A reasonable Britishwank scenario.

BlondieBC

Banned
Now, that is an interesting question. One rarely looks at how the ENTENTE could have won in France by mid 1915. Obviously, if the Germans make more mistakes, then there's an opening. But what they could do off their own bat?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Cancel Gallipoli. The Entente force the Germans to transfer over 300 battalions to the west in August 1915. If you add the up to 15 divisions used at Gallipoli to the 1915 Entente attacks, you might break the German lines. At a minimum, you make the Germans stop attacking Russia sooner.

Or keep Ottomans out of the war. In some respects it was a bidding war for Ottomans, and the UK could have bid a lot more. While it would have seen as an insanely large amount of money to the people at the time, France/UK voiding all concessions by the Ottomans, forgiving all Ottoman debt and giving the Ottomans 50 million pounds would have been cheap compared to the billions spent on the war, and have been enough to get them to likely flip sides. I know I picked insanely high numbers, but I am trying to make the point the British had more than enough stuff to interests the Ottomans. I guess we can argue what date the UK would have needed to change policies, but it is clear that some post 1900 POD can have at least a neutral Ottomans in any great war.

France could have run the previous war plan which was better than the one they used.

UK could have spent more on the army in prewar years. Even a couple extra corp at start of war could have made a difference. Or a real plan to increase war ammunition production. Heavier TOE. etc.

The CP should have won WW1. The Entente got lucky, but there are still things the Entente could have done better that were not that hard.
 
I'm not sure about this part, but would a less severe U-Boat campaign help Britain in the long run, regarding the economy.

From what I understand, Britain purchased the resources/equipment from America, and what Britain bought was then shipped across the Atlantic in convoys. Therefore, a large percentage of Britain's money was essentially going straight to the bottom of the Atlantic and could be considered a waste of money, rather than it reaching Britain and being used.

I could be wrong and it wasn't done like that, but that's what I understand it to be.

A less severe U-boat campaign - More resources/equipment for the same amount of money per convoy/ship
 

BlondieBC

Banned
As others have pointed out, it would be difficult to keep britain out of otls wwi. But a slightly different wwi, where britain makes gobs of money selling to both sides, basically filling the us role in otls wwi, would help a lot.

Unlikely? Perhaps.

I don't see it as a difficult POD. Lets see what jumps to mind.

1) Belgium allows Germans through. It was debated by the Belgians.

2) Germany runs War Plan Russia. Either keeps earlier plan or moves 1917 expected plan up.

3) Add some French actions towards Belgium that are seen as threatening.

4) German-UK Naval treaty. UK wanted 0.5 ratio. Germany was asking 0.6. Real ratio limited by budget was about 0.55. So close to a treaty. It was only on capital ships that Germany was above 0.5 on tonnage. While I went with U-boat POD, I could have easily went with fewer BB and more cruisers. It was what naval experts generally would have recommended. I would have done TL with still some type of WW1, but you can also have it greatly de-escalate UK/German tension. In fact, the hardest part about this type of POD is still having WW1 with UK in it. The 1909 Germany/UK naval accord likely scuttles the Entente with UK.

Now if you want WW1 as long as OTL, you need a counter acting POD to UK not entering. Maybe Ottomans stay out allowing Russia to do better and UK to sell HUGE amounts of stuff to Russia. Maybe Russia makes some other concession to UK in Central Asia.

5) Something else distracts UK at first. UK/USA tension. Major revolt in India. Major fighting in China threatening UK interests. Social unrest in UK (think some really dumb legislation). House of Lord reform is late and goes badly. etc.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I'm not sure about this part, but would a less severe U-Boat campaign help Britain in the long run, regarding the economy.

From what I understand, Britain purchased the resources/equipment from America, and what Britain bought was then shipped across the Atlantic in convoys. Therefore, a large percentage of Britain's money was essentially going straight to the bottom of the Atlantic and could be considered a waste of money, rather than it reaching Britain and being used.

I could be wrong and it wasn't done like that, but that's what I understand it to be.

A less severe U-boat campaign - More resources/equipment for the same amount of money per convoy/ship

With more ships, you will spend money faster since they will carry loads after the load where they sunk IOTL. Now the Entente also have more supplies, so they should fight better. It is a net win for the UK if the war is enough shorter to compensate for the higher $$ spent per month. Very likely net win, but not assured.

The risk is not so much that the Entente generals will waste vast amount of additional war material for few gains. The risk is that the extra ship loads will carry things like luxury food items that will be consumed by Frenchmen and Italians and the extra ship loads are not carry significant amounts of badly need items such as ammo. A huge amount of money can be spent on an extra 300 calories per day per civilian plus 3 pounds of consumables (think things at walmart).
 
And what if France somehow allies with Germany in World War I (or II, for that sake!), loses, and Britain gets all (or 90 %) of Africa, Indochina,...?

e.g.: France also falls to Fascism, allies with Germany-Italy (Achse Paris-Rom-Berlin), they lose World War II together and Britain gets the colonies, maybe even some territory in France (Brittany?)?
 
What about the Gold Standard?
Either not return to it during the 20s or handle it differently (maybe to refelct the value of Sterling at the time rather than at the 1914 rate/value).

My Mers el Kebir Resolution timeline had Britain doing better economically during and after the war due to having not drained its gold and dollar reserves dry and modernising its industrial plant during wartime.
 
On a similar note, what if Canada voted to pay for the "Canadian dreadnoughts" on the condition that at least one of them be actually built in Canada - rather like how Hungary in Austria-Hungary insisted on having a dreadnought built at Fiume?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Actually the purchase of the three dreadnoughts was informally tied to the construction of smaller naval vessels in Canada.A much more viable proposition.An opportunity missed for political reasons.:mad:
 
Britain reinforces the Belgian ports, (just barely) protecting them from German capture. In the south, the front is closer to Paris (with British troops diverted to Belgium, the French are only able to push the Germans back to the Marne River), but the advantage is made in the Atlantic as German U-Boats have to travel more than 500 km simply to reach the Strait of Dover, thus reducing their range in the Atlantic, and consequently, the vs. OTL damage they do to British shipping. It also allows them to keep the blockade slightly tighter, thus the Deutschland could be sunk on her first return, which would cost the Germans, since she was carrying 341 tons of nickel, 93 tons of tin, and 348 tons of crude rubber (according to wikipedia), the loss of which would have hurt German industry.
 
Top