AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

Thomas1195

Banned
Take a POD in 1914. The challenge for Britain would be fighting on the entente side and winning the world war 1 without bankrupting itself.
 
Last edited:
then describe the specific circumstances instead of changing after you get an answer that you don't like

WW1 was a close run thing, wars cost enormous amounts of money. it would only work if the british win in the first year, which is extremely unlikely, at the start of the war germany was more likely to win, chances evened later on.
without us financing british money/credit would have run out in 1917. britain financially running itself in the ground is almost inevitable
 
then describe the specific circumstances instead of changing after you get an answer that you don't like
I don't think limiting it to staying on the same side as OTL is that bizarre a request. It would be like someone asking a way for Germany to do better in WWI, and responding 'side with Serbia and invade Austria, keeping the Germanic parts'. It's technically true, but also pretty clearly violating the spirit of the discussion.

Anyway, have the Schleiffen Plan go worse. Maybe they actually go through with sweeping into the south of the Netherlands, ending up with a Dutch front, and the UK is able to support the Netherlands enough to pocket the main German army in the west while the Russian assault into Prussia goes just better enough the Germans panic and sue for peace?
 
The Entente could have maybe won in 1914 if either the Marne or the Race to the Sea went really badly for the Germans, resulting in a couple of their armies getting cut off and destroyed. Or maybe they lose East Prussia and they agree to an unfavorable negotiated settlement.

This is unlikely but just possible. OTL 1914 actually went fairly badly for the Central Powers, except for Tannenberg, gaining Turkey as an ally, and they wound up with a decent strategic position in northwest France.

Another possibility is that Britain supports the Entente only with some financial and industrial help and with naval stuff like the blockade. They never expand their army or send an army to France. They use their existing troops and the Indian Army to pick off German colonies and Turkish possessions in the Near East. Somehow the Russians, French, and Italians manage to win without forty to fifty British divisions in northern France and Belgium. Something like this could happen if the Germans don't invade Belgium.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Entente could have maybe won in 1914 if either the Marne or the Race to the Sea went really badly for the Germans, resulting in a couple of their armies getting cut off and destroyed. Or maybe they lose East Prussia and they agree to an unfavorable negotiated settlement.

This is unlikely but just possible. OTL 1914 actually went fairly badly for the Central Powers, except for Tannenberg, gaining Turkey as an ally, and they wound up with a decent strategic position in northwest France.

Another possibility is that Britain supports the Entente only with some financial and industrial help and with naval stuff like the blockade. They never expand their army or send an army to France. They use their existing troops and the Indian Army to pick off German colonies and Turkish possessions in the Near East. Somehow the Russians, French, and Italians manage to win without forty to fifty British divisions in northern France and Belgium. Something like this could happen if the Germans don't invade Belgium.

What you say was the british approach in napoleonic war. Yeah, mckenna did point out that without full conscription they would have no problem wage war for many more years without facing bankruptcy. Conscription was actually enacted due to political reasons rather than actual battlefield situation. In this scenario, we would see lots of post jutland BBs with 25-30 knot sspeed and 16-18 inch guns after the war.
 

tenthring

Banned
The BEF is destroyed in 1914 via encirclement. The UK decides that while it will run the blockade and engage in colonial and possibly anti-Turkish action in the Middle East, its not going to put an army into Northern France.

Since there is no BEF, there are fewer offensives in the West, which preserves French strength.

The Russians manage to hold on in 1915 through the great retreat. The British score major victories against the Turks in 1915, and by 1916 they are on the verge of marching into Anatolia with the Russians. Also, internal Greek struggles end up with it joining the Entente and Serbia doesn't fall.

In 1916 there is a negotiated peace. Belgium regains independence and the Germans trade their gains in the west for gains in the east, especially a nominally independent but puppet state Poland. Austria Hungary gets something to appease the assassination of the Archduke but otherwise Serbia is kept whole. The UK gains colonies and new protectorates in the middle east.
 
Britain secretly develops the Hornsby tractor into the tank pre war and the BEF goes to France with a couple of hundred of the things?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The BEF is destroyed in 1914 via encirclement. The UK decides that while it will run the blockade and engage in colonial and possibly anti-Turkish action in the Middle East, its not going to put an army into Northern France.

Since there is no BEF, there are fewer offensives in the West, which preserves French strength.

The Russians manage to hold on in 1915 through the great retreat. The British score major victories against the Turks in 1915, and by 1916 they are on the verge of marching into Anatolia with the Russians. Also, internal Greek struggles end up with it joining the Entente and Serbia doesn't fall.

In 1916 there is a negotiated peace. Belgium regains independence and the Germans trade their gains in the west for gains in the east, especially a nominally independent but puppet state Poland. Austria Hungary gets something to appease the assassination of the Archduke but otherwise Serbia is kept whole. The UK gains colonies and new protectorates in the middle east.
This seems problematic, the brits want to eliminate germany as a military power, like otl.
 
Brits develop tracked artillery tractors before the war. More mud equals longer tracks. Once the Royal Artillery have de-bugged the chassis, it is comparatively easy to add armour and guns.

Meanwhile the Royal Navy Air Service maintains large fleets of wheeled armoured cars to patrol the neutral Belgian border

The Belgian border is neutral because German troops vacate Belgium as soon as they secure rail lines directly into France. These leaves WALLIES defending a narrower front.

Russians trounce Germans in the East causing heavy casualties (short term) and forcing Germany to station large garrisons in East Prussia (long term).

Austria secures a port along the Dalmation Coast and maintains good relations with (Roman Catholic) Croatians. A/H divests its more troublesome minorities like (Russian Orthodox) Serbs and (Muslim) Kosovars.
With A/H withdrawing support from Muslims (e.g. Ottoman Turkey) British soldiers quickly gain control of the most productive/strategic parts of the Ottoman Empire. British colonial troops lean the lightest on the most troublesome minorities in the Middle East.
 

longsword14

Banned
Brits develop tracked artillery tractors before the war. More mud equals longer tracks. Once the Royal Artillery have de-bugged the chassis, it is comparatively easy to add armour and guns.
Have a look at the BEF. It was not prepared for what was to follow. What forced the British to step up armament manufacturing so drastically ?
Russians trounce Germans in the East causing heavy casualties (short term) and forcing Germany to station large garrisons in East Prussia (long term).
How does this come to be? They may have better chances while fighting on the defensive, but if they do as they did in OTL then smashing the Germans while the latter is going to defend well is not going to happen. The Russian army is not going to crush the Germans in the east quickly enough (if they even do so).

Any dates on the rest of the mentioned events?
 
IIRC the UK ended up having to borrow funds from the US which it in turn lent to France and Russia as their credit was considered too poor to be able to raise any loans themselves, which caused something of a problem when the Russian Revolution occurred and the Soviets repudiated the debts. One option could be that if relations whilst improved by the Anglo-Ruusian and the Triple Ententes they still remain somewhat worse than in our timeline So the British decide not to make any loans to Russia but instead loan it to France on the understanding that if they decide to extend loans to Russia that's their business but they're still responsible come what may. It's a smaller amount in the scheme of things but every little help.


Britain secretly develops the Hornsby tractor into the tank pre-War and the BEF goes to France with a couple of hundred of the things?
Maybe not as a tank but it's pretty easy to get Hornsby's chain-track developed as an artillery tractor as it was originally looked at for. With it already developed and in-service from before the war starts then you'd certainly see it developed into a tank much sooner I would have thought. This would also have the side-effect of potentially butterflying Caterpillar Inc. the American corporation. If you want an armoured vehicle to give the Gernans trouble during their invasion then I would suggest the Rolls-Royce armoured car.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Take a POD in 1914. The challenge for Britain would be fighting on the entente side and winning the world war 1 without bankrupting itself.

But Britain didn't bankrupt itself in WWI - far from it - or is this a DBWI?

Yes they were in debt, but that was/is the way to finance major wars (issuing bonds) and BTW was how Britain had founded its Great Power Status in a previous century - making debt in a smart and far more controllable way than just plain borrowing money from people.

The problem after WWI wasn't the debt but ruling economical theory believing you should save money/cut spending when you're in debt. While that may be true for a household just about the opposite is best for a national economy. If you're in debt spend/print money to boost economy and (moderately) create inflation. Consider also devaluating your currency. OTL Britain saved money, cut spending and froze its currency to the gold standard - could not be much worse - you just strangled economical activity and thus the capability to pay debts and on top of that increased the "price of money" making it harder to pay debts.

Part of the problem was however that Germany postwar had overdone the "print money" part which didn't prove good for anything - even the best medicine is poisonous in too great quantities and make it difficult to tell the difference between medicine and poison. Anyway the "medicine" of economics will have to be dosed very carefully. If you are too greedy and overdo the inflation or devaluation part you also loose creditability and you have to sell your bonds at a lower rate - ie higher interest rate - and the people who already have bought bonds might also be pissed about their bonds suddenly being worth nothing. Much of the British debt was taken in USA however, so they didn't have had to worry so much about pissing off bond owners as if they had all been domestic. But compared to the OTL British (and global) policy there was a very wide room for improvement, especially after the global depression set in after 1929. BTW USA was struck much harder by the depression than Britain and Europe, but the British probably were the most enthusiastic in doing the wrong things.

NB: Can't reply for some days, I go hunting in Germany tomorrow morning :)
 
Germany also invades Holland, either by design or accident, stretching them further.

The French decide to stop the German advance into Belgium before invading A-L. They deploy somewhere in western Belgium, dig in, link up with the retreating Belgian army, and after a bloody battle, stop the German advance. Casualties similar to OTL, just that the front settles much, much further east.

In East Prussia, the Russians deploy different generals, preferably ones who don't work against each other, and by sheer weight of numbers and the OTL panicked retreat orders not rescinded in time, they push the outnumbered Germans across the Vistula.

In the Mediterranean, the Goeben and Breslau are sunk, and diplomacy keeps the Ottomans neutral.

In Galicia and Serbia, the Austro-Hungarians are defeated as OTL.

In Romania Carol I dies of a broken heart earlier than OTL and the pro-Entente faction comes to power, secures promises of getting parts of Transylvania and so invades Austria-Hungary.

German High Seas Fleet is caught flat-footed by the British Home Fleet and receives a severe thrashing.

Italy is also persuaded to join with promises of Austrian lands and cheap credit.

All of the above in '14.

War hopefully ends in negotiated settlement favoring the Entente in 1915.
 
In the Mediterranean, the Goeben and Breslau are sunk, and diplomacy keeps the Ottomans neutral.
Add to that Churchill doesn't seize the two Turkish Battleships as their crews arrive to take delivery and you've a better chance of keeping the Turks Neutral. Do the Turks allow the supply ships through to the Russians?
 
The war effectively ends in Dec 1916

The Battle of Jutland (31st May 1916) and the Battle of the Jade (1st June 1916) the following day destroys the German HSF as a meaningful threat to the Entente.

The shock of so many ships gained at such effort and cost, lost in a single 24 hour period causes the Kaiser to have a minor Heart attack on the 2nd July followed by a fatal heart attack on the 7th July which along with the national shock of its mighty navy being bested so comprehensively beaten causes the weakened German leadership to make what are now considered to be several strategic mistakes.

Firstly the unexpected success of Field Marshall Rawlinsons 'Multiple limited objective' campaign in the Somme region (See Battle of the Somme July 1st - Sept 12th 1916) the following month forces the German High command to make the decision to abandon both their positions astride the Somme and Gradual falling back to the unfinished Hindenburg line starting on Sept 10th and in the face of renewed French counter attacks following so many German units having to be moved to the Somme and East to try and shore up the crumbling A-H army which had been shattered in the Brusilov Offensive, effectively abandoning gains made during the Battle of Verdun in order to conform to this retrograde move to the North.

Several high ranking German commanders shocked and dismayed at so much ground abandoned after being gained or held at great cost resign - among them Falkenheim (technically sacked in late Aug) and Hindenburg and Ludendorff (who both resigned in mid Sept in protest at the decision to abandon so many gains which they both believed was taken prematurely).

The collapse of the A-H forces at the end of the Brusilov offensive (June 4th - Sept 8th) on the Eastern Front - may explain away some of the decision making but most Historians believe that the morale of the German leadership was greatly impacted at this time.

While this had been going on President Wilson again made overtures to mediate (see 2nd House-Grey Memorandum) - with all 3 main Entente Partners having inflicted great reverses on the Central Powers during the summer of 1916 their governments were more inclined to deal with their enemy from what they perceived was a better position of strength than when he had first proposed mediation in Feb 1916.

With the Austro-Hungarian Empire taking the overtures seriously and the US threatening increased involvement if Germany did not attend, an Armistice was tentatively agreed on the 4th Dec 1916 and after 2 months of talks Germany agreed to terms amounting to little more than status quo ante bellum after the US made further threats and the Austro-Hungarian government also threatened a separate peace.

France agreed soon after significant pressure from both Britain and the US.

Russia by now devoid of reserves has no choice but to agree and given subsequent events was fortunate to have done so.

The war to end all wars officially ends on 6th July 1917 (as far as the Western front was concerned the fighting had stopped on or about the 4th Dec 1916) but several minor wars flare up into 1922 (principally the collapse of the Austro Hungarian Empire following the civil war in 1919 and the victory of the Whites over the Reds in the 1919-1922 Russian Civil war) - although none of these threatened the mass destruction and loss of life experianced in 2 years of fighting during the great war.
 
The Entente could have maybe won in 1914 if either the Marne or the Race to the Sea went really badly for the Germans, resulting in a couple of their armies getting cut off and destroyed.
Rich Rostrom came up with an interesting scenario along those lines.

PoD: 9 September 1914: Lt. Col. Hentsch, Moltke's deputy charged with visiting the army HQs, leaves 2nd Army HQ, where Bülow has agreed to withdraw north immediately, en route for von Kluck's 1st Army HQ further west. While crossing the 50-km gap between the two German armies, he drives into a British advance guard patrol; his staff car is shot up, and he is captured. Von Kluck does not learn of the gap, nor of Bülow's decision to withdraw, nor of the Allied advance into the gap.

1st Army continues its attack against French 6th Army to its west, ignoring the threat from the south. 1st Army HQ is overrun by a British cavalry patrol at about 6 PM. Escaping survivors reach 1st Army's corps HQs, triggering a panic withdrawal to the north during the night of 10-11 September.

Sixth Army attacks at dawn while the BEF presses further north in the German rear. By 13 September, 1st Army has been destroyed with over 60,000 prisoners taken.

Moltke (who had a nervous breakdown OTL) commits suicide.

With their right flank destroyed, the Germans fall back to the northeast. The Allies try to turn the German right several times; each time being checked by German reserves, as in OTL's Race to the Sea. However, the Allies push the Germans east of Lille, holding western Flanders and a corridor into Antwerp (about 50-70 km east of OTL).

With the western front critical, the Germans withhold reserves from the eastern front. Samsonov and Rennenkampf still bungle the attack on east Prussia, but the Germans lack strength for any effective pursuit or counter-attack. The Russians withdraw in good order. In October, a second Russian attack with a competent general in charge drives the Germans back to the outskirts of Konigsberg.

Meanwhile, Russia defeats Austria-Hungary in Galicia, Serbia repulses Austria-Hungary's invasion, Italy refuses to join Germany and Austria (and is rumored to be joining the Allies).
It would be interesting logistically. One possible side-effect would be that if Antwerp was held, or at least held for a little while longer than in our timeline, then the Germans could well not capture the windfall of nitrates that were in the port which IIRC helped them bridge the gap until the Haber process was fully industrialised six or twelve months later. Even if 1st Army managed to escape with just a mauling the Entente would be much better positioned for the following battles.
 
Top