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

Thomas1195

Banned
I just don't see it without a massive change to GB/USA, both are really happy with the 5.5 part its the 3 bit that could hurt them so more likely 6,6,3 than 6,5,3 IMO.

On a solely navel front I would prefer less rather than more!
Finish the QEs then rather than Rs stop for ASW escorts rather than R&R, LLC, Hood (and starting sisters) The RN does better in WWI due to more light escorts and maybe completing Conte Rosso and Giulio Cesare as CVs in time for Jutland......

from the start of WWI to WNT each navy would have built the following,
the RN has 5 QEs and the only 2 working WWI CVs (really 20Kn CVEs) and has only just thought about starting 4 G3s, and is completing a set of 4 big (Renown/Ark Royal sized) CVs with its experience from the war.
the USN has built all the standards 11 (2N,2P,3NM,2T,2C) and working on 14 (2C,6SD,6L) more and one CVE,
the IJN has built 6 (2K,2F,2I,1N) and has 7 building (1N,2T,4A) and one CV (H)

With more cash I can still see GB wanting to accepting a 5,5,3 ratio,
CVs are easy as all navy's as OTL but RN has 4 Renown/Arks and 2 Argus, this would be acceptable to all IMO
(RN is better than OTL but not very obviously, 4 better CVs for 4 conversions but number similar, maybe USN/IJN get 3rd/4th conversion?)

In battleships the RN will scream that it needs newer ships to match the USN/IJN, and demands the 4 G3s what would be acceptable?
IJN has 10 new/useful 14"/16" ships built at a minimum, the USN/RN would need 16.6 ships (5,3)
USN has 13 or 15 of the new/useful 14"/16" ships and the RN has 5 ok/good 15" ships and up to 15 very hard worked/old 13.5" ships

Say a WNT that gives USN the 4 Colorado's in return for only having 15 or 17 with 2 12" ships (all 14"/16") ships ?, RN gets the 4 G3s and gets 17 (5QE+ 13.5") ship due to the weak old 13.5" ships ?

I will stop as wondering off topic...
Well, you cannot build a G3 at 35000 ton. So the only way to have them is to commission them before 1922. However, I agree that they should not build Revenge BBs.

As for small escorts, there was a theory that Fisher's Baltic Project was mainly a justification to build to new fleet of around 600 light cruisers, destroyers and submarines to harass the HSF.

Finally, a 5.5:5:3 means one more Nelson for RN
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Unfortunately the POD is 1914. Having said that the Edwardian UK didn't need a bigger army in peacetime, it needed a better one.

A good place to start would be the Territorial Force. IOTL it was still equipped with Boer War vintage weapons and it's formations weren't organised on the same pattern as the Regular Army. For example its field artillery batteries had 4 guns instead of 6.

If the 14 infantry divisions in the TF were organised on the same pattern and had the same equipment as the 6 Regular Army infantry divisions that would at least have given the British Army a bigger gun and ammunition making industry plus larger stocks of modern artillery shells at the start of World War II. That would have relieved the shell shortage somewhat and allowed the munitions industry expand at a faster rate after war was declared.

I don't know if its true, but I did read in one book that Lord Haldane wanted a TF of 28 divisions but was only able to get the Cabinet to approve 14. I'm not sure that enough men could have been recruited in peacetime if the money had been made available, but what might be possible is that the 20 home based infantry divisions (6 regular and 14 TF) could be given a 100% reserve of modern equipment to replace losses while industry was mobilised and to facilitate rapid expansion in an emergency.

Whether or not that would shorten the war is another matter.
Which is nice from a gear head persepctive but the admirality would much rather have won the war.

The BEF fought well above its weight and grew to a massive force, without committing to fighting in France and keeping France afloat financially (and it was not just a question of gold here) France is not holding back the Germans, if France falls Russia is certainly not lasting any longer than OTL so Germany gets to do what it wants to Europe which certainly is not what Britain wants. So a few ships and some worthless colonies vs losing two major allies and facing a hostile continent that would have the resources to compete in a naval arms race that Britain needs to not only win but win well enough to also defend the empire at the same time. OTL it could not do this with Japan's rise. ITTL it certainly cannot do this with Germany not being badly stunted in the naval department.
The R class was ordered under the 1913-14 Navy Estimates, which ended on 31st March 1914, which unfortunately is before the POD.

Similarly the your Super QE would be better than the OTL Hood, but it would not be completed until after the war ended and therefore didn't contribute to winning the war. IIRC Hood cost £6 million to build and the £860,000 was spent on her 3 sisters before they were cancelled. So either the money shouldn't be spent at all or the money, labour and steel used to build more tanks.

I did consider including not building the Hood class in Post No. 91.
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.

Overall, I think there are several steps to do:
1) Take a firmer and clearer position over Belgium neutrality to force the German to abandon Schlieffen Plan. The French industrial heartland would be in tact, thus reducing the British financing costs for France by at least more than half, and the French would be self sufficient for quite long. But the British would be denied war entry for months.

2) Trading with both sides but skewed towards the Entente to accumulate cash for military buildup. Require the French to pay in gold if they run out of cash. Sending merchant ships carrying supplies to Russia via both Dardanelles and Baltic, this may help create a viable casus belli if they are sunk or robbed. But I expect that the American would also want to sell to France and Russia, so the German will not want to provoke both the UK and the US at the same time. Also buying up spare products in US machinery market, use most of them for industrial buildup and sell some to France at a slightly higher margin, and some to Germany at a profit margin of over 10 to 1. Indirectly drain Germany by exporting non contraband goods like clothes, footwear or processed food to Low and Nordic countries, and these goods would be reexported to Germany at higher prices (if selling directly to Germany and Austria, then charge sky high prices, force them pay in gold if possible).

3) Completing the Iron Duke class and at least one of the QE class.

4) Gearing up war industries like OTL, also send experts, observers and volunteers to France to learn about the tactics and weapons (such as optical instruments, chemical weapons, high explosive shells, aircraft, trenches or tanks). I expect the industrial buildup would be better than OTL because of more skilled labour retained and more money invested (e.g. the money which was spent on building French factories and keeping them float OTL), and this would lead to a decision which involves producing weapons before recruiting troops. No conscription on industrial workers.

5) Baltic Project: rule out the amphibious assault and the use of Grand Fleet, but carry out the first phase of the project: the large scale construction of destroyers, minelayers, submarines, cruisers...These ships would be very beneficial for ASW and blockade. Or they can be used to raid and harass Germany to lure the HSF out. Since Belgium ports are not occupied, the submarine threat is much lower. Greater and more aggresive use of mines on the two exit routes for Germany from Baltic to North Sea.

6) Banning German warships from entering home water and the Channel (a potential casus belli). Also, laying Dover barrage like OTL.

7) Planning for a shore bombardment on Dardanelles to tie up a portion of Ottoman strength their AND a landing on Alexandretta to cut the empire into 2 parts. Forget Salonika. This would be success, thus Fisher would still in charge. Overall, although he has some crazy ideas, he is very good at accelerating ship construction progress, which means faster naval expansion. Also, with him, I also expect new BB and BC generation with stronger guns to be developed just some time after Jutland without delays, much earlier than OTL. A guy like fisher would be very likely to scrap Admiral class and go straight to G3.

8) Forming a secret pact with Italy, maybe promise new territories or some economic benefits like discounting selling coal price, to keep them from joining war on Germany's side or better, persuade them to join Entente when Britain goes to war.

9) Developing aircraft carriers. Only them can provide a viable mean to raid on HSF at their bases.
 

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....
But when you take the strait, how can you hold it?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Overall, I think there are several steps to do:
1) Take a firmer and clearer position over Belgium neutrality to force the German to abandon Schlieffen Plan. The French industrial heartland would be in tact, thus reducing the British financing costs for France by at least more than half, and the French would be self sufficient for quite long. But the British would be denied war entry for months.

I thought the OP required the British to enter on the winning Entente side?

The above allows the Germans to kick the living shit out of Russia, thereby saving the A-H military and manpower, while Joffre throws away the best parts of the French army on mindless offensives to relieve the Russians in the East, against entrenched Germans along a narrow defensible front. It is difficult to see how the Entente are going to recover from that start.

I understand the French were financially self sufficient in the early years of the war. After all, in 1914 France was the second largest creditor nation after Britain.

2) Trading with both sides but skewed towards the Entente to accumulate cash for military buildup. Require the French to pay in gold if they run out of cash. Sending merchant ships carrying supplies to Russia via both Dardanelles and Baltic, this may help create a viable casus belli if they are sunk or robbed. But I expect that the American would also want to sell to France and Russia, so the German will not want to provoke both the UK and the US at the same time. Also buying up spare products in US machinery market, use most of them for industrial buildup and sell some to France at a slightly higher margin, and some to Germany at a profit margin of over 10 to 1. Indirectly drain Germany by exporting non contraband goods like clothes, footwear or processed food to Low and Nordic countries, and these goods would be reexported to Germany at higher prices (if selling directly to Germany and Austria, then charge sky high prices, force them pay in gold if possible).

If the British are on the sidelines, they have no power to interdict supplies to Germany or European neutrals. In 1913 the vast majority of food imports to Netherlands were ultimately destined for Germany. Assuming the Ottomans are at war with the Russians per OTL, any ship passing through the Dardanelles or alternatively the Baltic, could easily be stopped and searched for contraband. If ultimately allowed to pass, that creates a rather awkward precedent if Britain ultimately seeks to impose the OTL blockade on continental Europe (including neutrals) at a later date.

There is little or no opportunity for Britain to profiteer at the expense of the CP powers. The Germans had no need for US machinery, but would be greatful for the extended opportuity to import additional raw materials and export high value goods without impediment.

3) Completing the Iron Duke class and at least one of the QE class.

Four of the Five QE Class battleships were already under construction by 1914 - are you advocating abandoning argubly the most effective battleship platform of either World War?

4) Gearing up war industries like OTL, also send experts, observers and volunteers to France to learn about the tactics and weapons (such as optical instruments, chemical weapons, high explosive shells, aircraft, trenches or tanks). I expect the industrial buildup would be better than OTL because of more skilled labour retained and more money invested (e.g. the money which was spent on building French factories and keeping them float OTL), and this would lead to a decision which involves producing weapons before recruiting troops. No conscription on industrial workers.

Any observers or volunteers sent to France in 1914/1915 are likley to return utterly demoralised - essentially the French will be attacking entrenched German posiitons with little in the way of heavy artillery or competent doctrine. The Germans will be focused in the East, so will not be offering them offensive hints. The French paid their way financially for the early years of the war.

5) Baltic Project: rule out the amphibious assault and the use of Grand Fleet, but carry out the first phase of the project: the large scale construction of destroyers, minelayers, submarines, cruisers...These ships would be very beneficial for ASW and blockade. Or they can be used to raid and harass Germany to lure the HSF out. Since Belgium ports are not occupied, the submarine threat is much lower. Greater and more aggresive use of mines on the two exit routes for Germany from Baltic to North Sea.

A lower Uboat threat and more favourable CP outcomes on the continent mean Germany is less likely to suffer a brain explosion and provoke the US to war. If the Germans have already taken the opportunity of respecting neutral shipping, then a belated OTL British Blockade, coupled with aggressive use of mines will no endear Britain to the US or other neutral powers.

6) Banning German warships from entering home water and the Channel (a potential casus belli). Also, laying Dover barrage like OTL.

A pittance for Germany to pay for British neutrality...

7) Planning for a shore bombardment on Dardanelles to tie up a portion of Ottoman strength their AND a landing on Alexandretta to cut the empire into 2 parts. Forget Salonika. This would be success, thus Fisher would still in charge. Overall, although he has some crazy ideas, he is very good at accelerating ship construction progress, which means faster naval expansion. Also, with him, I also expect new BB and BC generation with stronger guns to be developed just some time after Jutland without delays, much earlier than OTL. A guy like fisher would be very likely to scrap Admiral class and go straight to G3.

The Ottomans would still be controlling the parts that count, like the Dardenelles. Meanwhile, the Best of the French army would have bled itself white, the Russians would have completed a costly and demoralising "great retreat" six months ahead of schedule and the CP powers would have scarcely broken a sweat [compared to OTL]. Sinking a greater proportion of resources into the Navy is not going to save the continent.

8) Forming a secret pact with Italy, maybe promise new territories or some economic benefits like discounting selling coal price, to keep them from joining war on Germany's side or better, persuade them to join Entente when Britain goes to war.

There is no way Italy (or Romania or Greece) will enter the war if the Russians and French have already been thrashed and A-H is still in decent shape.

9) Developing aircraft carriers. Only them can provide a viable mean to raid on HSF at their bases.

That's not going to save the continent - in 1914 the French officials noted the ships of the Royal navy did not have wheels.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I thought the OP required the British to enter on the winning Entente side?

The above allows the Germans to kick the living shit out of Russia, thereby saving the A-H military and manpower, while Joffre throws away the best parts of the French army on mindless offensives to relieve the Russians in the East, against entrenched Germans along a narrow defensible front. It is difficult to see how the Entente are going to recover from that start.

I understand the French were financially self sufficient in the early years of the war. After all, in 1914 France was the second largest creditor nation after Britain.



If the British are on the sidelines, they have no power to interdict supplies to Germany or European neutrals. In 1913 the vast majority of food imports to Netherlands were ultimately destined for Germany. Assuming the Ottomans are at war with the Russians per OTL, any ship passing through the Dardanelles or alternatively the Baltic, could easily be stopped and searched for contraband. If ultimately allowed to pass, that creates a rather awkward precedent if Britain ultimately seeks to impose the OTL blockade on continental Europe (including neutrals) at a later date.

There is little or no opportunity for Britain to profiteer at the expense of the CP powers. The Germans had no need for US machinery, but would be greatful for the extended opportuity to import additional raw materials and export high value goods without impediment.



Four of the Five QE Class battleships were already under construction by 1914 - are you advocating abandoning argubly the most effective battleship platform of either World War?

First, the French had to borrow 3 bn USD from UK and another 3 bn from the US during the war, and by 1916 British money cover two third of their expenditure in OTL. They had to rebuild their industrial base from scratch, 40% of their heavy industry had lost in 1914, zero steel and coal production (occupied by Germany), so they had to import steel and coal.

Only one of the QE class was not completed in 1914 (sorry I mean completing at least 1 of them before joining war, in OTL, QE was completed well after 4th August).

Well, even Italy profited a lot before jumping in the war (like selling metal at a margin of 6 to 1). Britain can export as well as reexport manufacture, machinery and raw material, all of them (unlike some small neutral European countries). And US machinery, well, they are the best in the world, so everyone want them.

Joffre would have been sacked after 2 or 3 failed offensives like that, he had no Marne aura to protect him in this TL. And, are you saying I underestimate his idiocy and he would attack brainlessly? I think that they would stop after being thrashed and the war become a stalemate in the Western Front. And since Northern France was free, they would get more manpower than OTL.

Dover barrage, what if one or more of German ships or submarine was sunk by the barrage?
 

BooNZ

Banned
First, the French had to borrow 3 bn USD from UK and another 3 bn from the US during the war, and by 1916 British money cover two third of their expenditure in OTL. They had to rebuild their industrial base from scratch, 40% of their heavy industry had lost in 1914, zero steel and coal production (occupied by Germany), so they had to import steel and coal.

Can you please provide a few references, because the above feels you are dramatically overstating the burden the French placed on the British finances.

In the first instance, secured French loans are ultimately not a burden to Britain. The following suggests the financial position of France was ultimately not dissimilar to the British...

As soon as August 1914, loans proposals were made in the US, but the US government refused that JP Morgan lend to France. The British government stepped in and in the spring of 1915, the US government authorized France to float loans on Wall Street. From then on, foreign loans escalated, financed by massive foreign assets sales, while French gold was largely retained in France. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1917, French saleable assets were running short, and the US stepped into the alliance just in time to supplement declining private sources of funds http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_france

French certainly lost significant parts of its heavy industry to the Germans, but to say it had to start from scratch is a rather extreme exageration.

The occupied zone represented about 3.7 percent of French landmass and included some of the most industrialized parts of the country.[1] 64 percent of France's pig-iron production, 24 percent of its steel manufacturing and 40 percent of the total coal mining capacity was located in the zone, dealing a major setback to French industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_north-east_France_during_World_War_I

With limited coal reserves, France always relied on imported coal and while the iron ore reserves located in areas occupied by the Germans were some of the richest veins in the world, there were ample iron reserves elsewhere in France.

Only one of the QE class was not completed in 1914 (sorry I mean completing at least 1 of them before joining war, in OTL, QE was completed well after 4th August).

To be honest, I don't understand the apparent naval focus of this thread.

Well, even Italy profited a lot before jumping in the war (like selling metal at a margin of 6 to 1). Britain can export as well as reexport manufacture, machinery and raw material, all of them (unlike some small neutral European countries). And US machinery, well, they are the best in the world, so everyone want them.

Have you got any references on the 6-1 margin thing - I am assuming this was limited to very scarce metals or similar, since the CP powers had ready access to relatively vast iron ore reserves. In any case, if there is no blockade in place, the Italians would not be able to engage in such profiteering...

Again, the priority of the CP powers would have been food, nitrates and scarce raw materials, which can be sourced from anywhere without excessive profiteering if no blockade is in place. I doubt there would have been much qualitative difference between US and German machinery at the time - sure US machinery is nice, but Germany and A-H were also industrialised powers and would have ordinarily prioritised domestic machinery.

Joffre would have been sacked after 2 or 3 failed offensives like that, he had no Marne aura to protect him in this TL. And, are you saying I underestimate his idiocy and he would attack brainlessly? I think that they would stop after being thrashed and the war become a stalemate in the Western Front. And since Northern France was free, they would get more manpower than OTL.

You are indeed underestimating Joffre's ignorance. You are also significantly underestimating his influence within the French army. Joffre effectively rewrote French doctrine to ignore everything except the offensive - at whatever cost. Joffre made efforts to ensure those officers of influence within the French army shared similar views. The initial failures of his doctrine resulted in vast numbers of French offers being removed from command for not being aggresive enough. The German advance through Belgium forced Joffre to adopt a more defensive posture to defend Paris. Even after the flaws in French doctrine were recognised after Marne, OTL hundreds of thousands of additional Frenchmen lost their lives to "maintain the initative" before Spring 1915. Even without Marne, Joffre would have been very difficult to remove before the best of the French army had already been wrecked.

Dover barrage, what if one or more of German ships or submarine was sunk by the barrage?

When the US demanded the 1909 London Declaration be observed, the Germans initially agreed. This illustrates the Germans were prepared to not engage in naval warfare if this kept Britain and the US navy out of play. A cautious approach on naval matters is even more likely if Britain is initially neutral.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Can you please provide a few references, because the above feels you are dramatically overstating the burden the French placed on the British finances.

In the first instance, secured French loans are ultimately not a burden to Britain. The following suggests the financial position of France was ultimately not dissimilar to the British...

As soon as August 1914, loans proposals were made in the US, but the US government refused that JP Morgan lend to France. The British government stepped in and in the spring of 1915, the US government authorized France to float loans on Wall Street. From then on, foreign loans escalated, financed by massive foreign assets sales, while French gold was largely retained in France. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1917, French saleable assets were running short, and the US stepped into the alliance just in time to supplement declining private sources of funds http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_france

French certainly lost significant parts of its heavy industry to the Germans, but to say it had to start from scratch is a rather extreme exageration.

The occupied zone represented about 3.7 percent of French landmass and included some of the most industrialized parts of the country.[1] 64 percent of France's pig-iron production, 24 percent of its steel manufacturing and 40 percent of the total coal mining capacity was located in the zone, dealing a major setback to French industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_north-east_France_during_World_War_I

With limited coal reserves, France always relied on imported coal and while the iron ore reserves located in areas occupied by the Germans were some of the richest veins in the world, there were ample iron reserves elsewhere in France.



To be honest, I don't understand the apparent naval focus of this thread.



Have you got any references on the 6-1 margin thing - I am assuming this was limited to very scarce metals or similar, since the CP powers had ready access to relatively vast iron ore reserves. In any case, if there is no blockade in place, the Italians would not be able to engage in such profiteering...

Again, the priority of the CP powers would have been food, nitrates and scarce raw materials, which can be sourced from anywhere without excessive profiteering if no blockade is in place. I doubt there would have been much qualitative difference between US and German machinery at the time - sure US machinery is nice, but Germany and A-H were also industrialised powers and would have ordinarily prioritised domestic machinery.



You are indeed underestimating Joffre's ignorance. You are also significantly underestimating his influence within the French army. Joffre effectively rewrote French doctrine to ignore everything except the offensive - at whatever cost. Joffre made efforts to ensure those officers of influence within the French army shared similar views. The initial failures of his doctrine resulted in vast numbers of French offers being removed from command for not being aggresive enough. The German advance through Belgium forced Joffre to adopt a more defensive posture to defend Paris. Even after the flaws in French doctrine were recognised after Marne, OTL hundreds of thousands of additional Frenchmen lost their lives to "maintain the initative" before Spring 1915. Even without Marne, Joffre would have been very difficult to remove before the best of the French army had already been wrecked.



When the US demanded the 1909 London Declaration be observed, the Germans initially agreed. This illustrates the Germans were prepared to not engage in naval warfare if this kept Britain and the US navy out of play. A cautious approach on naval matters is even more likely if Britain is initially neutral.
Well, about the British financial and economic support for France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I
Also in your link, the annual amount of British loans was higher than American until 1918.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Financial_Commission
By 1916, the British had to take over the financing of French purchases in the United States as a result of the weakness of the French wartime economy.
Yes, the financing for French war effort was costly, because by 1915-1916 the French could no longer self-finance their war effort.

About Italy, I read them in some WI Italy neutral threads in this forum. But this is in the OTL, where blockade was in effect.

And I did mean waiting for the first QE BB to be completed before going to war.

And it was clearly impossible to protect Northern France if Germany attacked through Belgium.
 
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.
The flippant answer is to stay out of it in the first place, but that doesn't fit the question and Britain might not be better off with Germany dominating Continental Europe.
  • The British Empire in general and UK in particular can't be better prepared to fight a long continental war with a big army because the POD isn't early enough, even if it was 1st January 1914, instead of 4th August 1914 as the OP infers.
  • Then the next possibility is to defeat Germany faster, but not spend any more to do it.
  • Next is to fight the OTL war with better cost control. This means reducing the casualties as well as spending less money.
  • Shorten the war by negotiating a compromise peace with the Central Powers.
The final option is the most feasible, but would it count as a victory? My guess is that the British would want a minimum of Germany withdrawing from Belgium and for Germany to compensate the Belgians for the damage caused during the occupation along with a limitation of German naval armaments.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The flippant answer is to stay out of it in the first place, but that doesn't fit the question and Britain might not be better off with Germany dominating Continental Europe.
  • The British Empire in general and UK in particular can't be better prepared to fight a long continental war with a big army because the POD isn't early enough, even if it was 1st January 1914, instead of 4th August 1914 as the OP infers.
  • Then the next possibility is to defeat Germany faster, but not spend any more to do it.
  • Next is to fight the OTL war with better cost control. This means reducing the casualties as well as spending less money.
  • Shorten the war by negotiating a compromise peace with the Central Powers.
The final option is the most feasible, but would it count as a victory? My guess is that the British would want a minimum of Germany withdrawing from Belgium and for Germany to compensate the Belgians for the damage caused during the occupation along with a limitation of German naval armaments.

I want to find solutions for the third option. A peace negotiation like that would result in territorial losses for France, since Germany had better bargaining power because it had occupied most of Belgium and Northern France, and Germany might also gain a big chunk of Poland, plus big reparation from France so that no more money available for Russia's so called Great Reform.
 
The Royal Navy performing better might reduce the financial cost of the war. If the Mediterranean Fleet had stopped the Goeben and Breslau from reaching the Dardanelles then Admiral Souchon could not have dragged the Ottoman Empire into the war by bombarding Sevastopol.

If the Ottoman Empire had still joined the war then the attempts to force the Dardanelles and/or a successful Gallipoli Campaign knocking the Turks out of the war at least 2 years earlier than OTL would have saved a lot of money. It might have also prevented Bulgaria from entering the war, the collapse of Serbia and the Salonkia Front.

The Admirals took trade protection seriously IOTL, but apart from the war risks insurance scheme, it took until 1917 to introduce trade convoys on a large scale. Before that a huge sums were put into creating the ineffective Auxiliary Patrol of over 1,000 vessels, the freight rates went up and ships were bought on the second hand market at inflated prices to replace the losses. I haven't studied this in great detail, but I suspect that if trade had been more effectively protected 1914-17 some of the wartime inflation would have been avoided because the cost of imported raw materials would not have increased as much as it did IOTL.

When trade convoys were finally introduced on a large scale in 1917 there was also a big increase in merchant shipbuilding to replace the ships lost. This consumed labour and steel, which could not be used to make weapons that would have been used on the Western Front. People usually think tanks but it could also have been used for the planned expansion of the artillery on the Western Front.

I tried to start a thread on earlier introduction of trade convoys a few months ago. Then the reply was that before 1917 the result would have reduced the carrying capacity of the merchant navy by more than the reduction in losses would have saved. I didn't disagree with that but I still think that a the earlier introduction and extension of a system of trade convoys would have been better.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Royal Navy performing better might reduce the financial cost of the war. If the Mediterranean Fleet had stopped the Goeben and Breslau from reaching the Dardanelles then Admiral Souchon could not have dragged the Ottoman Empire into the war by bombarding Sevastopol.

If the Ottoman Empire had still joined the war then the attempts to force the Dardanelles and/or a successful Gallipoli Campaign knocking the Turks out of the war at least 2 years earlier than OTL would have saved a lot of money. It might have also prevented Bulgaria from entering the war, the collapse of Serbia and the Salonkia Front.

The Admirals took trade protection seriously IOTL, but apart from the war risks insurance scheme, it took until 1917 to introduce trade convoys on a large scale. Before that a huge sums were put into creating the ineffective Auxiliary Patrol of over 1,000 vessels, the freight rates went up and ships were bought on the second hand market at inflated prices to replace the losses. I haven't studied this in great detail, but I suspect that if trade had been more effectively protected 1914-17 some of the wartime inflation would have been avoided because the cost of imported raw materials would not have increased as much as it did IOTL.

When trade convoys were finally introduced on a large scale in 1917 there was also a big increase in merchant shipbuilding to replace the ships lost. This consumed labour and steel, which could not be used to make weapons that would have been used on the Western Front. People usually think tanks but it could also have been used for the planned expansion of the artillery on the Western Front.

I tried to start a thread on earlier introduction of trade convoys a few months ago. Then the reply was that before 1917 the result would have reduced the carrying capacity of the merchant navy by more than the reduction in losses would have saved. I didn't disagree with that but I still think that a the earlier introduction and extension of a system of trade convoys would have been better.
About the Ottoman, I did say that an attack on Alexandrette would be better, plus a bombardment on Dardanelles to tie up a portion of Ottoman strength there. There are several threads about it in this forum, which concluded that the Ottoman would be defeated by 1916 with lower costs.

For Souchon case, yes.

For convoy, firstly, a British decisive victory at jutland is a must.
 
For convoy, firstly, a British decisive victory at jutland is a must.
I disagree.

IOTL the Royal Navy created the Auxiliary Patrol Service which was huge in reaction to the German's first unrestricted U-boat offensive in 1915 and ITTL it uses the same resources to create an Auxiliary Convoy Escort Service. This is similar to the start of World War Two when it created the Rosyth Escort Force to protect the East Coast convoys.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I disagree.

IOTL the Royal Navy created the Auxiliary Patrol Service which was huge in reaction to the German's first unrestricted U-boat offensive in 1915 and ITTL it uses the same resources to create an Auxiliary Convoy Escort Service. This is similar to the start of World War Two when it created the Rosyth Escort Force to protect the East Coast convoys.
On the flip side, would the US jump in if their losses from USW are not high enough? But if convoy introduction can shorten the war, then this would be no longer a big problem
 

BooNZ

Banned
Well, about the British financial and economic support for France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I
Also in your link, the annual amount of British loans was higher than American until 1918.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Financial_Commission
By 1916, the British had to take over the financing of French purchases in the United States as a result of the weakness of the French wartime economy.
Yes, the financing for French war effort was costly, because by 1915-1916 the French could no longer self-finance their war effort.
The British financial and economic support for the French war effort is not dissimilar to my bank's economic support of my investment in commercial property. Providing loans are secured (like the French borrowing up to early 1917), there is ultimately no burden on the lending party (i.e. Britain or my bank).

So no, secured British loans to France should not be a burden on British finances - I doubt the same could be said of British loans to Italy and Russia...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The British financial and economic support for the French war effort is not dissimilar to my bank's economic support of my investment in commercial property. Providing loans are secured (like the French borrowing up to early 1917), there is ultimately no burden on the lending party (i.e. Britain or my bank).

So no, secured British loans to France should not be a burden on British finances - I doubt the same could be said of British loans to Italy and Russia...
Because since 1915 Britain had to takeover France's war purchases, not just loan (which was huge because France totally depended on imports for many key material such as steel and oil). France did run out of its oversea collaterals, but it did not use its gold reserve for secured loans afterward.

For Italy, yes, Britain had to cover ALL of their war expenditure, but they were to important to abandon.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Because since 1915 Britain had to takeover France's war purchases, not just loan (which was huge because France totally depended on imports for many key material such as steel and oil). France did run out of its oversea collaterals, but it did not use its gold reserve for secured loans afterward.

That is simply not true
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That is simply not true
Even if the loans are secured, a big chunk of money that spent on the rebuilding of industrial capacity as replacement in France could be used in England if French industrial heartland was intact.

And it was true UK had to guarantee all French war purchases.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Even if the loans are secured, a big chunk of money that spent on the rebuilding of industrial capacity as replacement in France could be used in England if French industrial heartland was intact.
Nope - OTL the British borrowed whatever money was needed to fight to war to what they believed was their full potential - those sources only became scarce towards the end of 1916 as liquidity dried up.

And it was true UK had to guarantee all French war purchases.
Even if true, this does not unduly burden the British economy because secured loans are unlikely to result in a call on the guarantor.
 
Top