unrest in Ireland so not too much of a push.

15. Once Britain is in the war, and with Germany holding a slightly larger part of Northern France than OTL, I'm assuming it settles down to something like the stalemate of OTL and follows a similar pattern (including tanks), except that instead of the Armistice we get a slow grind into Germany, over a fairly wide front. The revolutionary elements and mutinies that existed OTL and were a factor in Germany seeking an Armistice would still be there. With part of Germany occupied I can see the rest breaking down. Communist revolutions in Germany could also be a factor in triggering a Truce, given that all sides are pretty worn down already.

Role of Italy - I ignored Italy for simplicity, but I think it may stay neutral, although seizing parts of the Adriatic Coast in the general confusion wouldn't be unlikely either.

Have I missed anything?
Click to expand...

6) If the French try to push the Germans from Paris, they have to attack. But in 1914 the French were ill equiped with heavy arty, so any attack will rack up tremendous numbers of dead Pilou... not good for them.

7) Problem is, you did not specify what type of ship. Millitary? Sure it would be bad. Blockade runner? Would be legal to intern. So you will have to build that point up somewhat.

10) Where and how would you support the troops in France. That was a big problem even in OTL as the fighting consumed tremendous amounts of supplies. Also where do you get the troop numbers from. If the British are so divided internaly as you postulated prior I see less volunteers then OTL. Also the Indian and African troops were a minority in Europe. So why would there be bigger numbers then OTL if the situation is not that hopeless.

12) If the British are not in by Easter 15, then I see the Germans as having won already, the situation for the French was dire in OTL, and here it will be much worse.

15) Mutinies and such right back at the Entente (French). They are worse of here then OTL. So why would the Germans go under if they did not in OTL, but the French were rather further along that path. In OTL only, Imo, the USA entry let the French (and to a lesser degree the British) hold on. Here without them, the USA DoW, and a neutral Italy (more imports into the CP, I forsee the Entente crumbeling. Esp. after Russia taps out and frees the man there without countering it by USA DoW.
 

IanBertram

How long could the French hold out without the BEF. Would it be a matter of a couple of weeks or a couple of months?
 

matzeskatze

TBH I am not sure, because much depends on the actual spin on things. But Imo without the BEF, the French may loose the northern army that was endangered, the fifth (?), and could face the northern pincer pressed against the border. (Worst case, but what could maybe, possibly happen)

More realisticaly, they are forced back and have less time to regain their footing. And that could lead to unreavaling of the Army if some bad desicions are made. But likely they lose much of the chanel coast and maybe Paris in a second attampt.
 

Finbarr the Fair

Balfour not in power!

Point 2 is slightly confusing
2. Balfour wants to send army as per OTL but can't get support because of problems at home. Liberal Party split.
Click to expand...
As at the July crisis the Liberal Party, supported by Labour and the Irish Nationalists, was in government. As you suggest the Liberal Party and cabinet was split on the issue of intervention. Without the German invasion of Belgium it is possible that the Asquith government would have been brought down as too many members of the cabinet quit. There were resignations even IOTL with Belgium but not enough to stop the DOW.

Nonetheless, as you say, Balfour and the Conservatives were in favour of the British army supporting France, as had been planned even though the Entente was not a binding military alliance. So the end-result of the Liberals refusing to intervene is likely to be a Conservative government supported by Liberal Imperialists/Interventionists or whatever we want to call this group.

So, I could see a delay to British intervention being possible, even with the invasion of Belgium though less likely than without it. The POD would require the Pacifists/non-interventionists to win the intra-cabinet and Party debate. It didn't happen but maybe it could have. The response of Asquith would be to split and help support Balfour in doing what he couldn't. So the delay will be a few weeks only. Possibly less. :rolleyes:

To get Britain to stay out for longer you need the Germans not to implement the Schiefflen plan and violate Belgian neutrality. Which I don't think you did in the scenario. :confused:

Hope that helps
 

dave_r_gilbert

Point 12

"Easter 1916 – German support for Irish rising on much larger scale. Some troops but mainly weapons. Dublin Cork, Wexford Waterford Galway Donegal all rise up. German forces land in Galway."

By this stage in your timeline the Royal Navy is essentially intact, and cumulative casualties for the U.K. army are much lower.
In particular the thousands of Irishmen who volunteered and died at Gallipoli and a hundred other combats haven't gone to war yet.
Anti-British sentiment in Ireland in 1916 wouldn't be as strong in this timeline as in OTL.
Even in OTL the number of men the IRA managed to turn out wasn't that big. 1,250 in Dublin, plus some others in the rest of Ireland who didn't do very much.

More weapons doesn't equal a bigger rising if there are fewer men willing to use them. Spreading the smaller number of men over a larger number of places dilutes the effect rather than increasing it, and turns the rising into a disjointed set of small armed demonstrations rather than a rebellion.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I's still having problems with point 7. If the Germans have beaten back France- crushed her even if she's still holding on by a thread- why would they provoke Britain over a ship?

Why not back down, give it back and deal with the British after the French surrender?

Germany would have to see some great benefit to provoke the British to war while fighting France and Russia. Certainly, afterwards going after the British is realistic and making peace with France and Russia at the expense of Britain is possible as well, but war over a ship?
 

IanBertram

I don't think anti-British sentiments in Ireland depended on Gallipoli, where Irish troops were not a major component anyway. Plus in this TL, (which is the Frozen Spring TL in my sig) there have already been lots of other events which have created strong divisions between Unionist and Republican sides. Even in OTL, Bonar Law was an emphatic defender of the Unionists to the point of supporting the idea of armed opposition to Parliament.

Don't forget also that the Easter Rising in OTL was disrupted by divisions on the Republican side, which created a lot of confusion. Even in OTL there were many who didn't turn out because of contradictory instructions.

In practice I don't need it to succeed, just to take place in a more violent context and be put down even more brutally than it was - although to be honest I think the brutality of the Irish Civil War exceeded anything the British did - at least as official policy.
 

IanBertram

Re point 7

I see your point although I still think an attempt to blockade the channel could be seen as a hostile act in itself. If I go down this line I will have to set it up so that they can't back down.
 

Mad Missouri

IanBertram said:
I see your point although I still think an attempt to blockade the channel could be seen as a hostile act in itself. If I go down this line I will have to set it up so that they can't back down.
Click to expand...

What would the Germans be blockading in the channel? British vessels? International vessels could go to other French ports easily.
 

Richter von Manthofen

The Channel would be a british backwater - even if and maybe espeially IF Britain is still neutral the Germans would avoid the Channel especially to NOT provoke Britain. - The Germans of WWI were stupid in some regards, but THAT they'd realize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top