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

BooNZ

Banned
Maybe: well, take them into account after this war ends, but during the war treat them decently.
Are we talking about the Greeks or the Ottomans?

What about Italy, do you think being friendly to the Turks might piss them off?
The Italians had already taken all they could from the Ottomans without pissing off the other powers - they were probably more obsessed with A-H or even French territory...

And the Greece still wanted to get back their historical lands at that time. This did lead to the Greco Turkish war in OTL.
Probably not - most would struggle to consider mainland Anatolia as historically Greek and Constantinople was coveted by bigger dogs than Greece. The Greco Turkish war was triggered by cumulative animosity from the displacement of well over a million refugees generated by the Balkan wars and dissolution of the A-H empire, coupled with acute Ottoman weakness and the willingness of the Entente powers to sponsor Greek aspirational gains.

But I expect the chance of Ottoman neutrality to be 20% at most.
I strongly disagree. If anything the OTL alignment of the Ottomans with the CP powers would have appeared most unlikely prior to the war. The French had vast investments in the Ottoman empire, the British had very significant investments and had been appointed naval advisors and the Ottomans were fearful to do anything that might offend the Russians. Compared to each individual Entente power, the German investment in a railway line and a few military advisors was trivial.

OTL prior to the war the Ottomans were desperate for a meaningful alliance with a recognized power and even reached out to the Russians. If you want to pimp/ wank the British post war economy, a guarantee of existing Ottoman territory for British oil concessions would do the trick. Prima facie this is also likely to somewhat stunt the future influence of Wahhhabi islam.

In case Ottoman entry could not be avoided, I think a landing on Alexandretta,
Given the incompetence demonstrated by the Entente at the Dardanelles the initial success is far from certain and even if this is somehow a roaring success, it still leaves the Ottoman Anatolian homeland intact.

plus some diplomatic action to address conflicts between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia to get all of them to the Entente (although very hard, but if achieved then taking Gallipoli and Constantinople would only be a matter of weeks; and in OTL they nearly succeeded).
That is some exceedingly vigorous hand waving you have going there...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Are we talking about the Greeks or the Ottomans?


The Italians had already taken all they could from the Ottomans without pissing off the other powers - they were probably more obsessed with A-H or even French territory...


Probably not - most would struggle to consider mainland Anatolia as historically Greek and Constantinople was coveted by bigger dogs than Greece. The Greco Turkish war was triggered by cumulative animosity from the displacement of well over a million refugees generated by the Balkan wars and dissolution of the A-H empire, coupled with acute Ottoman weakness and the willingness of the Entente powers to sponsor Greek aspirational gains.


I strongly disagree. If anything the OTL alignment of the Ottomans with the CP powers would have appeared most unlikely prior to the war. The French had vast investments in the Ottoman empire, the British had very significant investments and had been appointed naval advisors and the Ottomans were fearful to do anything that might offend the Russians. Compared to each individual Entente power, the German investment in a railway line and a few military advisors was trivial.

OTL prior to the war the Ottomans were desperate for a meaningful alliance with a recognized power and even reached out to the Russians. If you want to pimp/ wank the British post war economy, a guarantee of existing Ottoman territory for British oil concessions would do the trick. Prima facie this is also likely to somewhat stunt the future influence of Wahhhabi islam.

Given the incompetence demonstrated by the Entente at the Dardanelles the initial success is far from certain and even if this is somehow a roaring success, it still leaves the Ottoman Anatolian homeland intact.


That is some exceedingly vigorous hand waving you have going there...
They here means Turkey.

Yeah, more skillful and responsible diplomatic action would help instead of pissing them off like OTL. But then you would likely have to reward the Italian bigger than just Fiume and Trieste.

But we should take into account of Souchon and Enver Pasha, because the chasing of German battlecruiser is quite unlikely to succeed, and if Souchon get in Constantinople, Enver Pasha could still go rogue and do like OTL.

Actually, in OTL, even after the Souchon raid, the Ottoman officials (like the Grand Vizier) still tried to avoid war, but it was the Entente who first demanded sky-high conditions and then said: ''No, it's too late'', and declared war first. Although the Russian were very furious, they should think longer term by saying ''keep the strait open and we will leave you alone''.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Now I have realized that this was impossible with a POD after 1910. British industrial base was terribly outdated and seriously lagged behind Germany both in technology and capability. It lacked a modern machine tool, precision instruments and electrical industries, which were vital for its war effort. It also relied totally on Germany for khaki dye supply for its army.
 

Anderman

Donor
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.

What is the challenge exact that Britain comes out of the without being bankruped or a debtor and what do you understand underbeing a debtor ?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Didn't the Central Powers essentially self-finance the war, and without the benefit of any colonial troop or financial levies? If the British Pound was the world's reserve currency and the United Kingdom had some of the largest financial markets in the world (second only to New York, if it was even second at that point) then why did the British have to turn to the United States for loans? Even the French financial markets were large enough to subsidize Imperial Russia and finance the construction of two canals (or at least the initial work on the Panama Canal), and that was decades before the outbreak of World War I.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Didn't the Central Powers essentially self-finance the war, and without the benefit of any colonial troop or financial levies? If the British Pound was the world's reserve currency and the United Kingdom had some of the largest financial markets in the world (second only to New York, if it was even second at that point) then why did the British have to turn to the United States for loans? Even the French financial markets were large enough to subsidize Imperial Russia and finance the construction of two canals (or at least the initial work on the Panama Canal), and that was decades before the outbreak of World War I.
Because British industry was obsolete. It had to import superior American machine tool and steel for its war effort. Besides, it had to import oil. And the American demanded dollar or gold. If your industries were more modern, you would have to spend less on building factories. Besides, the French basically had to rebuild more than half of its industrial base from the beginning. The closing of Dardanelles also caused problems, as Russia could not export. It was also true that Britain wanted to limited inflation so they chose not to print money like Germany.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Adding to this, the British and French did have colonies and indeed an entire imperial system that would need British Pounds and French Francs and that could be used as a place to market bonds and otherwise stabilize the currency. Why couldn't they do what the United States has done ever since it went off the gold standard and just abuse the fact that there is a huge demand for their currency that should help keep bond yields down? They can produce most of the required goods domestically or at least within their currency sphere, and if they convince foreign states to buy bonds in British Pounds or French Francs they could even come out in a position of strength through taking out large debts in their own currencies, because it would give the creditor nations incentive to back the British Pound/French Franc. Problems with the Pound and Franc then wouldn't be a British or French problem but a problem for the creditor nations too (mostly the Americans, Canadians, possibly the Japanese and South Americans) and one that gives them incentive not to crash the economy.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Because British industry was obsolete. It had to import superior American machine tool and steel for its war effort. Besides, it had to import oil. And the American demanded dollar or gold. If your industries were more modern, you would have to spend less on building factories. Besides, the French basically had to rebuild more than half of its industrial base from the beginning. The closing of Dardanelles also caused problems, as Russia could not export.

American steel was less expensive, probably not qualitatively superior. Given the vast amounts of debt being taken out to finance the war it would warrant considering the macroeconomic considerations of those purchases, because American steel might be a bargain in the short term (perhaps even the only option due to capacity constraints), but it will require taking on debts in foreign currency, likely from foreign interests.

It was also true that Britain wanted to limited inflation so they chose not to print money like Germany.

But taking on foreign debts ultimately killed the British Pound and French Franc anyways. Even before World War I it was putting limitations on the independence of British and French foreign policy, France wasn't able to respond to Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland because of its critical debt situation.

It might be a bit Keynesian to say some inflation would be okay (especially given there's a World War going on!), or even that you can abuse a currency because there is intrinsic demand for it, but certainly they had to realize they were setting themselves up for a situation in which foreign creditors could act as a veto on independent national policy.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Adding to this, the British and French did have colonies and indeed an entire imperial system that would need British Pounds and French Francs and that could be used as a place to market bonds and otherwise stabilize the currency. Why couldn't they do what the United States has done ever since it went off the gold standard and just abuse the fact that there is a huge demand for their currency that should help keep bond yields down? They can produce most of the required goods domestically or at least within their currency sphere, and if they convince foreign states to buy bonds in British Pounds or French Francs they could even come out in a position of strength through taking out large debts in their own currencies, because it would give the creditor nations incentive to back the British Pound/French Franc. Problems with the Pound and Franc then wouldn't be a British or French problem but a problem for the creditor nations too (mostly the Americans, Canadians, possibly the Japanese and South Americans) and one that gives them incentive not to crash the economy.
No, Britain had to import high-tech products such as optics from Germany because they could not produce themselves, their industrial base was too obsolete and backward compared to Germany (and the US). Besides, they had to import oil, grain, cotton...from the US.
But yes, they should have done better in raising bonds in Dominions, as well as from domestic savings.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
American steel was less expensive, probably not qualitatively superior. Given the vast amounts of debt being taken out to finance the war it would warrant considering the macroeconomic considerations of those purchases, because American steel might be a bargain in the short term (perhaps even the only option due to capacity constraints), but it will require taking on debts in foreign currency, likely from foreign interests.



But taking on foreign debts ultimately killed the British Pound and French Franc anyways. Even before World War I it was putting limitations on the independence of British and French foreign policy, France wasn't able to respond to Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland because of its critical debt situation.

It might be a bit Keynesian to say some inflation would be okay (especially given there's a World War going on!), or even that you can abuse a currency because there is intrinsic demand for it, but certainly they had to realize they were setting themselves up for a situation in which foreign creditors could act as a veto on independent national policy.
Well, the British actually mostly act as a middleman rather than a final receiver, but even its own debt was huge
 

Delta Force

Banned
Well, the British actually mostly act as a middleman rather than a final receiver, but even its own debt was huge

It just seems strange that borderline nationalization of industries was considered acceptable in World War I but inflation was intolerable.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It just seems strange that borderline nationalization of industries was considered acceptable in World War I but inflation was intolerable.
True, fiscal conservatism dominate the way of thinking. The Keynesian school only rose to prominence since the Great Depression.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I mean net debtor

In that case, OTL Britain remained a net creditor after WW1 - problem solved! Lets go home...

Britain risked becoming 'technically' bankrupt during WW1 when it was unable to meet ongoing US expenses due to liquidity issues, but remained a net creditor throughout.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In that case, OTL Britain remained a net creditor after WW1 - problem solved! Lets go home...

Britain risked becoming 'technically' bankrupt during WW1 when it was unable to meet ongoing US expenses due to liquidity issues, but remained a net creditor throughout.

Oh Yes, but it is impossible for Britain to avoid becoming heavilty indebted, because its industrial base was seriously obsolete, and it had to import lots of oil, as well as American machine tools which were superior for mass producing shells and arms and building new factories (also cost money) for things like ball bearings, dyes, magnetos and optics, which Britain could not produce enough prewar. An interesting case was that they had to import American machines to process shell fuses, which required much precision. Not to mention France as well.

Besides, you do know that Britain had to outsource rifle production to American firms because of lack of capacity for mass production. For example, the Pattern Enfiled 1914.

What about the German style of self financing by raising bonds from domestic savings. Although it caused inflation, the government can have some tricks to make it disappear.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Oh Yes, but it is impossible for Britain to avoid becoming heavilty indebted
You continue to move the goal posts...
, because its industrial base was seriously obsolete
The capacities and performance of the British industry was not dissimilar to German industry and I thought the German industry did reasonably well to keep up.
, and it had to import lots of oil,
The costs of oil could have been minimized, since British had significant oil concessions in Persia and the Ottoman empire - the difficulty was the shortage of tankers and the unacceptable quality of refined oil from those sources - if the quality had been rectified and England had more tankers, the British would not have been so reliant on cash and carry US oil.
as well as American machine tools which were superior for mass producing shells and arms and building new factories (also cost money)...
Britain was principally a naval power and it would be strange to have munitions factories sitting around waiting for a continental war - American machine tools were generally more likely to be specialized and often better suited for simple tasks like mass production. This freed up more British machine tools to complete more complex tasks such as aircraft engines and machine guns. As previously explained, before the war British machine tools (among other things) were generally regarded as superior to their American and/or German counterparts, which were generally cheaper to purchase.
for things like ball bearings, dyes, magnetos and optics, which Britain could not produce enough prewar. An interesting case was that they had to import American machines to process shell fuses, which required much precision.
Britain had controlled the worlds seas and dominated world trade for a couple of hundred years and it made little effort to be self sufficient in anything that could be more easily sourced from elsewhere. If anything, this was a demonstration of strength. Similarly, purchasing cheaper American machine tools that were designed for specialist tasks enabled existing British industrial resources to be used more effectively on more diverse/ complex tasks.
Not to mention France as well.
ok?
Besides, you do know that Britain had to outsource rifle production to American firms because of lack of capacity for mass production. For example, the Pattern Enfiled 1914.
In August 1914 Britain had a standing army of around 250,000, but by January 2016 it had grown to ten times that size and was still growing. It would be grossly incompetent for a naval power such as Britain to have idle capacity in peacetime. It should noted that the US also struggled to equip its armies in world war one for similar reasons.
What about the German style of self financing by raising bonds from domestic savings. Although it caused inflation, the government can have some tricks to make it disappear.
Yeah, put your population on starvation rations and then destroy their life savings through hyper inflation - neat tricks.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You continue to move the goal posts...
The capacities and performance of the British industry was not dissimilar to German industry and I thought the German industry did reasonably well to keep up.
The costs of oil could have been minimized, since British had significant oil concessions in Persia and the Ottoman empire - the difficulty was the shortage of tankers and the unacceptable quality of refined oil from those sources - if the quality had been rectified and England had more tankers, the British would not have been so reliant on cash and carry US oil.

Britain was principally a naval power and it would be strange to have munitions factories sitting around waiting for a continental war - American machine tools were generally more likely to be specialized and often better suited for simple tasks like mass production. This freed up more British machine tools to complete more complex tasks such as aircraft engines and machine guns. As previously explained, before the war British machine tools (among other things) were generally regarded as superior to their American and/or German counterparts, which were generally cheaper to purchase.

Britain had controlled the worlds seas and dominated world trade for a couple of hundred years and it made little effort to be self sufficient in anything that could be more easily sourced from elsewhere. If anything, this was a demonstration of strength. Similarly, purchasing cheaper American machine tools that were designed for specialist tasks enabled existing British industrial resources to be used more effectively on more diverse/ complex tasks.
ok?

In August 1914 Britain had a standing army of around 250,000, but by January 2016 it had grown to ten times that size and was still growing. It would be grossly incompetent for a naval power such as Britain to have idle capacity in peacetime. It should noted that the US also struggled to equip its armies in world war one for similar reasons.

Yeah, put your population on starvation rations and then destroy their life savings through hyper inflation - neat tricks.

First, perceived to be superior does not mean actually superior, as unlike Britain, American could make automated machinery. This feature alone could prove American machinery superiority. Comparing British and American machines would be similar to comparing Nokia and Iphone. While British machines were more durable, American machines had better features and applications. American machines were also more suitable for equipping continuous assembly lines.

Second, by splitting my sentence, you have failed to see a fact that British government had to SPEND money to build factories for producing magnetos, ball bearings, optics, synthetic dye, or to build new electricity plants. If these industries were well established in Britain before the war, the money could have been used for more useful tasks such as building more escorts and merchant ships, or building more tanks and planes.

The money saved could be used to respond to the second naval expansion phase pioneered by USN and IJN (thus, better bargaining position in WNT). Without the WNT, the USN would have become a navy second to none from 1920s.

German industrial capacity was indeed bigger

Finally, Weimar economy actually grew well from 1924 to 1929.
 
Last edited:
Top