I'm still trying to develop my Frozen Spring TL although not making much progress, for a range of complicated reasons. However here's the position on which I want thoughts. Some of these I've raised before, but the emphasis is changing. As a reminder the POD is a mismanaged military response to a coal strike in South Wales in 1910 leading to many deaths.

By 1914 Britain is struggling to control waves of political and industrial unrest. This has led to the need to recall regiments of the Army from India, Malta and South Africa after attempts to use the Territorials against strikers led to widespread mutinies. In Ireland both Republicans and Loyalists have armed themselves with covert support from Germany. Suffragist violence is also growing (much as in OTL where only chance prevented much more serious outcomes) and there are disturbing signs of alliances between some parts of the suffrage movement with workers and between some parts of the labour movement and some of the Irish. Independence movements also gain strength in Scotland and Wales, with some signs that they might begin to work together with some Irish groups - not necessarily those talking to the Labour movement!

Faced with this the Civilian Force (a real group which fizzled out) gains much greater strength, allies itself with Loyalists in Ireland and obtains some of their weapons, growing in the process into a strong para-military and proto-fascist organisation offering support to the employers in industrial disputes - with predictable results.

In an attempt to defuse all this there is a Constitutional Conference in early 1914 but this is mismanaged from the outset and for a while only makes matters worse.

By the time of the Balkan Crisis Britain is desperately trying to keep a lid on matters at home and does not send the BEF to France at the outbreak of war. German forces head for the coast and are allowed to take Paris, (much as in WW2) although they bog down before getting much further.

My question, finally is this. Given German occupation of Paris and a portion of the Channel Coast and assuming Britain gets its act together by early 1915 (probably in part on the back of some promise of Home Rule All Round), what would be the best way to get British ground forces into play. I'm assuming opposed landings are not feasible. In OTL Empire forces from India landed in the south of France and moved north I think by November 1914 but certainly in 1915 and nothing has happened to change this. In fact it could be earlier, if troops were already on their way to Britain at the time. On the French Channel coast though I'm not sure, and ports on the Atlantic coast would mean long sea journeys and so a long time to build up forces. They might be a destination for Canadian forces I suppose.

There also seem to be two outcomes with respect to Germany. First we might be more willing to do a deal in order to get back to dealing with matters at home. Second is that the war might be extended because it would be harder to dislodge Germany from occupied France. In this case it could overlap, even merge into the Russian Revolution and perhaps give rise to a much more extended Allied Intervention in Russia (perhaps even with German support)

Thoughts please?
 
Further thoughts:
  • an early end to the war means no US involvement with major butterflies elsewhere.
  • a later end to the war might see US forces fighting in Russia to a much greater extent that OTL - also major butterflies.
 
Well, I first have to say that I've really enjoyed your timeline so far, especially since it's so boldly original in its premise. People talk about the Home Rule Crisis as a thing that could get worse if Britain didn't get into WWI when it did, but the industrial unrest you've explored isn't something I'd ever seen before. Now, I don't know all of that information about British politics of the time nearly as well as you seem to, but I'll see what I can do to help with the war itself.

First thoughts would involve the timing of the fall of Paris. I'm guessing it falls around early September, the time of OTL's Marne, maybe a bit later. That's also around the time of Masurian Lakes OTL, so Russian forces in East Prussia are spent for the time being if that still happens. And while losing Paris might not break the French politically, it very well could militarily - it was the center of their logistics system and an industrial center, so without it, I'm not sure a large enough counteroffensive could be mounted to retake the city in 1914. So, going into 1915 the Germans are holding onto Paris, rail is disrupted, and I think supplies to Le Havre would have to be rerouted to Saint Nazaire or something, since the Seine would also be cut. Now, this means a strategic shift for the CP's in 1915 - OTL they attacked eastwards, and there's still that temptation, if only because the Austrians really wanted to relieve Przemysl, but here mopping up what remains of French resistance seems a lot more tempting. Really, I'm not sure the British would be able to insert enough troops in time to stop all of this; there'd be too much front to cover and they'd also be relying on the headless French logistical network. I'd be surprised if there were still hostilities going into 1916 - at least in the West, who knows what might happen in Russia.
 
What would be the source for a DoW in this case? Because the Leaders would need a damn good one to unite the country behind themself to fight a major continental war. And then how would the population react to it?

Imo the scenario is one where the British entry is becoming more unlikey with every day it is posponed. The massive civil unrest will be one thing and the countless dead are another.
Combine that with a France that has lost much important ground and industry, it would be very clear that the war would have to be financed by Britain. And with the Germans at the Channel Coast, the best supply chains are already broken, so double or triple the effort to supply any troops in France. Would British leaders accept these very adverse conditions to enter a war?

Another point is that the British probably have already bleed money like there is no tomorrow. Add to that the demage to their industy, standing and all else and I can see then and the RN to be weaker then OTL.

So what are the grounds that bring the DoW into beeing now? Because Imo Belgium and co. are cold dead fish at this point.
 
What would be the source for a DoW in this case? Because the Leaders would need a damn good one to unite the country behind themself to fight a major continental war. And then how would the population react to it?

Indeed. Let's not forget the possible irony that with the Race to the Sea being no race at all, there's a non-trivial chance that King Albert gives up and cuts a separate peace with Germany, taking that CB away completely.
 
In the ATL, the level of unrest has not yet damaged Britain's industrial capacity in the form of industrial plant nor has it impacted on the Royal Navy - although I'm not ruling out disaffection at a later date. The damage so far is institutional and social, which has of course the capacity to affect production, but depending on assumptions about stockpiling of munitions etc may not yet be critical. My assumption for now is that our treaty obligation still stands but we haven't been able to deliver on that obligation. I'm assuming that the RN would attempt to keep the German Navy in port, much as OTL and might be able to harrass German forces on shore by shelling, but they would need good intelligence to do that.

One factor I haven't mentioned is that the government now know that Germany is arming both sides in Ireland, and once they know then the Unionists will. I haven't ruled out some sort of alt-Curragh mutiny yet, but if we were at war with Germany, any Unionist rising or attempt at rising would probably be treated pretty harshly, perhaps even more harshly then the 1916 rising since we would be expecting support from them. The incorporation of the UVF into the British Army might not happen. I'm thinking in fact that if the Constitutional Conference starts to make progress towards Home Rule, in a context where the Unionists are seen as less loyal than in OTL, the alt-1916 rising might be a Unionist one.

The idea that Belgium cuts a deal with Germany allowing them free passage into France is something I hadn't considered. If that happened, even after a DoW, matters would wind down very quickly, although not for France of course. If the Russian Revolution still takes place we might see an intervention by Anglo-German forces - especially if Britain has seen problems caused by 'communists' - the British government of the day were not very clued up on the distinctions between Communism, Syndicalism and Anarchism.

An Anglo-German peace deal at the expense of France would have an interesting effect on inter-war Europe...
 
I think conflict with Germany might take the form, not of Britain joining an obviously-faltering Franco-Russian Entente, but of declaring her own "private" war with Germany that involves only her own direct, immediate interests.

Driven by the particular circumstance of Germany arming insurgent groups, it can be a naval-only, limited-war campaign (which suits Britain well) and can result in a negotiated peace. Much better than being dragged into the existing, no-end-in-sight Total War at this unfavorable point.

Once Germany agrees to stop her meddling, Britain can make nice to the new Power On The Continent. Having avoided Total War, the British and Germans should be able to reconcile in a way that doesn't leave Britain constantly endangered.

France... well, nations have no friends, only interests.
 
Well, I first have to say that I've really enjoyed your timeline so far, especially since it's so boldly original in its premise. People talk about the Home Rule Crisis as a thing that could get worse if Britain didn't get into WWI when it did, but the industrial unrest you've explored isn't something I'd ever seen before. Now, I don't know all of that information about British politics of the time nearly as well as you seem to, but I'll see what I can do to help with the war itself.

First thoughts would involve the timing of the fall of Paris. I'm guessing it falls around early September, the time of OTL's Marne, maybe a bit later. That's also around the time of Masurian Lakes OTL, so Russian forces in East Prussia are spent for the time being if that still happens. And while losing Paris might not break the French politically, it very well could militarily - it was the center of their logistics system and an industrial center, so without it, I'm not sure a large enough counteroffensive could be mounted to retake the city in 1914. So, going into 1915 the Germans are holding onto Paris, rail is disrupted, and I think supplies to Le Havre would have to be rerouted to Saint Nazaire or something, since the Seine would also be cut. Now, this means a strategic shift for the CP's in 1915 - OTL they attacked eastwards, and there's still that temptation, if only because the Austrians really wanted to relieve Przemysl, but here mopping up what remains of French resistance seems a lot more tempting. Really, I'm not sure the British would be able to insert enough troops in time to stop all of this; there'd be too much front to cover and they'd also be relying on the headless French logistical network. I'd be surprised if there were still hostilities going into 1916 - at least in the West, who knows what might happen in Russia.
Actually, from what I remember, the Marne was able to happen because the Germans were at the end of their logistical tether. No Britain would probably not have impacted that. Especially since Paris had some heavy fortifications, and wouldn't have fallen easily.
 
If you had four years of civil unrest I strongly doubt that it did not effect the financial and production side of things. But ok, I can get behind that there are only limited, ie. small from OTL, changes that do not matter in the short term. But that the RN is the same? Sorry that is hard to stomache. It did need the continous scares to reach the size it had OTL and here we have four years of (undetermined) smaller revenues and higher cost for the Army. That in all tells me that the RN will have had to give something up.
And if the RN did try to keep the Germans in port or bombard coasts, then the British would be at war already. Or someone like Churchill did exeede his competences to a massive degree.

Um, how does Germany arm both sides in the conflict if the RN should be able to block Ireland from seaborn supply? A certain smuggling is certainly possible, but that should not ammount to too much. So how are the contacts structured and who is transpoting the goods. Also i doubt that the Germans would keep that up when they have a war on their hands and Britain is still neutral.

The Belgians bowing out or allowing German travel is certainly possible. Maybe they constrict it to south of the fortress line or somesuch. But with Britian noticably absorbed with internal matters the chance is there.

Tallil2long, a conflict between Germany and Britian would still need a casus beli. And i belive that the Germans would at least try to keep the British out of it. More so as they have France in the ropes. Not out, but badly hurt in capacity to wage war. So Imo any conflict could see a very fast end. On the other hand, all nations might seek the conflikt to prop up internal suppert, the British more then the Germans here, but oh well.
 
Actually, from what I remember, the Marne was able to happen because the Germans were at the end of their logistical tether. No Britain would probably not have impacted that. Especially since Paris had some heavy fortifications, and wouldn't have fallen easily.

But with no BEF to delay and distract at Mons/Le Cateau, perhaps French Fifth Army doesn't manage to extract itself in fighting condition.

With no Fifth Army (or less useable remnants) plus no two-corps BEF, the Marne is much different.

Remember, the German armies were exhausted and low on supplies, but still a formidable force.
 
Um, how does Germany arm both sides in the conflict if the RN should be able to block Ireland from seaborn supply? A certain smuggling is certainly possible, but that should not ammount to too much. So how are the contacts structured and who is transpoting the goods. Also i doubt that the Germans would keep that up when they have a war on their hands and Britain is still neutral.

Snip.

Tallil2long, a conflict between Germany and Britian would still need a casus beli. And i belive that the Germans would at least try to keep the British out of it. More so as they have France in the ropes. Not out, but badly hurt in capacity to wage war. So Imo any conflict could see a very fast end. On the other hand, all nations might seek the conflikt to prop up internal suppert, the British more then the Germans here, but oh well.

Meddling in a nations internal affairs by smuggling weapons to insurgent groups is a satisfactory casus belli.

I suspect the Germans could smuggle enough small arms and ammo to be an issue (even on subs, if necessary). The question is , would they risk getting caught at such a thing when it isn't really necessary?
Ideally, no. But yah, Imperial Germany made some real blunders OTL.
 
But with no BEF to delay and distract at Mons/Le Cateau, perhaps French Fifth Army doesn't manage to extract itself in fighting condition.

With no Fifth Army (or less useable remnants) plus no two-corps BEF, the Marne is much different.

Remember, the German armies were exhausted and low on supplies, but still a formidable force.

Meddling in a nations internal affairs by smuggling weapons to insurgent groups is a satisfactory casus belli.

I suspect the Germans could smuggle enough small arms and ammo to be an issue (even on subs, if necessary). The question is , would they risk getting caught at such a thing when it isn't really necessary?
Ideally, no. But yah, Imperial Germany made some real blunders OTL.

For the sake of a particular timeline, I'd say that both Paris falling and the Germans smuggling weapons to Ireland are acceptable. That's not the same as saying either is particularly likely, but simply unlikely stuff happens, and there are reasons for both. And certainly, the Ireland issue is still less dumb than the Zimmermann Telegram - at least there are factions in Ireland ready to fight, and the Germans don't care who wins.
 
For the sake of a particular timeline, I'd say that both Paris falling and the Germans smuggling weapons to Ireland are acceptable. That's not the same as saying either is particularly likely, but simply unlikely stuff happens, and there are reasons for both. And certainly, the Ireland issue is still less dumb than the Zimmermann Telegram - at least there are factions in Ireland ready to fight, and the Germans don't care who wins.

Agree to all. And the Zimmerman Telegram was certainly one of the blunders I was thinking of!
 
There also seem to be two outcomes with respect to Germany. First we might be more willing to do a deal in order to get back to dealing with matters at home. Second is that the war might be extended because it would be harder to dislodge Germany from occupied France.
France is defeated. What are Germany's war aims now? Is this lebensraum, or can Germany repeat 1871, and withdraw from France after showing them who's boss, along with seizing some bordering or perhaps overseas territory?
 
I have again thought about the weapons smugling. Why did Germany start it?
I am thinking that the war time propaganda of Wilhelm II is coloring our perceptions. Yes he was an easyly influenced character, but that the Germans regularly get the idiot ball in this time is getting old fast in serious settings. But enough of that.
Why and when would the Germans have begun to supply weapons to the Irish factions? Before or after the British acted unreasonable? Because I could see the British backing down on some points, mostly their antagonistic stance against Germany, with the troubles in country.

On the other hand, I also can see the Germans trying to get something from the British in their percived weakness. So I think the inter country relations will have shifted from ca. 1910 when the troubless began to 1914 when the Sarajevo Crisis happens. So maybe France and Russia are less belingerent and let Serbia hang because they, rightly or wrongly, perive Britian as less strong and willing to enter foraign adventures. Could not, too. But the four years were Imo very fluid for the European situation for Britain.

So when did the important things happen and how would Britain justify its entry? Again I think that the Coast and Belgium are out as reasons because they are "old news" at that point. Sure you could construct some line for them, but Imo it would be too late to realisticaly drumm up major civil support in the face of the casualties occuring in France and that the British Isles are probably still not that calm.
 
As far as I know Russia will stubbornly continue to resist the German Armed Forces (Well Nicky anyway)
Assuming that Romania is diplomatically secured by the Hohenzollern's as was planned, then they will have a slightly expanded northern border (likely incorporating Odessa)
This will be for two main regions, firstly geopolitical security and secondly economic gain
The proposed Baltic Duchy would possibly have an expanded border, posing mainly as a further insult to the now Petrograd
Establishing various puppet states would occur in the eventual treaty
Overall it will be mostly done to securing their allies then any real gains for Germany
 
I didn't say Germany was smuggling arms. I said the Republicans and Loyalists were buying arms with covert German support. The arms bought by the UVF in OTL came from Germany via an arms dealer. It wouldn't be difficult for Germany to channel more through the dealer and finance him to the extent that he can be generous to the buyers. They could turn a blind eye to shipping them, even give a bit of cover, perhaps by supporting the misdirection I wrote about in the thread.

The effect of the industrial unrest will be to confirm the German belief that Britain would not get involved and the invasion of Belgium would go ahead. The divergence comes when Britain is unable to offer any support except via the RN. Belgium might well then cut a deal as suggested above. If that happened the case for British involvement goes away - removed by the Belgians. We might then come to an agreement with Germany. It might have no more of a life than that reached by Chamberlain of course,
 
Another important change might be Italy. With Germany taking Paris while Brittain sits out they might decide to join "the winners" and attack France.
 
The wild card would be if the ottomans threaten British interests like the suez or Egypt ..
This could also be a reason to join the fight.

Also if the ottomans wanted to restore Balkan dominance this could be a devisiv split in the central powers.

In the event of peace deals I could see Russia loosing gains in Eastern Europe but Petrograd would be off limits and would unite the Russians to fight. They could loose Poland.. Finland .. Some of Belarus .. Maybe parts of Ukraine .. But Petrograd?! No... And I don't think any western power would want that to either. Even th Turks didn't have to give up Constantinople, or the Germans Berlin .. St Petersburg was the Capitol of Tsarist Russia, it's not being given away, Peter the great built that city.

Peace would have to be with in reason, even Brest-litvosk wasn't that insane
 

jahenders

Banned
It's a very different war. First, there's a very good chance that Paris falls, crushing French morale, capturing lots of supplies and key rail hub. French forces are pushed way back and the French may surrender.

If Britain isn't actively poised for war, they probably deliver the couple planned warships to the Ottoman Empire, reducing friction there and keeping the Ottomans out of the war.

By early 1915, France may well have fallen. If not, it's in a bad state. Joining it may not look attractive to the Brits. If the Brits join at that late date, they may limit their involvement to naval actions and colony actions.
 
Top