Britain did not enact full conscription in 1916

[Thomas1195]

What would happen if the anti-conscription (McKenna, Runciman...) won the debate against the Tory and Lloyd George? I think Britain would have a stronger economy and not run out of money soon (Mckenna was true that full conscription would lead to bankruptcy). In addition, they would be able to deal with American Naval Act 1916 on time because more resources would be able for a new naval arm race, which would allow Britain to outclass HSF totally by building new fast battleships with 16 inch or even 18 inch guns. Here I mean full conscription (which also included married men and skilled labour). On the flip side, there would be a high risk that Germany would have steamroll France.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Probably Haig has to cut losses and the Somme may end sooner than expected. From then on, the BEF would be in troubles when to launch an offensive, something that may be quite dangerous if the Nivelle Offensive still takes place and hell breaks loose with the mutinies of the French army.

 

[GeographyDude]

what if Quakers and other pacifiers still want skin in the game? Well, they're not going to be sent to prison like OTL,

Maybe some of them choose to help with re-building on the Continent after the war?

 

[Thomas1195]

Probably Haig has to cut losses and the Somme may end sooner than expected. From then on, the BEF would be in troubles when to launch an offensive, something that may be quite dangerous if the Nivelle Offensive still takes place and hell breaks loose with the mutinies of the French army.

McKenna said that he had no problem with partial conscription because Britain could wage war for many more years if industries were left alone. But full conscription would equal to bankruptcy before winning the war, which turned out to be true.
Btw, do you know about the American's approach in Vietnam war before 1965 or in Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 1980s? The British could just sell supplies, equipment and weapons or aircrafts in late war, and send ''experts'' to the French, Belgian and Russian, but the French and Russian would be the ones who fight and die on land warfare, in effect turning them into mercenaries. BEF only intervenes when the situation become worse amd worse (but not too late). At the same time, Britain would still wage naval war and blockade Germany. This strategy, if successful, would weaken all continental European countries by prolonging the continental war. In this case, a prolonging stalemate continental war would have been the best scenario, the good case would be French turning the tide (which would only happen in Hearts of Iron 2), while the worst case would be a total German victory.

 

[matzeskatze]

But where would France get the million or whereabout frontline soldiers to plug the gap the British opend? Because the Germans could either happiely hold in the west and roll up the east or push the French to surrender, ie here Verdun may work !!! so how would the British like that. Sure they would have the money but the Germans hold the continent.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

The British could just sell supplies, equipment and weapons or aircrafts in late war, and send ''experts'' to the French, Belgian and Russian, but the French and Russian would be the ones who fight and die on land warfare, in effect turning them into mercenaries. BEF only intervenes when the situation become worse amd worse (but not too late). At the same time, Britain would still wage naval war and blockade Germany. This strategy, if successful, would weaken all continental European countries by prolonging the continental war. In this case, a prolonging stalemate continental war would have been the best scenario, the good case would be French turning the tide (which would only happen in Hearts of Iron 2), while the worst case would be a total German victory.

But in 1916 you have five British amies on the field. How do you replace the losses? By dissolving an army and having the French coverting that part of the front? Hardly possible with Verdun going on. So, London has to keep their forces in France and they need replacements.

Unless you want to put some kind of POD with the BEF not going to France in 1914 until it's too late, and, by then, the war may be over...

 

[Thomas1195]

But in 1916 you have five British amies on the field. How do you replace the losses? By dissolving an army and having the French coverting that part of the front? Hardly possible with Verdun going on. So, London has to keep their forces in France and they need replacements.

Unless you want to put some kind of POD with the BEF not going to France in 1914 until it's too late, and, by then, the war may be over...

Maybe just conscription for unmarried men who neither have labour skills ( I mean unskilled workers) nor industry-related jobs (maybe guys like writers or so), while allowing married men and skilled workers and engineers to work in factories. This would help Britain avoid bankruptcy, or at least delay it for several years.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

That would not be enough. That was attempted with the Derby scheme and did not go too well. BTW, the first Military Service Act exempted certain classes of industrial workers.

The British government did manage to win the war, to pay its debts and to avoid bankruptcy. The problem of the UK is not bankrupcy alone. It's the loss of the markets pre-1914. The USA is there a nothing can prevent or avoid that. To avoid that, the debt caused by the war and the rise of the USA, you need something more that avoiding conscription: You need to avoid the war and to modernize the British industry and to be capable of being a succesful rival for the USA.

 

[Thomas1195]

That would not be enough. That was attempted with the Derby scheme and did not go too well. BTW, the first Military Service Act exempted certain classes of industrial workers.

The British government did manage to win the war, to pay its debts and to avoid bankruptcy. The problem of the UK is not bankrupcy alone. It's the loss of the markets pre-1914. The USA is there a nothing can prevent or avoid that. To avoid that, the debt caused by the war and the rise of the USA, you need something more that avoiding conscription: You need to avoid the war and to modernize the British industry and to be capable of being a succesful rival for the USA.

Actually they did modernize their industry before and during ww1, although they missed the critical 1880-1900 period, and during the interwar period their motor industry rose to the 2nd place and their aircraft industry was the largest (until ww2). And many of its industries (like marine engineering, shipbuilding, locomotive, normal glass, armament, some machinery sectors) were still world leading. Its light consumer industries (textile, clothing, apparel, footware, food and beverage...) were at the 1st or 2nd place (there are few stats for these sectors as they were not critical ones) and did compete well against the US. Yes, they did lag in steel, chemistry, electrical equipment, and to some extent machine tool, and that was critical. And various sources (I did not remember) pointed out that Northwestern European (including British, German, French) products usually had better quality. However, European markets were mostly not suitable for total application of mass production techniques for producing large quantity of goods.

Btw, it was bankrupt by early 1917. Losses of markets were also due to Japan as well