Germany does not invade Belguim in 1914. What does Britain do?

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I wouldn't be surprised if this one had been done before, with with an excellent ongoing thread on the Germans doing and East First strategy in 1914, I think what exactly Britain does in that event should get its own thread.

So what does Britain do if there is no German invasion of Belgium? Do they declare war on Germany anyway?

Some relevant points of consideration are the ongoing Irish crisis, the fact that two cabinet ministers resigned over the decision to go to war OTL even with the invasion of Belguim, and the fact that Britain had a minority Liberal government whose re-election prospects were not good. A new election would have had to have been held by January 1916 at the latest. Of course the Liberal leadership could have formed a coalition with the Tories, which happened OTL in mid 1915 anyway.

Also if the British stay out of the war do they deliver the two battleships to Turkey?

 

[Riain]

I love this site!

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/pre-war_military_planning_great_britain

The first steps to mobilise for war were taken by the Royal Navy. On 26 July 1914, the First Sea Lord prevented the dispersal of the fleet after exercises that month, so keeping reservists at their stations. He did so without cabinet approval but also without deepening the political crisis. On 29 July he mobilised the fleet but Tirpitz decided that British actions were a bluff, and the German Admiralty Staff agreed. The Anglo-German naval arms race did not precipitate the First World War.

The army lagged behind the navy. Henry Wilson had planned on its mobilising at the same time as France, so that the BEF could be deployed simultaneously with the French army. It did neither. On 29 July its units received notice of the “precautionary period” before war, but it did not mobilise until after Britain’s ultimatum to Germany had expired on 5 August.

Britain was ready to rock and roll at sea at least a week before their DoW!

 

[NoMommsen]

So what does Britain do if there is no German invasion of Belgium? Do they declare war on Germany anyway?

IMHO : NOT right away.

I agree with some of my ... critics, that Belgium, respectivly its invasion was not THE main reason for Briatin to go to war - it was more kind of an "icing on the cake", as it served so well a formula (of excuse ?) for not only the public opinion to present but also quite some of the cabinet members (the two, that at last resigned were also only ... a "tip of an iceberg").

The important point was the control of the channel coast - of belgian as well as fench channel ports.

But , with a Germany that declares its "desinterest" in Belgium, if only noone else "taps" it (same as the french "guarantee" given on british asking) as well as a german declaration of no-intent to attack France, only afraid of not to be stabbed in the back by it, this reason ceases.

However, Britain will still give France the "guarantee" to protect its northern coast from any german (naval) attack, maybe even the guarantee of its merchantmen ships worldwide (possible interpretation of the guarantee given OTL to Cambon on 2nd August by Grey), probably topped with the promise to "support" France (economically, financial) whereever possible - short of participating in the/a possible war.



Until somewhere around 12th August (the date the french mobilization would have been (mostly) completed and France would most likely declare war upon Germany in fullfillment of its alliance with Russia as well as the written doen agreements about military operations - as well as Poincaré and Viviani told russian ambassador Isvolsky at night of 1st to 2nd August) Britain might still try to broker some kind of "arrangement" though without success ... IMHO.
Intersting question would IMO be, how the other participants "react" to this attempts in the meantime and how these are ... received/perceived by the brits.
Also "interesting" would be the question of how "fast" the Ireland-question continues to develop, maybe once again shifting political interests more towards Home Rule.

With the begin of hostilities Britain would most likely "demilitarize" the channnel in forbidding any other "vessels of war" to enter it - ofc beside the RN to "enforce" this rule.
A in this situation it would serve Britains assumed support for France as a for the moment neutral, they instead or even before the US would ask and recommend the belligerents to strongly respect and obey the rules of the London naval conference of 1909, though they didn't ratified them by themself.

In the further course of the next maybe two to three months at least Britain would probably try to still "limit" the armed conflict strongly recommending everybody else (Italy, Ottoman Empire, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan ... have I forgotten someone ?) to stay neutral and out of the conflict, playing the role of "preserver of the neutral rights" (taking away this position from the US maybe ?).



From then ... it IMO becomes more and more problematic to "draw" Britain into the conflict.

• There will be wide coverage of the slaughter/"bleeding white" of the french in the battle of the frontiers, not the best "propaganda" for someone to join armed forces to take part.
• The irish question would/could be again much more present, depending its developement. But tbh : I struggle to see it be rather "peacefully" solved within the named timeframe of 2-3 months.
• There will be huge profits being made by trading with (all of) the belligerents and financing their war efforts/purchases worldwide, which could - in the eyes of the "city" (that wasn't a "fan" of the war IOTL) - only be endangered by participation now.

IMO only if the "hawks", rather Churchill alone, than in conjunction with Grey, who IMHO wasnt much of a "belligerent" and would have been happy if Germany/Austria/Russia/France would have been "contained" by diplomatic means, "produce" some form of incident or incidents deliberatly, Britain could enter the frail - preferably on the "Entente"-side.

 

[NoMommsen]

Also if the British stay out of the war do they deliver the two battleships to Turkey?

Depends on when the/a german decision not to invade Belgium and/or attack in the west first becomes public/known to Britain.

IOTL the deciasion to "seize" the two turkish battleships was already made on 30th July IIRC and executed on 1st August, after the shipyard had confirmed having received the last payments from the ottomans with the strong indication, that the turkish commander wanted to raise the turkish flagg on 1st August afternoon.
(Sources can be found here)
Though ... IMHO only aPOD before the last week of July at least would/could change/avoid this "seizure".

 

[Riain]

I think the British would be very assertive of their navigation rights, particularly in the Baltic and Black seas, under the pretext of protecting their shipping going to all comers but in particular Russia.

In practical terms I think Britain would conduct something like the US' neutrality patrol prior to its entry into WW2, where RN ships would keep watch on German ships and report their positions to the French and Russians.

I think this would cause an incident at sea which would be a cassus belli.

 

[NoMommsen]

I think the British would be very assertive of their navigation rights, particularly in the Baltic
...

Problem I see here :
Germany would be in this case well able to declare and install a credible blockade over the Baltic as well as the White Sea against Russia in accordance with international law including the London agreement.

And I somehow struggle to see Denmarck as well as the other scandinavian countries being happy/allowing the brits to operate large(r) naval forces within the Baltics, let alone letting them pass into.

...and Black seas, under the pretext of protecting their shipping going to all comers but in particular Russia.

Following international law :
even Britain isn't allowed to pass war ships through the straits.

In practical terms I think Britain would conduct something like the US' neutrality patrol prior to its entry into WW2, where RN ships would keep watch on German ships and report their positions to the French and Russians.

I think this would cause an incident at sea which would be a cassus belli.

Well, probably not after the first, but after ... some incidents ...
What would still give Germany about 3 to 6 months of relativly "free" trading with the world to purchase and stockpile necessary goods - not to speak of other ... military successes

.... assuming after such a time Britain is still/again "commited" to "fight" for the Entente.

 

[Dorknought]

Belgium or no Belgium the British were quite morally bound up with the Anglo-French Naval Convention where by France looked after the Med and GB looked after the French north coast.
In his speech to the Commons, Grey spoke of what the situation required of Britain with its ‘long-standing friendship’ with France.

Grey described how the French coasts were undefended. Their fleet was in the Mediterranean as they had nothing to fear from Britain. What would happen to British trade routes if the French Fleet were to leave the Mediterranean or if Italy were to ‘depart from her attitude of neutrality’? Grey then told the Commons that the British Fleet ‘will give all the protection in its power’ to protect the French coasts and its shipping from any hostile actions by the German fleet, ‘should the contingency arise’.

 

[Derek Jackson]

In OTL the government was split. Had Germany decided to stand defencive in the West they in fact could have survived quite well, note how disasterous plan 17 was for France.

It might look like going to war to aid Czarist Russia, not popular

 

[NoMommsen]

@Dorknought
All covered by what's descibed above :

• "neutrality patrol"
• "channel demilitarization"

... no need to actually go-to-war/declare-war/join-the-fighting.

 

[Dorknought]

I think there was even a proposal to inter the German fleet in a GB port for the duration as a guarantee.

 

[Catsmate]

I wouldn't be surprised if this one had been done before, with with an excellent ongoing thread on the Germans doing and East First strategy in 1914, I think what exactly Britain does in that event should get its own thread.

So what does Britain do if there is no German invasion of Belgium? Do they declare war on Germany anyway?

Try and find an excuse to sell war with Germany to the cabinet and the populace at large.

 

[Dorknought]

Try and find an excuse to sell war with Germany to the cabinet and the populace at large.

The poor Ostrich died for nothing...

 

[sloreck]

The actions of the RN in the first few months of the war were not decisive in any way, it was only as the war dragged on that the ability of the RN to shut down German commerce with the rest of the world - including the aspects of the blockade with trade to neutrals such as Norway, Denmark, and Holland (in fact violations of the more traditional meanings of blockade) - that were so hard on Germany. Most of what the RN did was to protect British/Entente trade against German raiders and U-Boats, which was vital.

A question which I pose, but don't answer is what happens if the BEF is not on the continent? There is no question that absent the BEF the French will have to extend their lines to cover what the British did, which means thinning things out overall if they can even do it. Certainly when the "race to the sea" happens (if it does) the Germans will be further down the coast than OTL if for no other reason than the reduced opposition. There is no question that the BEF slowed down the German advance on the extreme right. If Britain's entry is delayed until after the early movement phase is over, how miuch more of France will be behind German lines, and what channel ports will be closed to shipping in France. Just some of the questions, of course the biggie is absent the BEF will the French be able to stop the Germans.

 

[NoMommsen]

@sloreck
Absent a german invasion into Belgium aka Belgium (yet) not being/becoming a battlefield there is no need for "guarding" the far left (Maugeuge, Sambre valley) of the french front.

My bet on a french deployment :

• french 5th army, maybe reduced by one of two corps (these as "reserves" [like 2 corps of french 2nd army IOTL] or as an addition for 3rd army) "covering Belgium south of the Sambre on the line Givet - Sedan, maybe reaching to Montmedy
• french 3rd army from Montmedy to Verdun opposing more Thionville than Metz with the task of attacking there to "fix" the german main force as assumed by Joffre
• french 4th army from Verdun to Toul acting as the left wing of the french main attack into Lorrain
• then french 2nd army at/south of Toul Nancy
• followed by french 1st army as the left wing of the french attack

Si, ITTL there are now 2 1/2 french armies advancing into Lorrain instead of 1 1/2 of OTL ("half" of french 1st army was "advancing" into upper Alsac).

 

[sloreck]

@NoMommsen : If Germany doesn't invade Belgium, then I expect we are looking at a "go east" strategy on the part of the Germans where they will bleed the French white giving up some bits of territory in Alsace-Lorraine while they try and squash Russia first. In terms of Russia probably the Germans with A-H go relatively far east doing a good deal of damage to the Russian Army, taking the Baltics and possible Petrograd and then set up a defensive line. The French will fare no better throwing themselves against German fortifications and trenches than they did OTL, yes some parts of Alsace-Lorraine will be "redeeemed" and the coal/iron regions won't be occupied but how much dies that matter. If Britain is not in the war, the RN is not going to blockade German trade and the MN cannot. French finances will soon be a shambles, and while Britain might loan France money, America won't be as forthcoming without the UK involved (and providing "collateral").

If the RN does attempt some sort of interdiction of trade with Germany in the absence of actually being at war, this will completely piss of the USA. Prior to the US entry in to the war, the restrictions on trade not just with Germany but with continental neutrals was a significant sore point. The south was unhappy, just one example, because the sale of cotton to Germany and the continent was highly restricted as it was on the blacklist - potential use for military clothing and also in the manufacture of explosives.

Without Britain in, Italy may fulfill its obligations to the Triple Alliance, or it will stay neutral. I certainly don't see it joining France which eliminates one front for A-H.

 

[NoMommsen]

@sloreck
Was only trying to answer your question about the ITTL on the continent non-existant BEF.

 

[MichaelWest]

But , with a Germany that declares its "desinterest" in Belgium, if only noone else "taps" it (same as the french "guarantee" given on british asking) as well as a german declaration of no-intent to attack France, only afraid of not to be stabbed in the back by it, this reason ceases.

However, Britain will still give France the "guarantee" to protect its northern coast from any german (naval) attack, maybe even the guarantee of its merchantmen ships worldwide (possible interpretation of the guarantee given OTL to Cambon on 2nd August by Grey), probably topped with the promise to "support" France (economically, financial) whereever possible - short of participating in the/a possible war.

With the begin of hostilities Britain would most likely "demilitarize" the channnel in forbidding any other "vessels of war" to enter it - ofc beside the RN to "enforce" this rule.
A in this situation it would serve Britains assumed support for France as a for the moment neutral, they instead or even before the US would ask and recommend the belligerents to strongly respect and obey the rules of the London naval conference of 1909, though they didn't ratified them by themself.

In the further course of the next maybe two to three months at least Britain would probably try to still "limit" the armed conflict strongly recommending everybody else (Italy, Ottoman Empire, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan ... have I forgotten someone ?) to stay neutral and out of the conflict, playing the role of "preserver of the neutral rights" (taking away this position from the US maybe ?).

Using a German decision not to violate Belgian neutrality gives me the bulk of 1st and 2nd Army to re-deploy Eastward, likely reinforcing East Prussia with two Armies in a more tactically sound posture and the third Army used to defend Silesia. That leaves up to five Armies to stand defensive in the West, one likely covering Luxembourg and the Belgian border sufficient to intervene should France violate Belgium. My assumption is that France would not use Belgium to get around the Germans and it takes the losses at the Battle of the Frontiers to turn Joffre to both consider and advocate for it. My assumption is that the German Army employed behind Belgium as cover is noisy enough combined with German feelers with Belgium about crossing her territory that Joffre assumes the Germans are executing an envelopment, his forces are deployed to screen North and he focuses his offensive generally towards Metz at what he assumes is the weak center of a German "V", intending to breakthrough and splitting the German Army. Once the German offensive fails to develop the war in the West becomes a narrowed series of French offensives seeking to dislodge the Germans from A-L. The hard thing to get is Germany not being so "honorable" and avoiding a formal DoW against France, achieving that the French have declared war and attacked a defensive Germany. Diplomatic gold.

I agree and leave Britain to cordon the Channel. Without invasion I feel France is not as dependent upon war loans and without a British DoW is far more independent from Britain, in any event I have France lean on American loans and a sell off of assets just as in OTL with an initial American sympathy for France that fades.

One of my pre-war tweaks is to have Tirpitz recognize the value of "neutral rights" and push or this diplomatically, I have Germany ratify this into a Treaty, urging the other Great Powers to follow. Of course Britain abstains and following our history of staying aloof the US Congress fails to ratify it even if the President agrees. Tirpitz expects as much and is now free to blockade Russia when needed and presuming British hostility he plans for a commerce raiding war. I do not have him get much traction building the necessary cruisers but it plants the seeds for a more coherent response once war begins and Germany realizes its fleet has little to do.

If the UK is not a belligerent then I have the ability to narrow the war to just the CPs and France/Russia. I do not think I can have Germany fail to declare war upon Russia, in fact I think she does once Russia begins mobilizing and that lets Italy slip free of the Alliance. But o long as Britain is neutral Italy remains pro-CP. I ave France attack German colonies in Kamerun and Togo, and I suspect Britain encourages Japan to attack Germany, but I am undecided if the pro-German faction will prevail or not given the changes here. Otherwise a cold neutrality develops between British and German colonies, Britain hamstrung to act openly warlike.

Here 1914 might elapse before the UK finds a rationale to declare war and join the fray. If so then Ireland and the next election soon distract the UK.

 

[MichaelWest]

Depends on when the/a german decision not to invade Belgium and/or attack in the west first becomes public/known to Britain.

IOTL the deciasion to "seize" the two turkish battleships was already made on 30th July IIRC and executed on 1st August, after the shipyard had confirmed having received the last payments from the ottomans with the strong indication, that the turkish commander wanted to raise the turkish flagg on 1st August afternoon.
(Sources can be found here)
Though ... IMHO only aPOD before the last week of July at least would/could change/avoid this "seizure".

If "neutral" Britain seizes the Ottoman ships then I would entertain the argument that the Ottomans join the CPs and close the Straights, opening a front that Russia must deal with, potentially forcing Britain to react and pursue an "independent" war against the Ottomans? Anything short of that is a great boon to the CPs who can have the Ottomans enact a blockade on the Russians. Neutrals can still pass but this might bottleneck the flow to add to Russia's internal distribution problems sufficient to drag her economy. Here the CPs get the Ottomans on the cheap so to speak.

 

[MichaelWest]

The actions of the RN in the first few months of the war were not decisive in any way, it was only as the war dragged on that the ability of the RN to shut down German commerce with the rest of the world - including the aspects of the blockade with trade to neutrals such as Norway, Denmark, and Holland (in fact violations of the more traditional meanings of blockade) - that were so hard on Germany. Most of what the RN did was to protect British/Entente trade against German raiders and U-Boats, which was vital.

A question which I pose, but don't answer is what happens if the BEF is not on the continent? There is no question that absent the BEF the French will have to extend their lines to cover what the British did, which means thinning things out overall if they can even do it. Certainly when the "race to the sea" happens (if it does) the Germans will be further down the coast than OTL if for no other reason than the reduced opposition. There is no question that the BEF slowed down the German advance on the extreme right. If Britain's entry is delayed until after the early movement phase is over, how miuch more of France will be behind German lines, and what channel ports will be closed to shipping in France. Just some of the questions, of course the biggie is absent the BEF will the French be able to stop the Germans.

Here there is no invasion or transit of Belgium to get German armies into Northern France. This war is confined to the Franco-German border and becomes essentially just the OTL Battle of the Frontiers. I cannot imagine the Germans succeeding in breaking out in any counter-offensive to go dashing through France. The BEF is effectively useless as France has more troops than frontage, attacking into dug-in German lines they would likely begin to use waves to utilize their manpower but machineguns and artillery should make that very costly. The question is can the French breakthrough and if so exploit it? In theory all of the 5th will hit the Germans South of Belgium and near-ish Metz? This is the French Schwerepunkt, the debate will boil down to how successful Joffre is in gaining ground or breaking German resistance. I argue the war is a deadlock despite France having no need to deal with two more Armies and the wheel through France. Germany can economize in the West to allow more and more offensive operations against Russia once her initial offense breaks upon the two German Armies standing in East Prussia.

 

[NoMommsen]

A few maybe rather minor notes

...
, in any event I have France lean on American loans and a sell off of assets just as in OTL with an initial American sympathy for France that fades.
...

With Wall Street closed by McAdoo on 31st July until November 1914, this was ... rather problematic for France or french buisness-men during that time. France had to rely on gold, or rather gold-backed credit via the London City bankers.

...
One of my pre-war tweaks is to have Tirpitz recognize the value of "neutral rights"
...

Hmmm, Germany not only ratified the London declaration of 1909but also changed/adapted its Prize Laws to, with its "special rights" to neutrals.

...
Tirpitz expects as much and is now free to blockade Russia when needed ...
...

Something the HSF could ghave ITTL done without further juridical needs.
It had well the capacity to instal a credible rather "close" blockade following the rules of the Lodon declaration of the russian baltic and White-Sea ports.

...
... I do not think I can have Germany fail to declare war upon Russia, in fact I think she does once Russia begins mobilizing ...
...

Weeelll , ...
As history is - at least for about the first two decades - written by the victors ... I ight remind you of the last of the "Willy-Nicky"-Telegrams of 1st August 1914. Though it arrived in St.Petersburg well after the "official" DoW was delivered by the german ambassador, it still confused Sazanow enough to urgently asking the former about it (who had IOTL no idea of).
In a post-war history ITTL - at least, this could well serve as a relativation of the official DoW and "proof" of the kaisers wish for peace

...
I suspect Britain encourages Japan to attack Germany, but I am undecided if the pro-German faction will prevail or not given the changes here.
...

According to Strachan Britain was rather ... reluctant at first in accepting the japanes foreign ministerTakaakis "offer" of assistance, finally "accepting" Japans help officially "only" in containing the german raiders threat.
In staying neutral, I would see quite some probability, that they would try to restrain any attempts of Japan to join the frail and "convince" it to keep itself neutral as well.
However, with Yamagata Arimoto as a strong proponent of the pro-german faction (as it has been teached to me here on the board) as well as the "father" of "Hokushin-ron" or the japanes northern expansion doctrine I could envisage some ... "interesting" diplomatic machinations maybe taking place, regharding "outer manchuria" or the russian Amur-provinces ...