A Central East

Make it quick!
I'm literally drooling here.
I've been considering a similar scenario ever since reading the excellent 'The pity of war' by Niall Ferguson.

A neutral GB would have not been unrealistic as their main colonial competitors were both France and Russia.

Regards,

Rhysz
 
Don't forget that the Netherlands was bound by treaty to protect Luxembourg. OTL Queen Wilhelmina pleaded with the press not to mention that but I could easily see Wilhelmina be very enthusiastic about protecting Luxembourg, especially if it would have meant being on the side of Germany (and not against the British).
 
A neutral GB would have not been unrealistic as their main colonial competitors were both France and Russia.

Thats why it is important to align yourself with them and not with the Germans. By 1914 Britain really had to decide which alliance she was going to join, she could not afford to continue her 'isolation'.
 
Thats why it is important to align yourself with them and not with the Germans. By 1914 Britain really had to decide which alliance she was going to join, she could not afford to continue her 'isolation'.

Luckily, in AH, we have a bit of 'wiggleroom'. I recommend reading 'Kranker Liebe' or Crazy/Sick Love. Which states that the Brits had more in common with the Germans in culture/friendships and interests than with the French/Russians. I think we can agree that only a few, small differences are needed to change the sides in WW1, or at least keep the Brits (and especially the US) out of it.

Ferguson also asserts that if the Brits had been more quick in declaring neutrality the French would have this chance of 'La Revanche' slip.


Regards,

Rhysz
 
I think we can agree that only a few, small differences are needed to change the sides in WW1, or at least keep the Brits (and especially the US) out of it.

I would agree if 'few' meant less that 10 and 'small' meant smaller than the Empire State Building. I don't quite see very many similarities between Wilhelminian Germany and Edwardian Britain. However, I certainly wouldn't mind if you would elaborate on them.
 

MrP

Banned
I'm a bit surprised that MrP haven't pointed out any mistakes done be my, yet.
He is, after all, the resident Great War expert.
So, what does he think of this?

I'm here! Though I'm hardly an expert - merely an enthusiastic amateur. I recommend killing Henry Wilson in the Boer War or Third Burmese War before he can help France. He did more than anyone else in the UK to get Britain into the war. Without Wilson there are no mobilisation plans, no discussions with the French general staff - which he performed in detail, without instructions from his superiors and which clearly exceeded his authority hugely. The British official position was always, "We do like the French, but we can't have any proper discussions or we'll be tied into a war we might not want." When news of Wilson's discussions were revealed to the Cabinet IOTL several members were quite angry. IIRC, only the PM, Foreign Secy and Secy of Defence had been aware beforehand. He was a huge Franchophile, and used to go for cycling holidays on the continent planning where every bit of the BEF would be.

So, yes, kill him for starters. Pre-war French expectations were that the Germans would launch a shallow attack through Luxembourg and possibly the bottom of Belgium. The French were themselves constrained as Wilson - and others - made it clear that for France to attack via Belgium would ruin British support for the war. So France opted for an attack on Alsace-Lorraine, which got mangled by the Crown Prince, who then insisted on being allowed to attack. This was contrary to the grand plan, but von Moltke was too weak to say no, so he left it in the fella's hands.

Keep Joffre out of the top spot and you can weaken the French army considerably. Beware Victor Michel, too, Joffre's predecessor, as he wanted to use the Napoleonic demi-brigade system - half regular units, half reserves - to increase the number of available divisions. IOTL Gallieni refused post-Michel command because a) he was old and infirm, and b) he had been one of those trying to get Michel removed, so he felt it'd be dishonourable. I think he's probably a flexible mind, so have him appointed but then get ill, messing up any reorganisation he attempts.

A lot of the pre-war French stuff can be left the same. They had no attached medium and heavy artillery for divisions, just billions of 75mm guns - well, 36. Anyway, they also had an asinine doctrine set up shortly before WWI which meant artillery prepared a position for assault, but didn't support the infantry as they went in. Add in the crazy offensive a l'outrance of the French army of the period, and you're all set for them to beat their brains out on the German defences.

IOTL German plans called for their forces to retreat to pull the French forward, thus facilitating the grand envelopment through Belgium. With no envelopment being contemplated, I think Germany will adopt a less elastic defence in the West ITTL.

Right, Russia! I'm less up on the Russians. They were aware of their shortcomings as a result of the R-J War, and kept more artillery ammunition close to their guns instead of in depots than the Germans. However, the Germans probably have deeper reserves. This place has a thorough and very cool breakdown of the Russian Army. I don't have a similar online breakdown for the Germans, but I can dig stuff up for you. Russo-French war plans called for both armies to attack in the first 15 days, IIRC, in the belief that the Germans couldn't possibly hold them both back. OTL proved them wrong.

A benefit ITTL for the Russians is that German forces are so overwhelming that the initial Russian attack will be flattened and pushed back into Poland almost at once. However, this will mean that they have to cancel their attack on A-H, and throw troops north asap. With the Italians bribed, the scenario looks rosy for the A-H chaps.

Look forward to more! :)
 
Look forward to more! :)
Thanks!
So: kill off Henry Wilson (a good idea, making the British just generally pro-French instead of the almost-alliance thing of OTL). That runs the risk of making this a pre-1900 POD TL, but that is very much a minor issue.
Make Joseph Gallieni accept command (thus hindering Joffre from gaining said command).
Hmmm... Actually, for the purposes of the TL, the French army shouldn't be particularily weakened, so Joffre might stay.
I don't want the Germans to have victory in the West before they have victory in the East!
Still, the French can't be allowed to have too much success, as that would remove any chance of the Belgian Mistake...
 
Thanks!
So: kill off Henry Wilson (a good idea, making the British just generally pro-French instead of the almost-alliance thing of OTL). That runs the risk of making this a pre-1900 POD TL, but that is very much a minor issue.
Make Joseph Gallieni accept command (thus hindering Joffre from gaining said command).
Hmmm... Actually, for the purposes of the TL, the French army shouldn't be particularily weakened, so Joffre might stay.
I don't want the Germans to have victory in the West before they have victory in the East!

I think you can have the Germans settle for a stalemate in the West so nothing needs to be really changed on the French side.

Don't kill of Wilson, just have him stay in the shoe business or something.
 
One thing that might be affected is Japan's 21 demands to China that they, in OTL, presented in 1915.
I have heard it mentioned that they did it because the Great Powers were distracted with the Great War.
In TTL, however, the British Empire remains outside the War, and might take an interest in what Japan is doing.
Also, the USA will probably be slightly less interested in the European War (less Entente propaganda without Britain's money and involvement, for one thing), and the USA did have interests in China.
So might Japan decide that making the demands would be too risky?
If so, what effects would that have on China and Japan?
 

MrP

Banned
Don't kill of Wilson, just have him stay in the shoe business or something.

I'm just the violent type when it comes to ATLs - I kill off anyone who might be a problem. ;)

Wilson is a bit of a problem, though. He seems to have had a great deal of determination to get into the Army.

One thing that might be affected is Japan's 21 demands to China that they, in OTL, presented in 1915.
I have heard it mentioned that they did it because the Great Powers were distracted with the Great War.
In TTL, however, the British Empire remains outside the War, and might take an interest in what Japan is doing.
Also, the USA will probably be slightly less interested in the European War (less Entente propaganda without Britain's money and involvement, for one thing), and the USA did have interests in China.
So might Japan decide that making the demands would be too risky?
If so, what effects would that have on China and Japan?

Faeelin and Hendryk are your men for China, old boy! :)
 
I'm just the violent type when it comes to ATLs - I kill off anyone who might be a problem. ;)

Wilson is a bit of a problem, though. He seems to have had a great deal of determination to get into the Army.

Make him become a quaker thanks to an evangelist when he was young, they're pacifists. Maybe you should take page from their book, killing alternative history types right and left:D.
 

MrP

Banned
Make him become a quaker thanks to an evangelist when he was young, they're pacifists. Maybe you should take page from their book, killing alternative history types right and left:D.

:D

I'll not rest until my PoDs have slaughtered half the human race in a misguided attempt to end war and save mankind from itself! ;)
 
If Britain stays Out, then Japan stays out also.
?What happens with Africa and our favorite German General?
Yes, since this isn't the crazy militarist Japan of the 30s, but the relatively moderate Japan of the 10s, they would seek a casus belli, at the very least.
As for Lettow-Vorbeck, his situation at the start will be more constrained, as Britain isn't in the war, and neither is Belgium, nor Portugal.
But when Belgium enters the war, he will get his chance to shine.
 
and what would happen in Ireland?

To add to the interesting side effects of Britain staying out of the war; The Irish Home Rule Bill had finally passed through parliament in 1914 and even received Royal Assent. It was suspended for a minimum of 12 months because of the outbreak of war and then events overtook it. It was never implemented and was repealed in 1920. With Britain out of the war, no suspension...

PS the Welsh Church Act (disestablishing the Anglican church in Wales) was also suspended at the same time, though it was enacted in 1920. Maybe there would be enormous butterflies emanating from this Act if had happened in 1914.
 
To add to the interesting side effects of Britain staying out of the war; The Irish Home Rule Bill had finally passed through parliament in 1914 and even received Royal Assent. It was suspended for a minimum of 12 months because of the outbreak of war and then events overtook it. It was never implemented and was repealed in 1920. With Britain out of the war, no suspension...

PS the Welsh Church Act (disestablishing the Anglican church in Wales) was also suspended at the same time, though it was enacted in 1920. Maybe there would be enormous butterflies emanating from this Act if had happened in 1914.
Aye, Home Rule is one of the more interesting side effects for the UK.
I didn't know about the Welsh Church Act, though. Might have some interesting effects down the road...
 

MrP

Banned
Excellent points, blab. I've always thought a delayed Irish Home Rule Bill and then Northern Ireland blowing up as a result of it would pretty much bugger up UK entry into any WWI-analogue.
 
But the poins is MrP that Home Rule would NOT have been delayed had Britian not entered the war. Or another reason would have to be found for delay.

Would the UK govt have forced it on the unionists in Ireland? (who were at this time an integral part of the westminister oppostion - the Irish Unionists, the Liberal Unionists and the Tories formed the opporstion to the Liberals and called themselves the Unionists.) The idea of partitoning Ireland was much less popluar (ie not really thought about much) in 1914 that it was in the early 1920's. Unionists wanted to reject Home Rule entirely and keep all on Irleland in the Union, to many partition was anathama. On the pro-Home Rule side, they too were very differant than after the events of 1916 and the war of 1919-21. At this stage republicans were not in the driving seat. Home Rulers were contnent for Ireland to have Dominion status similar to Canada etc. It is easy to forget that Sinn Fein was founded by Arther Griffths as a party to argue for his position that the UK shloud model itself on Austria-Hungary - a dual Monarchy (Republicanism, where are you?) of Britian and Ireland but with sepaprte legisitures and executives.
 
But the poins is MrP that Home Rule would NOT have been delayed had Britian not entered the war. Or another reason would have to be found for delay.
The outbreak of the Great War might still be used as a reason for suspension.
However, with the UK not in directly the War, there is a fair chance that it will be applied, after 12 months have passed.
As for Home Rule being forced upon the Unionists in Ireland, I think the Government might do it. If nothing else, having it already be a fact would probably disrupt the unity of the Unionists' (heh), and if the Unionists falls apart, that's in the Liberals' favour for the next election.
And since the Army is not needed in Europe in TTL, they might have more suitably 'neutral' (IE, actually neutral and pro-Home Rule' soldiers to do it.
 

Thande

Donor
But the poins is MrP that Home Rule would NOT have been delayed had Britian not entered the war. Or another reason would have to be found for delay.

Would the UK govt have forced it on the unionists in Ireland? (who were at this time an integral part of the westminister oppostion - the Irish Unionists, the Liberal Unionists and the Tories formed the opporstion to the Liberals and called themselves the Unionists.) The idea of partitoning Ireland was much less popluar (ie not really thought about much) in 1914 that it was in the early 1920's. Unionists wanted to reject Home Rule entirely and keep all on Irleland in the Union, to many partition was anathama. On the pro-Home Rule side, they too were very differant than after the events of 1916 and the war of 1919-21. At this stage republicans were not in the driving seat. Home Rulers were contnent for Ireland to have Dominion status similar to Canada etc. It is easy to forget that Sinn Fein was founded by Arther Griffths as a party to argue for his position that the UK shloud model itself on Austria-Hungary - a dual Monarchy (Republicanism, where are you?) of Britian and Ireland but with sepaprte legisitures and executives.
One of the possibilities explored at the time was to create two Irish Dominions, one consisting of the majority of the counties and the other consisting of the awkward squad in Ulster (a bit smaller than OTL's Northern Ireland). Basically the southern Dominion would have been granted independence first, and then the northern one would have required more wrangling.
 
Top