A Neutral Britain in World War I

If you have anything approaching a Brest-Litovsk settlement in Germany's favour then that has just handed German dominance on the continent. Britain would not want that.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with the notion that a Germany dominating most of Central and Eastern Europe is something Britain wouldn't want. More precisely it is something that the British Foreign Office feels would be catastrophic. However, I believe you're linking what Britain doesn't want or fears with something that is ultimately bad for Britain. This is a logical leap I think it is worth looking into somewhat.

Now I'm not saying that the British Foreign Office is populated by backwards looking incompetents too busy worrying over the arrival of the next Napoleon to see the bigger picture but let's pan out the consequences.

I recognise that the situation in the East is a tad abstract so for the state of discussion let's give some context. An Independent Congress Poland which extends further East than the boundaries pre-war taking up more of the Pale and Belorussians. An Independent Lithuania and a United Baltic Duchy independent and linked in some way to the German Empire. All these states are puppets and hardly thrilled by their status. They are impoverished, decimated by war with weak infrastructure and largely rural. They certainly give Germany an advantage in a war against Russia, but we aren't seeing Polish brigades helping Comrade Germany on the shores of Dover.

But let's be maximally fair and also throw in an independent Ukraine which gives Germany access to a massive agricultural region as secures food supplies preventing a British blockade starving them out of the war. But such a state would lead to a much angrier Russia and would force Germany to focus far more of its time there. The crippled Russia required for such a state's existence will also divert German attention as they medal in it to prevent the rise of the reds and favours a Britain who is still concerned about the Great Game in the east and the British Control of the Raj. Long term, how much advantage do these states really give Germany in a war against Britain?

Britain is an international power, not a European power and this is not the turn of the 19th Century but the turn of the 20th Century where powers like the USA are on the rise, Japan is growing, China is where it is at, and India is the Jewel of the British Empire. Meanwhile Britain has the Dominions of Canada, Australia,New Zealand and South Africa. Full of immigrants loyal(-ish) to the Empire and a whole host of natural resources. The other European Empires pale in comparison. Interests between Britain and Germany don't have to overlap.

But let's be fair and say they do. Let's say that a greedy and angry Germany goes Versailles time 2 on the French and take significant chunks of French Empire, some kind of Mittle-Afrika and Indochina. Such a step would definitely require increasing the German fleet. But firstly let's realise that the British are in a much stronger place to keep ahead in any ship building race and the French territories are far less profitable than Britain's and German is massively overstretched.

A large Germany on the Continent dealing with all the madness there while trying to build an international empire when the world is losing sight of such an enterprise. The issue is, even if Britain begins to lose their empire and their control,thus weakening Britain, such events would plague a German empire too, more so in fact due to it's newness and less resource allocation potential. All it does is remove areas of tension between them.

But perhaps I can't see it. What are the treats to Britain of German control over Eastern and Central Europe?
 
Last edited:
Forgetting the Irish Question.
No WW1 intervention - Home Rule goes through, Unionists rebel, British Army refuses governments orders to implement it, Ireland spirals int civil war forcing Irish units in British Army to pick sides as British government falls under a constitutional crisis.

This may sound like ASB but OTL we were literally months or even weeks from this happening 1914, WW1 literally preserved the British government from a massive internal problem.
Actually, it is something I have considered. Now this might be blunt, and I can see you're from Ireland and I don't wish to offend, but considering the horrors that befall Britain as it goes into WWI, and we compare that with a civil war/Independence war in Ireland and a constitutional crisis to boot, I think the cost benefit analysis falls with the Irish Problem been better than the Western Front. Not necessarily for the people of Ireland granted, and obviously I don't want to risk a false dichotomy.

I do wonder what such a conflict would look like...
 
Oh dont worry

All in all the whole thing been resolved through Home Rule should be a whole lot better than OTL for Ireland, and for Britain the lack of WW1 should be good in the medium term but that itself is dependent on the alt-WW1 outcome.
But the Irish Question was much like the problem of Austria-Hungary, its a systemic issue thats been ignored for as long as possible and now has to addressed. OTL brushed over it by WW1 till it exploded in everyone face in 1916.
Here though its going to open a very different set of problems than OTL, it wont be a war of independence of Irish vs English but a nasty issue of the army basically collapsing the government with Unionist support over an issue that has majority support. Realistically the whole thing medium to long term should work out better without the War or Independence, Partition, Civil War and post civil war politics. But it will have a negative impact on Britain overall if the mutineers came out on top.

OTL was fairly close to the worse that Ireland and Britain can get in the early 20th Century.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Given the fact that this would give the French free manouvering space up the coastline would it be agreeable? On the other hand a battle between the French and German fleets is only going to end one way so they might not risk it.

I'd imagine that it wouldn't be agreeable, since it keeps the High Seas Fleet penned up in the North Sea and Baltic, while giving the French free reign pretty much everywhere else.
Banning the use of mines in the Channel OTOH, would be something they could reasonably demand.
Either way, the RN would be hoping that somebody would gain dominance in the Channel soon, and hold it, which the Germans could probably do if the High Seas Fleet sails off in part to support the advance by bombarding the Channel ports, and partly to engage the French fleet coming out of Brest (something the High Seas Fleet's dreadnoughts ought to be more than capable of.)

meanwhile, in the Pacific, Von Mueller and the rest of the East Asia Squadron are having a grand old time, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being pretty much the two most dangerous combatant vessels in the Pacific (the Montcalm and Dupleix were very lightly armed by comparison,) and the Russians or the French are most likely un-able to transfer any forces to hunt them in a realistic time frame, much less mount an assault on any of the German possessions in the Pacific. Of course, the Germans are also un-able to seriously do anything beyond raiding as the iii Seebatallion is kinda stuck garrisoning Tsingtao until it gets reinforcements which probably aren't coming.

EDIT:The campaigns in Togo and Kamerun would be pretty interesting to see as well, while South West Africa is really peaceful, and Von Lettow-Vorbeck might be planning a campaign in the Congo.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
I'd imagine that it wouldn't be agreeable, since it keeps the High Seas Fleet penned up in the North Sea and Baltic, while giving the French free reign pretty much everywhere else.

If they consider a sortie by the High Seas Fleet as a possible trigger for British intervention on the side of France, the Germans might consider it too great a risk. Also, since there won't be a British Expeditionary Force hurrying across the Channel to France, the Germans might not see securing control of the English Channel as being particularly important.

meanwhile, in the Pacific, Von Mueller and the rest of the East Asia Squadron are having a grand old time, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being pretty much the two most dangerous combatant vessels in the Pacific (the Montcalm and Dupleix were very lightly armed by comparison,) and the Russians or the French are most likely un-able to transfer any forces to hunt them in a realistic time frame, much less mount an assault on any of the German possessions in the Pacific. Of course, the Germans are also un-able to seriously do anything beyond raiding as the iii Seebatallion is kinda stuck garrisoning Tsingtao until it gets reinforcements which probably aren't coming.

This would make for a very interesting scenario. Considering how successful the Emden was at raiding in the Indian Ocean, how much more successful would the entire squadron be, as they would not have to contend with the Royal Navy (and probably not the Japanese Navy, either).

If the British stay out, I would expect Japan to stay out as well. Not only do they not have the flimsy excuse of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance to lend credibility to their actions, but they would probably expect the Germans to win the war and would not want to get on their bad side.

EDIT:The campaigns in Togo and Kamerun would be pretty interesting to see as well, while South West Africa is really peaceful, and Von Lettow-Vorbeck might be planning a campaign in the Congo.

Togo would still fall quickly to the French. Kamerun would be a tougher nut to crack without British help. IOTL, some of the Germans there held out until the early days of 1916, so ITTL it would not surprise me if the territory was still in German hands at the end.

One other thing: German New Guinea would probably remain in German hands.
 

katchen

Banned
As would German Micronesia, Samoa and Tsingtao.
The Germans would definitely want some Pacific territories from France. I read some Australian what-if speculation about Germany willing WWI while I lived down under and that was their conclusion. Look to Germany to get New Caledonia, French Oceania (Tahiti) and perhaps the French side of the Anglo-French Condominium over the New Hebrides. Maybe Reunion and the Comoros in the Indian Ocean. And Kergulen, Crozet and St. Paul Amsterdam Island if Germany wants it.

I could see Germany insisting on the French ceding Djibouti to the Ottomans, who are after all, their ally. The Germans won't want the French to keep it and the British won't abide Germany having it and won't want to take it (though neutral Italy getting it might be acceptable).

French Equatorial Africa to Germany, perhaps with a Sahara corridor to a German Tunisia. Perhaps some rationalization of African borders with Togo and Dahomey and Niger going to Great Britain to allow the UK to consolidate Nigeria with the Gold Coast as one colony. Germany gets Cote'D'Ivorie, Soudan Francaise (Niger) and Haut Volta) Burkina Faso. Maybe France gets to keep Senagal.
 
Russia will lose the Polish enclave and probably be made to release Finland, but without the deep invasion of much of the country the Germans might get Lithuania and Latvia but the Ukraine, Estonia, Byelorussia, and other areas likely remain Russian.

As long as Russian troops are the only military in Finland, there is no reason for Russia to relinquish the Grand Duchy in this situation. IOTL the Finnish independence - due to it becoming essentially a military vacuum - and drift into the German camp was more a happy side effect of the revolutions in Russia than a major realistic goal; Russia on the other hand attaches a bigger significance to this buffer area for St. Petersburg. A Russia that is undisputably in control of Finland has no reason to entertain German suggestions to hand it over; and as Finland is of only peripheral importance to Germany, the German negotiators would under these circumstances know better than to even raise the issue.
 
Britain can't say what the HSF does or does not do, though it can say it doesn't want to see it in the Channel. It can certainly sortie, and I'd expect cruiser groups to hit the N Atlantic, where ironically the French cruisers are perfect to counter them (what they were built for). You'd see a glorified cruiser war for a while, probably until the submarines properly kick in.

Without Britain in the war, Germany is going to try to keep its own trade going on the seas. France is going to try to stop this. So you'd have French naval forces attacking German convoys, and French submarines attacking German merchants, just as you have the opposite.

There cannot be a treaty akin to Brest-Litovsk without a Russian collapse, and not only that, a collapse that is followed by an abrogation of diplomacy - Trotsky walked away from the negotiations and that was why the Germans pressed on until they threatened the existence of the Bolshevik regime and is why the Bolsheviks then agreed a much worse peace than had previously been on offer.

The idea of Neutrality Patrols is also interesting when considered from a British perspective - eg British warships defending trade in the North Sea.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I see two possible outcomes.

Either Germany gets hegemony on the continent, which is pretty disastrous for the British economy and means Britain will begin to decline as a world power whilst a rather recidivist German Empire expands and eventually begins to impose its will on Britain as well. The arms race will continue unbound and a subsequent war between Germany and Britain seems likely to happen at some point.

Or, Germany has to make various guarantees in exchange for British neutrality, which prevent it gaining hegemony on the continent. Germany hasn't got what it wants so a subsequent war between Germany and Britain seems completely unavoidable.
 
I think some things should be spelled out:

THE OP also cancelled the Anglo Japanese treaty... - That could prevent the Russo japanese War altogether (Japan would fear that France supports Russia)

It would be interesting which consequences this has on Russia and russian armaments (a larger, but somewhat less modern Russian fleet?). Russia holding port artur likely balances out any German fleet in the Pacific.

No Entente Cordiale (1904) - probably the french Protectorate over Morocco is butterflied away - actuially when France tries to establish it this would probably see Germany and UK working together to prevent it.

THE OP looks at a (slightly) reasonable German foreign policy:

I assume that Germany adopts a Russia first strategy. Thus its likely France impales itself on German defences. More German troops in the east probably frees some (more) A-H troops to deal with Serbia.

An Ottoman entry is likely - the British built dreadnoughts are delivered to Turkey.

Italy is likely to stay neutral (at first/least) - UK will supply coal for Italy and Italy can finish the conquest of Libya (OTL had to start over again after WWI)

IN 1915 the German/A-H/Ottoman forces will make gains against russia while France will probaly not make much progress. If Germany uses the Hochseeflotte to crush the Russian navy (even part of will be enough. The MArine nationale will be significantly weaker - but might be stronger than OTL) ANd France has to worry about the Austrian Navy too (IIRC 1914 the MN had 4 Dreadnoughts Austria had 3 - 1 building and if Turkey gets its ships (2) delivered it looks bleak for France - though iTTL france would probably build some more Dreads prior 1914, because its NOT allied to UK - this might draw money from the Army)

Submarines - without the need to fight against UK Germany might even build less subs acompared to OTL - more money for other ships/the Army

No British blocade more trade for Germany (I think free trade is assured as both UK and US have interest to trade with both sides.

In this scenario, I think the war might be over in late 1915/early 1916 when Germany pushes north towards Petrograd.

NO Russian revolution - eventually even Romania might join A-H and Germany (and the OE) while Bulgaria might stay neutral.

For Russia that might mean a fee Polish state and eitehr a German dominated Baltic duchy or iindependen German vassals.

France will probably lose Briey-Longwy region + some colonies (which depends) and have to pay for the devastations caused in Alsace ;)

But Northern France will be spared and France might even be better off than OTL ;)

As twist Germany might take Port Arthur (see above why its still russian) from the Russians.

the OE will likely be sytronger than in the past 200 years ;)

A-H - depends...
 

NothingNow

Banned
Also regarding the OP, in the specified scenario, I doubt that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance would get undone, since having to deal with any European Navy (and to a lesser degree the US Navy,) would require the vast majority of the fleet concentrated West of the Suez canal, and the Japanese don't have any really incompatible territorial ambitions.

It also serves to keep the rest of the continent off balance, as any alliance with the Russians could turn disastrous for France or Germany should they become involved in a war in the pacific.

The Russo-Japanese war would also probably go as scheduled, as it was mostly a japanese reaction to encroachment on territories the Japanese considered as a buffer between the two, especially considering the various concessions the Russians had gotten in Manchuria, and the progress of the Trans-Siberian railroad.

If they consider a sortie by the High Seas Fleet as a possible trigger for British intervention on the side of France, the Germans might consider it too great a risk. Also, since there won't be a British Expeditionary Force hurrying across the Channel to France, the Germans might not see securing control of the English Channel as being particularly important.

Considering that it's a vulnerable flank for the French and Belgian forces, holding it and thus being able to control the channel ports can pretty much dictate the course of the ongoing campaigns on the western front, it's not that great a risk. If the germans can promise to gain dominance over the french in the channel within a couple months (not that hard for the High Seas Fleet,) and will respect the freedom of travel for British vessels there after, it's very appealing to the admiralty and parliament, which would be more concerned with constant low-level fighting in the channel than a month or two with a high operational tempo, ending with relative peace in the channel by the start of winter (which would allow for shipments of much-needed coal to move safely by sea.)

This would make for a very interesting scenario. Considering how successful the Emden was at raiding in the Indian Ocean, how much more successful would the entire squadron be, as they would not have to contend with the Royal Navy (and probably not the Japanese Navy, either).
They'd be pretty successful. Mostly engaged in raiding, but generally sucessful, since coal would be readily available from British, Dutch, Japanese and American coaling stations. They might raid as far out as Pondicherry if vonSpee really wanted to.
Meanwhile, the Konigsberg has that wonderful trade from the Comoros to prey on if she isn't ordered to the bight of Biafra, possibly with the Bremen.
Of course, depending on how the naval battles in Europe shake out, the Roons could be deployed to West Africa instead.

If the British stay out, I would expect Japan to stay out as well. Not only do they not have the flimsy excuse of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance to lend credibility to their actions, but they would probably expect the Germans to win the war and would not want to get on their bad side.
Well yeah, why would they get involved to begin with. The IJA is very pro-german, while the IJN frankly doesn't give a fuck at this point, as there isn't a threat to the empire, and really, Vladivostok was too hard of a nut to crack (although with the Russians busy in the west, and the Caucasus, now would be the time to do it, along with taking the rest of Sakhalin.)
I'll let the crack about Japanese intentions in the war IOTL slide for now.

Togo would still fall quickly to the French.
I kinda doubt it. The french only sent 500 men IOTL, and the British matched that, to face about 1700 german police and troops. If they aren't being pushed from both sides, Togoland would easily hold out until 1915.

Kamerun would be a tougher nut to crack without British help. IOTL, some of the Germans there held out until the early days of 1916, so ITTL it would not surprise me if the territory was still in German hands at the end.
Yeah, and it's not like the Germans won't be able to resupply Kamerun either, even if it just means pulling some of the Schutztruppen out of East Africa, buying modern weapons for the East African Schutztruppe and locally-raised Askaris in South Africa and shipping them to Duala. Considering the standards of performance from German forces in Africa IOTL, even without von Lettow-Vorbeck himself, they'll definitely be able to keep the colony contested territory until the war ends.


One other thing: German New Guinea would probably remain in German hands.

As would German Micronesia, Samoa and Tsingtao.
Yeah, the french really wouldn't be willing or able to force it, unless they wanted to send troops recruited in New Caledonia, or risk a revolt in Indochina. That said, outside Tsingtao, german possessions in the pacific were fairly lightly protected (as were everyone else's pacific colonies, save Hawaii.)

The Germans would definitely want some Pacific territories from France. I read some Australian what-if speculation about Germany willing WWI while I lived down under and that was their conclusion. Look to Germany to get New Caledonia, French Oceania (Tahiti) and perhaps the French side of the Anglo-French Condominium over the New Hebrides. Maybe Reunion and the Comoros in the Indian Ocean. And Kergulen, Crozet and St. Paul Amsterdam Island if Germany wants it.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Add in the French Congo, and Dahomey, and that's probably it. Pondicherry et al aren't worth the risk with the British, and Indochina, while profitable might not be that appealing. That said, I doubt the Germans could piss the Vietnamese et al off more than the French, especially given how well run the colonial office was after the 1908 reforms.

I could see Germany insisting on the French ceding Djibouti to the Ottomans, who are after all, their ally. The Germans won't want the French to keep it and the British won't abide Germany having it and won't want to take it (though neutral Italy getting it might be acceptable).
Yeah. If the Italians jump in the war on the side they were supposed to, they'd definitely get it though.
The Ottomans would OTOH want to revoke any rights the French had, repudiate French-owned debt, and gain control over the various oil and gas deposits along the caspian sea. They'd probably want everything south of the Don and Volga rivers at a minimum, although pan-turkism would probably drive things further than anyone save the turks would be comfortable with.

French Equatorial Africa to Germany, perhaps with a Sahara corridor to a German Tunisia. Perhaps some rationalization of African borders with Togo and Dahomey and Niger going to Great Britain to allow the UK to consolidate Nigeria with the Gold Coast as one colony. Germany gets Cote'D'Ivorie, Soudan Francaise (Niger) and Haut Volta) Burkina Faso. Maybe France gets to keep Senagal.
I kinda doubt the germans would give up Togo. It was pretty much the only really profitable colony they had at the time.
 
Top