1914 Germany heads East

Wait so the British would send the ammo in their own flagged ships? If they are going to do that they might as well send them in convoy escorted by warships and declare themselves "non beliggerent" or whatever the ww1 version of that is

The French part I get... but this would be delayed considerably as they desperately need stocks for their own army, and even keeping their NE departments would still find themselves without much spare production till mid 1915

Are we still talking about UK as a Germany hostile neutral? Churchill would not escort the British flagged ammo ships because he is hoping that they are attacked.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What are you guys talking about??? In addition to a navy, France has a coast on the Mediterranean. French ammo ships would depart from Toulon.

Attacking British flagged ships would give the British war hawks like Churchill the causus belli they crave.

French ships from England and North America will have to land in France with supplies, and they will have to be protected by French ships. Not all French warships can be in the Med, unless you are assuming the UK is not only keeping German warships out of the Channel but also protecting ships from neutral countries. Also, with AMC you will not sink the ships, but board and sail to another neutral port.

Now as I said earlier, a lot depends on the rules the UK is enforcing for naval shipments. Under some set of rules an English flag ship carry absolute contraband could be seized. Under other rules, no ships at all could be stopped. To really know how the war goes, one would have to figure out the UK naval policy towards "international law".
 
Are we still talking about UK as a Germany hostile neutral? Churchill would not escort the British flagged ammo ships because he is hoping that they are attacked.

why would they attack them when they could just capture them under the prize rule and bring them into spain or portugal for internment?
 
why would they attack them when they could just capture them under the prize rule and bring them into spain or portugal for internment?

You guys still don't get it. If we assume there is a war hawks faction (Grey, Churchill, Lord Northcliffe) they will interpret the Hague as they want. Now it is possible that Asquith and Llyoyd George rein in the most war hawks so once the first vessel is interned they form token convoys with an old RN cruiser or two for protection. If those are attacked the war hawks win.

Actually one thing to bring up. Again let us turn to Halpern:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6hwb6ovvYCcC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cruiser warfare may work better for the MN than the KM as there are 19 French AC to 7 German AC.
 
why would they attack them when they could just capture them under the prize rule and bring them into spain or portugal for internment?

As the ships are UK flagged, the UK would come up with whatever justification meet their own needs.

As a 'neutral' power UK ships couldn't be just seized especially as the law on the subject was cloudy to say the least. I could see the UK getting very picky about prizes especially without a close in blockade.

Again I see the UK twisting things to suit their objectives as needed.

Michael
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You guys still don't get it. If we assume there is a war hawks faction (Grey, Churchill, Lord Northcliffe) they will interpret the Hague as they want. Now it is possible that Asquith and Llyoyd George rein in the most war hawks so once the first vessel is interned they form token convoys with an old RN cruiser or two for protection. If those are attacked the war hawks win.

Actually one thing to bring up. Again let us turn to Halpern:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6hwb6ovvYCcC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cruiser warfare may work better for the MN than the KM as there are 19 French AC to 7 German AC.

I do understand your position, and this is why I generally think Germany made the right call invading Belgium because the UK would not really be neutral. The UK keeping the Germans out of the channel, effectively protects the Atlantic coast of France, so they question is does the UK then prevent France from interfering with German flagged merchant ships? Probably not IMO, but the prewar information I have seen indicates that few people had thought through either how cruiser rules work in the 1914 world or how the UK being half-in/half-out of the Entente works.

The strict interpretation of cruiser rule per Captain Mahan would mean that NO ship could be stopped in the war due to no nation being able to maintain a close blockade, which generally means 2 capital ships within gun range of the "closely blockade port". So after the Entente and CP reflagged theirs ships to neutral countries, no AMC, no U-boats, no cruisers doing merchant warfare.

So it appears to me that various posters are assuming various interpretations of cruiser rules, and talking past each other with looking at the critical assumptions.

As the ships are UK flagged, the UK would come up with whatever justification meet their own needs.

As a 'neutral' power UK ships couldn't be just seized especially as the law on the subject was cloudy to say the least. I could see the UK getting very picky about prizes especially without a close in blockade.

Again I see the UK twisting things to suit their objectives as needed.

Michael

Under one set of rules, the UK ships could not be seized, and this is the USA interpretation. Under the UK interpreted prewar rules, the ships could be seized. Now I agree the UK would find a way to avoid its ships being seized, and the most likely way would be using the low countries (Antwerp, Rotterdam). Now the UK might also insists its ships could sail from Halifax to Brest without any risks, and they likely have the power to make this happen, but they would also have to consider they are adopting the USA rules, which the UK would not like it whatever its next war happens to be. A lot depends on what one believes the objects of the UK cabinet would be during the war, and how powerful the business interest are in the UK. If the UK will sell to both sides, the UK will have an economic boom like the USA did in OTL, pre-1917.

There is also the issue of the USA, which will could conceivably enter the war if its perceived merchants rights are violated. In a case of the UK following the its prewar rules, and accepting its ships can't dock at French ports without risk, the USA might still insists its ships be allowed to sail to France, and might enter the war on France's side anyway if Germany harassed USA ships.

The truth of this subject is their are many opportunitistic countries and a lot of quick decision points, and we can't say with much confidence what happens much after December 1914. There are multiple possible UK responses, multiple Ottoman responses, and a lot of other butterflies we are not even looking at such as which day the Kaiser changes his mind on going east and how fast the Russians realize Germany has switched war plans.
 
You guys still don't get it. If we assume there is a war hawks faction (Grey, Churchill, Lord Northcliffe) they will interpret the Hague as they want. Now it is possible that Asquith and Llyoyd George rein in the most war hawks so once the first vessel is interned they form token convoys with an old RN cruiser or two for protection. If those are attacked the war hawks win.

Actually one thing to bring up. Again let us turn to Halpern:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6hwb6ovvYCcC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cruiser warfare may work better for the MN than the KM as there are 19 French AC to 7 German AC.

so they would be under convoy with warship escort? how on earth do they sell that little bill of goods to the people if there is an incident without some kind of massive cover up?

we are neutral but sending war materials to russia and sending the ships with warship escorts to prevent germany from interfearing with those war materials and will shoot at them if they try to interdict


i am tempted to ask how the hell that would work but lend lease worked the same way
 
Would they really be able to buy shells from the UK and France though. (assuming both were neutral). Both of them had shell shortages in their own army's that were just as bad if not worse than the Russian situation (especially the British). Once observers see that rate at which shells are being consumed, especially since at least France if not both might be sitting at partial mobilization, they might be loath to part with a single shell even to help their ally

Wouldn't the Germans and Austrians be able to interdict those routes pretty easily as well with their fleets?

Why, exactly, would a Russia more thoroughly on the defensive not be able to make better use of all those artillery depots in the fortresses than was the case IOTL? Surely a different strategic situation would see something of a different set of choices made.
 
Regarding this whole "Britain would remain neutral" business, I finally remembered where that post was. It was by Cook, in a thread about Belgium letting German troops pass freely

The British cabinet had met in the morning the day before, on August the 1st to discuss the crisis and what to do in the event of war. This was before the news had arrived from Russia that the Germans had declared war, at this stage as far as the British knew only Austria and Serbia were at war. Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, was for immediate intervention alongside the French. Prime Minister Asquith and Grey, the Foreign Secretary were also in favour of intervention if France was attacked, even if Belgian neutrality was not violated but the rest of the cabinet was opposed to British intervention unless Belgium was invaded. The only member of the cabinet who was opposed to British intervention in the war under any circumstances was the Lord Privy Seal, John Morley, who threatened to resign if Britain declared war. Since he threatened to resign regularly none of the others were greatly worried by his statement.

The cabinet met again the next morning, by which time the news from St Petersburg and Berlin had been received but prior to German ultimatum to Belgium being delivered. At the meeting the cabinet was again divided. Asquith, Grey and Churchill were now in favour of immediate intervention, Grey threatening to resign if the cabinet opted for a declaration of neutrality. Apart from Crewe, Secretary of State for India, the rest were still opposed to declaring war if Belgium neutrality was not violated. During the cabinet meeting a message arrived from Bonar Law, the Conservative Party leader saying:

‘It would be fatal to the honour and security of the United Kingdom to hesitate in supporting France and Russia at the present juncture; and we offer our unhesitating support to the Government in any measures they may consider necessary for that object.’

Many Liberal Party backbenchers were opposed to intervention and there was the very real possibility of a split in the Liberal party over the decision to go to war if Belgian neutrality was not violated. In those circumstances the most likely outcome would have been a government of national unity combining Asquith’s supporters in the Liberals with Law’s Conservatives. So the most likely outcome of Belgium passively allowing German troops to transit the country is that Britain would still intervene, but with a new coalition government.
I also remember reading somewhere else about how the British viewed, prior to the German invasion of Belgium, the possibility of German cruisers entering the Channel as a cassus belli, or about how it would have been incredibly easy for them to manufacture a naval incident within weeks.

So I don't really think Britain would remain neutral in the case of Germany heading east.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Please notice that ITTL France is not "being attacked". It is the one declaring war to, and attacking, Germany. You cannot just copy and paste OTL political stances on TTL events, since the political effects of Russia and France declaring war first to Germany and A-H have to be taken into effect, which would weaken the stance and arguments of British Germanophobes considerably. In such a situation, it is to be expected that support for intervention would be even much less within the Liberals than in the case of British neutrality being preserved.

I'm far from convinced that PM Asquith himself would be so in favor of intervention if Germany is on the defensive in the West, even if Grey and Churchill fancy Germans' liver for breakfast, nor so willing to cause a major split in the Liberal party for the sake of it.

I also remember reading somewhere else about how the British viewed, prior to the German invasion of Belgium, the possibility of German cruisers entering the Channel as a cassus belli,

Yea, but if Germany is on the defensive in the West, this is not so likely to happen.

or about how it would have been incredibly easy for them to manufacture a naval incident within weeks.

Not so easy, and again, this assumes the British government going out of its way to find an excuse for war, which, given the situation, cannot so easily be taken for granted.
 
Last edited:
Please notice that ITTL France is not "being attacked". It is the one declaring war to, and attacking, Germany. You cannot just copy and paste OTL political stances on TTL events, since the political effects of Russia and France declaring war first to Germany and A-H have to be taken into effect, which would weaken the stance and arguments of British Germanophobes considerably.

Actually, if you look closely, you will see that the cabinet meeting where Asquith, Grey and Churchill opted for war against Germany was prior to the German DoW against France and ultimatum to Belgium.

Also, when did Russia declare war first against Germany ? Last time I checked, Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt military preparations within twelve hours on July 31 and declared war on August 1st. It makes no sense for Russia to declare war on Germany, since it's not in their interest, given they the fact they want to crush A-H. Also, Germany not declaring war against Russia would make them look really silly, since they gave them an ultimatum and all, trying to scare them into compliance.

In such a situation, it is to be expected that support for intervention would be even much less within the Liberals than in the case of British neutrality being preserved.
no, it's not.



I'm far from convinced that PM Asquith himself would be so in favor of intervention if Germany is on the defensive in the West, even if Grey and Churchill fancy Germans' liver for breakfast, nor so willing to cause a major split in the Liberal party for the sake of it.
What evidence other than him supporting the issue prior to the German declaration of war on France and ultimatum to Belgium do you want ?


Not so easy, and again, this assumes the British government going out of its way to find an excuse for war, which, given the situation, cannot so easily be taken for granted
What is so hard about it ? Especially since it will be Churchill pulling the strings and giving the orders to the navy, with support from the PM himself.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Actually, if you look closely, you will see that the cabinet meeting where Asquith, Grey and Churchill opted for war against Germany was prior to the German DoW against France and ultimatum to Belgium.

Key words are "France being attacked". If Germany is on the defensive in the West, the whole strategic situation as far as British interests are concerned is very different and much less conductive for intervention.

Also, when did Russia declare war first against Germany ? Last time I checked, Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt military preparations within twelve hours on July 31 and declared war on August 1st. It makes no sense for Russia to declare war on Germany, since it's not in their interest, given they the fact they want to crush A-H. Also, Germany not declaring war against Russia would make them look really silly, since they gave them an ultimatum and all, trying to scare them into compliance.

If Plan Schliffen is scrapped, Germany has no discernible interest to rush a ultimatum and DoW on Russia and France, and so paint itself as an aggressor, since it is then under a much less strict war mobilization deadline. It can wait for Russia to declare war on A-H and France to declare war on itself. And so it does. The event sequence then becomes:

- A-H declares war on Serbia (Serbian refusal to comply with investigation of regicides)
- Russia declares war on A-H (Pan-Slav patronage of Serbia)
- Germany declares war on Russia (alliance with A-H)
- France declares war on Germany (alliance with Russia)

Granted, the occurrence of a general war then becomes wholly dependent on Russia being willing to escalate by declaring war on A-H. With such a mercurial leader as Nicholas II, it may happen.

no, it's not.

And the reasonable casus belli for Britain would be ? They do not have an alliance with France or Russia. Belgium is not violated. The HSF is not in the Channel. The French Atlantic ports are not under a immediate threat of being seized by Germany. The CP are fighting to defend themselves from Pan-Slav terrorism and aggression.

What evidence other than him supporting the issue prior to the German declaration of war on France and ultimatum to Belgium do you want ?

German defensive stance in the West makes a big difference, as far as British strategic interests are concerned. Asquith was not an awowed Germanophobe like Grey or Churchill.

What is so hard about it ? Especially since it will be Churchill pulling the strings and giving the orders to the navy, with support from the PM himself.

I doubt the PM would give such a support. And Churchill might not stay in charge of the navy, if Britain stays neutral.
 
Last edited:
- A-H declares war on Serbia (Serbian refusal to comply with investigation of regicides)
- Russia declares war on A-H (Pan-Slav patronage of Serbia)
- Germany declares war on Russia (alliance with A-H)
- France declares war on Germany (alliance with Russia)

If Germany just wants to secure a diplomatic/limited military victory for Austria things could move slow and end up being "solved" before a global war. but If Germany uses this as her last best chance to dominate Europe before Russia gets too stong then its WW1 just the same, with all the powers involved in a short time and Germany loosing just the same eventually.

If Germany can convince Britain of her desire to only win a limited diplomatic/military victory over Serbia. I can see her staying out until her security is threatened by:

a) Germany doing some silly naval move close to Britain.
b) Germany moving her armes over the Russian border (or French or any neutral's border)

Since Austria is between Russia and Serbia Germany should just let Austria crush serbia - if the Russians actually attack into Galacia - Germany should just send some of her amies into Galacia to defend Austria but not attack Russia directly.

Once Serbia is crushed, just present the matter to the world as "solved", promise to restore Serbia once the criminal elements are rooted out, etc.. One sharp defeat of the Ruissian armies invading Galacia and that may be all thats needed.

Perhaps the limited victory throws Russia into revolution again (1905 style) and Germany has several years before she has to worry about Russia again.
 
Top