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

Perhaps not.

By the end of 1940 the British were broke.

Without Lend-Lease and FDR's loose interpretation of neutrality, the British faced financial collapse before the end of the 1941.
I blame that on the collapse of France.

The British State managed the resources it had much better than Germany, Japan and Italy. E.g. unlike the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy, the British Army, RAF and Royal Navy, did not conscript each other's factory workers. Their inter-service co-operation was not always as good as it could have been, but it was still a lot better than the Axis.
 
Last edited:
Well, so 3 nelson plus the remaining 10000 tons (Hood 45000 ton) could be spent on CVs.
Please can you rephrase that. I don't know what you are trying to say.

The flaw in my argument was that no money would be available for aircraft carriers be they new ships or converting the follies if a third Nelson was built in the 1920s. That is unless the Cabinet and Treasury could be persuaded to spend more.

The cost of the ship (about £7.5 million) was more than the combined cost of converting the 3 follies to aircraft carriers in the 1920s (about £6 million) and the 3 new aircraft carriers I want built instead of converting the follies would cost around £12 million to build.
But RNs would lack speed, you cannot build a heavy armour fast BBs (26-27 knots) at 35000 ton in 1920s.
That's a price I am prepared to pay. I would rather have slow, but well protected ship than a fast death trap.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Please can you rephrase that. I don't know what you are trying to say.

The flaw in my argument was that no money would be available for aircraft carriers be they new ships or converting the follies if a third Nelson was built in the 1920s. That is unless the Cabinet and Treasury could be persuaded to spend more.

The cost of the ship (about £7.5 million) was more than the combined cost of converting the 3 follies to aircraft carriers in the 1920s (about £6 million) and the 3 new aircraft carriers I want built instead of converting the follies would cost around £12 million to build.That's a price I am prepared to pay. I would rather have slow, but well protected ship than a fast death trap.
Well, I mean if Hood, which was 45000 tons, was never built, then besides the OTL Nelrods, you would be allowed to build another Nelson class to reach the 5:5:3 parity, and after that you still have unused 10000 tons, because a Nelson only cost 35000 tons.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I blame that on the collapse of France.
So the British were in no way culpable for the loss of the Continent...

The British State managed the resources it had much better than Germany, Japan and Italy. E.g. unlike the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy, the British Army, RAF and Royal Navy, did not conscript each other's factory workers. Their inter-service co-operation was not always as good as it could have been, but it was still a lot better than the Axis.

The British had comparable resources to the Germans, but the fact the begging bowl was out in under 18 months suggests the British management of resources was not exactly optimal... Despite oft cited disfunction, the Germans actually held things together far longer against far greater odds. The Japanese economy and industry was scarcely sufficient to maintain any kind of total war, but they also lasted a number of years against ultimately greater odds than the British ever had to deal with. The key advantage the British had in both wars was US intervention. As for Italy...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Perhaps not.

By the end of 1940 the British were broke.

Without Lend-Lease and FDR's loose interpretation of neutrality, the British faced financial collapse before the end of the 1941.
Also, Nazi Germany was about to be broke in 1938 and to a slightly lesser extent in 1939, only the free annexation of Czech, as well as the rapid fall of France and Low Countries allowed it to float. The French knew that. Thats why the Allies' objective was just preventing the fall of Northern France and Belgium at least in 1940 and 1941 while blockading them to death (although the blockade strategy would be much more effective in Fal Grun 1938 scenario), not to kill Germany in a quick decisive move.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So the British were in no way culpable for the loss of the Continent...



The British had comparable resources to the Germans, but the fact the begging bowl was out in under 18 months suggests the British management of resources was not exactly optimal... Despite oft cited disfunction, the Germans actually held things together far longer against far greater odds. The Japanese economy and industry was scarcely sufficient to maintain any kind of total war, but they also lasted a number of years against ultimately greater odds than the British ever had to deal with. The key advantage the British had in both wars was US intervention. As for Italy...
Well Germany had the whole Continental Europe to loot after BoF, not to mention Italy would have stayed out if the Allies succeeded in their objectives (i've just mentioned)
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, this topic is about prevent Britain from running out of money in World War 1.

The easiest one is keep Britain officially neutral but still profit from the war, while still manage to keep the war long and bloody like OTL, but A POD in 1/1/1914 is 99% impossible.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Conscription was a difficult step for Britain - it was just so......un-British.

However I do agree - the problem with relying on an all volunteer force is that the military is reliant on using those men and those men often have chosen the Regiment of choice further reducing the army's ability to reinforce / expand certain units.

Conscription however serves several purposes - the most important and not immediately apparent one - is that it keeps skilled workers where they are needed - this was done straight away in the years leading up to WW2 when conscription was reintroduced.

The other main advantage of conscription is that it allows the military (in principle) more leeway in placing men where tehy are needed and where their skills are of greater use in particular jobs and regiments etc

Lastly it allows control over the rate of call up - at the beginning of WW1 volunteers spent months living in tent cities drilling in civvies with Broom sticks because there was no way to equip them - the country was still struggling to adapt its industry to a war one - better to have left them where they were till they could be properly inducted, equipped and housed etc.
Well, they can choose to flood all of peripheral fronts with millions of soldiers from non-white colonies (and even put some of them in western fronts) (armies similar to the Free French Force in WW2). Home and White dominion troops would be put into western front (especially the ANZAC).
 
Well, they can choose to flood all of peripheral fronts with millions of soldiers from non-white colonies (and even put some of them in western fronts) (armies similar to the Free French Force in WW2). Home and White dominion troops would be put into western front (especially the ANZAC).

I don't think that Britain needs to use more Dominion troops

Personally I feel that they did more than enough as it was

What was needed was to concentrate OTL British Empire and French Empire forces on the Western front earlier rather than 'pissing' them away in peripheral locations - AKA Side shows such as Salonika, Dardanelles, Italy etc

Turkey could have been dealt with either politically before Turkey joined the CP or a more decisive Battle Cruiser Push through to within range of the capital before the straights could be mined and defences prepared - shell the Arsenal and other locations and perhaps force the issue early on.

But certainly the main focus should have been on Germany - on the Western Front - sod the 'kicking away the props' approach - Germany was the one propping up the other CP partners.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I don't think that Britain needs to use more Dominion troops

Personally I feel that they did more than enough as it was

What was needed was to concentrate OTL British Empire and French Empire forces on the Western front earlier rather than 'pissing' them away in peripheral locations - AKA Side shows such as Salonika, Dardanelles, Italy etc

Turkey could have been dealt with either politically before Turkey joined the CP or a more decisive Battle Cruiser Push through to within range of the capital before the straights could be mined and defences prepared - shell the Arsenal and other locations and perhaps force the issue early on.

But certainly the main focus should have been on Germany - on the Western Front - sod the 'kicking away the props' approach - Germany was the one propping up the other CP partners.
I mean Dominion troops would be moved to western front, while Indian troops should be larger and would be responsible for the Ottoman , and the amphibious assault should be on Alexandretta. The number of home soldiers would be reduced. No Salonika of course.

Well, it would be great if Kitchener, based on his Boer war experience, could persuade France to change their approach (ending war by christmas), thus abandon Plan XVI and fight a defensive trench warfare plus ''bite and hold'' offensive warfare from the beginning, which would bleed the German white. The bite and hold tactic would be deadly on German soil.
 
What was needed was to concentrate OTL British Empire and French Empire forces on the Western front earlier rather than 'pissing' them away in peripheral locations - AKA Side shows such as Salonika, Dardanelles, Italy etc

But certainly the main focus should have been on Germany - on the Western Front - sod the 'kicking away the props' approach - Germany was the one propping up the other CP partners.
But would any number of early WWI style attack have worked? Without new tactics or Tanks etc I don't see it working and you just get more casualties?

If you do the Dardanelles properly with troops from the start and do force thorough, don't you then keep Russia in the war well supplied and therefore almost inevitably win earlier with less cost to GB?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But would any number of early WWI style attack have worked? Without new tactics or Tanks etc I don't see it working and you just get more casualties?

If you do the Dardanelles properly with troops from the start and do force thorough, don't you then keep Russia in the war well supplied and therefore almost inevitably win earlier with less cost to GB?
Should we persuade the French to choose Alexandretta instead? Besides, No Salonika Front. Early WW1, small scale bite and hold tactic instead of mass charge.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But would any number of early WWI style attack have worked? Without new tactics or Tanks etc I don't see it working and you just get more casualties?

If you do the Dardanelles properly with troops from the start and do force thorough, don't you then keep Russia in the war well supplied and therefore almost inevitably win earlier with less cost to GB?
Or find a way to achieve a unthinkable feat: forcing the German abandon their invasion plan through Belgium, thus shorten the Western Front by more than half and protect the French industrial heartland. This can only be successful in a Heart of Iron 2 game
 
Last edited:
Should we persuade the French to choose Alexandretta instead?
Maybe,
Alexandretta is easier and will cut the Ottoman empire, but not sure it gets you access to the strait unless the Ottomans agree terms and agree access (without Germany or AH or a local group of Turks stopping you ?)
Dardanelles gives you trade with Russia (even without fully knocking out Ottomans) and i'm not sure its imposable if done with any level of skill as OTL attempt was a list of how not to do it....
 

longsword14

Banned
Well, it would be great if Kitchener, based on his Boer war experience, could persuade France to change their approach (ending war by christmas), thus abandon Plan XVI and fight a defensive trench warfare plus ''bite and hold'' offensive warfare from the beginning, which would bleed the German white. The bite and hold tactic would be deadly on German soil.
Boer War had relevance for the British Army only, which had needed an uplift for some time. The rest is something no foreseen by the combatants, so the British did not know naything about it either (never mind the French had developed various measures to fight the trench war). Only possible with hindsight.
For quite some time it was a tantalising objective, breaking the front and beating the enemy. Remember that attrition is nobody's favoured method, it looks like shying away from risks and taking more damage in the long term.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe,
Alexandretta is easier and will cut the Ottoman empire, but not sure it gets you access to the strait unless the Ottomans agree terms and agree access (without Germany or AH or a local group of Turks stopping you ?)
Dardanelles gives you trade with Russia (even without fully knocking out Ottomans) and i'm not sure its imposable if done with any level of skill as OTL attempt was a list of how not to do it....
Well, only IJA had sufficient experience of modern amphibious assault under gunfire. And as the thread's purpose is to prevent bankruptcy, large scale conscription (70 divisions or so) must be avoided or delayed, so they must minimize unnecessary casualties by choosing Alexandretta, where coastal defense was much weaker.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Boer War had relevance for the British Army only, which had needed an uplift for some time. The rest is something no foreseen by the combatants, so the British did not know naything about it either (never mind the French had developed various measures to fight the trench war). Only possible with hindsight.
For quite some time it was a tantalising objective, breaking the front and beating the enemy. Remember that attrition is nobody's favoured method, it looks like shying away from risks and taking more damage in the long term.
I mean they should dig trenches in borders, sit there and shoot the attacking German to death. The French should relocate their core army to Belgium border to dig trenches and defend, not to attack, which means no plan xvi. The remaining forces only defend the German border. If the French choose to fight a defensive war, the war of attrition would benefit them.
 
as the thread's purpose is to prevent bankruptcy, large scale conscription (70 divisions or so) must be avoided or delayed, so they must minimize unnecessary casualties by choosing Alexandretta, where coastal defense was much weaker.
I'm don't agree I think if you attack and win at the Dardanelles the local casualties are irrelevant, they will be saved later far more by the extra Germans having to fight in the east with Russia gaining easy access to GB/USA arms and trade.
The defences when the RN attacked first where not very strong and small landing parties did land to destroy guns, but they then came back a later and the Ottomans had unsurprisingly built up.....
If GB send the later army first with surprise and better officers I think it could easily have worked even if its costly it would be well worth it.

I mean they should dig trenches in borders, sit there and shoot the attacking German to death. The French should relocate their core army to Belgium border to dig trenches and defend, not to attack, which means no plan xvi. The remaining forces only defend the German border. If the French choose to fight a defensive war, the war of attrition would benefit them.
Only with hindsight, if you think Germany is fighting equally on both fronts and has anyway a much smaller army (not using reserves)why would you not try and win.
 

longsword14

Banned
I mean they should dig trenches in borders, sit there and shoot the attacking German to death. The French should relocate their core army to Belgium border to dig trenches and defend, not to attack, which means no plan xvi. The remaining forces only defend the German border. If the French choose to fight a defensive war, the war of attrition would benefit them.
Here is the problem :
If the Germans are on French territory, then it is not possible to stand still and engage the Germans in a grinding match, remember attrition was not the norm. Battles before WWI were not of the time-scale and frontier length as they would turn out in the Great War. The Germans could in such a situation hold the Western Front long enough to pulp the Russians completely.
After the eastern collapse the odds would be worse. The Entente knew it, which is why they went for Gallipoli.
It might look obvious now, but to the people in charge many options were possibly threatening, they could not expect to forget the possibility of a break-through and hope for the best to happen.

As to plan XVI, Maunoury remaining the chief would have helped even though I do not know how he would have handled the Germans.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Here is the problem :
If the Germans are on French territory, then it is not possible to stand still and engage the Germans in a grinding match, remember attrition was not the norm. Battles before WWI were not of the time-scale and frontier length as they would turn out in the Great War. The Germans could in such a situation hold the Western Front long enough to pulp the Russians completely.
After the eastern collapse the odds would be worse. The Entente knew it, which is why they went for Gallipoli.
It might look obvious now, but to the people in charge many options were possibly threatening, they could not expect to forget the possibility of a break-through and hope for the best to happen.

As to plan XVI, Maunoury remaining the chief would have helped even though I do not know how he would have handled the Germans.
Well, they must dig trenches and earthwork at Franco-Belgium border and Southern Belgium and wait for the German like OTL ww2, not launching offensives like OTL ww1. The same things should be applied for German border
 
Top