Belgium allows Imperial German army through?

For all our obsession with Britain and Germany, the war actually started because of the actions of AH and Russia over Serbia.

Just a reminder - AH and Russia were pretty much the last to officially go to war.

  • July 28, 1914. Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.
  • August 1, 1914. Germany Declares War on Russia.
  • August 3, 1914. Germany declares war on France.
  • August 4, 1914. Britain declares war on Germany.
  • August 6, 1914. Austria declares war on Russia.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Because in alternate history, it's not a given. Since I was making a general case for general trends in general British foreign policies, I was referring to a non-named PM.
... aside we are talking/discussing a rather narrowly defined moment of history ...
... but ... if you wish ... you could ofc develop an ATL, starting somewhere 10-20 years ago completly changing the political landscape of Great Britain for this very moment (... if this very moment would then evolve at all ...).

Same as above, but with the added distinction that I talked about the government explaining themselves to the Parliament. Yes, the cabinet makes the decisions; but the parliament can always boot the cabinet out if they don't like the explanations. So your remarks about who was in the cabinet are irrelevant to this aspect. Had the cabinet been led by Hitler, Gengis Khan and Napoleon, they would still have needed to avoid a no-confidence vote by the MPs.
Well, we know that 2/3 to 3/4 of the liberal MPs of OTL (... quite enough IMHO to deduct an average opinion) were against interventione on the continent, esp. military intervention.
... not to speak of the Labour MPs who were against any kind of war and distraction from trade union matters.
... not to speak of the IPP MPs who were against any distraction from Home Rule matters.

So ... with an anti-interventionist 'explanation before the house' I fail to see any risk for a goverment of OTL composition.
... but iofc again you're free to contruct a different ATL changing the political landscape of Great Britain for this very moment (... if this very moment would then evolve at all ...).

Naturally. No man in the street actively wants war, ever. The general point was whether his opinion would be important enough to prevent the cabinet from deciding for war. And the specific point I was making is that Germany was pretty strongly disliked, in that street.
But ... if the 'man of the street' spent any thought at all on this topic ... he dislike tsarist Russia - sending its cossacks into peasant villages and worker quarters for their bloody work they were known for - even more than the germans, provinding them with cheap but still high quality consumer goods.
 
Holy .... crap.
There're still seem people around paying much of significance to the so-called "Septemberprogramm".
Might help to read the cited source a wee bit further :

A modern historian from Colby notes that Germany did not commit to the Septemberprogramm plan after the failure to quickly capture Paris whereas the Septemberprogramme itself was written (hastily) at the opening of the war. In my opinion this does not put the veracity of the plan itself into question as much as willingness to follow through with its stated intents after initial hopes for a quick German victory were dashed. Or did you have a different point in mind?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Dear @M79 , there was no "plan" at all
and thereby no plan its 'veracity' you might perceive as questioned, no plan 'to follow through' or with any 'stated intents'.

Also : the 'Septemberprogram" was handed over to the the Chancellor on 9th September (hence its name) 1914.
After a whole month of public discussions everywhere, going into every direction - how fabulous, phantasitic, realistic, defeatist, threatened or threatening every. ... nothing 'hastly' done.
Also : on 9th September virtually nobody of the political Berlin (even if physically present at the german Headquarters) knew anything of a defeat or even the pending of such

And therefore the 'point' I would like to make :
If anything the Septemberprogram represent a potpourri of combined wish-lists (though not even all) being ventilated all over germany BUT without any effect, influence on or weight for the german goverment at all. ... a wee memo for the chancellor to look at if there might be some moment.
But if you are a believer in (un)holy Fritz Fischer ...


As a side note/question :
What is 'Colby' ?
 
Just a reminder - AH and Russia were pretty much the last to officially go to war.

Thing to look at was mobilization announcements

What he said.

Interestingly enough the officers of the countries concerned would take short day and overnight trips into neighbouring countries during the final days of the crisis, to get a feel for things in border railway stations and the like.
 
Not between AH and Russia.

eg Conrad "if the Russians do not touch us, we need not touch them either".

July 23, 1914 Serbia begins Mobilization after receiving the A-H Ultimatum

July 24, A-H informs France, Russia, and Britain of Serbian ultimatum at 9 AM, Churchill sends Fleet advisory notice of crisis, but not a full alert

July 25 A-H cut diplomatic ties, declares martial law and begins partial Mobilization, German Fleet ordered to return to base, Tsar studies Mobilization options

July 26, Serbia Mobilizes, A-H full Mobilization on Russian Border. French Fleet readies.

July 27, units in Morocco ordered to France, Bethmann-Hollweg rejects idea of Four Power conference

July 28, A-H declares War on Serbia, Churchill order Fleet to Scapa Flow, Tsar and Kaiser exchange telegrams. French Army advances to frontier

July 29, Russians General Mobilization order signed by the Tsar, they did not have a usable partial plan for Mobilization since 1904, but Partial Mobilization Orders were Telegraphed out to Moscow, Kazan, Kiev and Odessa, plus Fleet in Black Sea. More telegrams between Tsar and Kaiser, with German warnings.

July 30, Moltke presses for general mobilization. French Army withdraws 6 miles along entire border with Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany. Evening of July 30, Reacting to the Austrian Navy bombarding Belgrade, Russia posts General mobilization orders for its troops and Fleet to begin on July 31

July 31, Germany demands that Russia stop Mobilization within 24 hours and declares martial law, and closes Border with France and Belgium. Belgium orders General Mobilization, as does A-H with ordering General Mobilization for men up to 50 years old. Russian Reserves are called up.

August 1, UK orders the Fleet to mobilize. France begin full mobilization to begin August 2nd, with French Order posted at 3:40pm on the 1st.
Germany order Full Mobilization at 5PM, declares war on Russia.

August 2, Russia declares War on Germany, Russian patrols advance into German territory, Germany occupies Luxembourg, German ultimatum to Belgian Government at 8 PM.
 
July 28, A-H declares War on Serbia, Churchill order Fleet to Scapa Flow, Tsar and Kaiser exchange telegrams. French Army advances to frontier
August 1, UK orders the Fleet to mobilize. France begin full mobilization to begin August 2nd, with French Order posted at 3:40pm on the 1st.
Germany order Full Mobilization at 5PM, declares war on Russia.

Just to belabour the points on the RN.

In peacetime RN was made up of 3 fleets:
  • the first fleet were fully manned in peacetime and were the most modern ships, all Dreadnoughts were in first fleet.
  • the second fleet were partially manned in peacetime, they received the remainder of their crews upon mobilisation.
  • the third fleet were in laid up reserve with no assigned crew, these ship received their entire crew upon mobilisation.
On July 14 1914 the RN conducted a mobilisation exercise, all RN Reserves were called up and all ships fully manned and I believe conducted exercises at sea in the Channel. As the fleet was already mobilised the order wasn't to call up reserves, it was not to dismiss them. The ships of the first fleet were ordered to Scapa while the ships of the second fleet remained in the Channel, and on the 30th these became the Grand Fleet and Channel Fleet respectively.

A further action occurred on August 8 when ships of the third fleet (the oldest pre-dreadnoughts) were dispatched to various stations around the world: North America for example.
 
There's also a small RN squadron attending celebrations for the opening of the Kiel Canal. As they left to join the rest of the Grand Fleet they sent the German navy a signal. "Friends today, Friends tomorrow, Friends forever." Relations between Britain and Germany were the best they'd been since before the Boer War.
 
Belgium ends up french after Versailles TTL.

Perhaps Italy gets paid off for being on the entente side with Belgian congo. Maybe this makes Mussolini willing to be neutral in WWII.
 
Belgium ends up french after Versailles TTL.

Perhaps Italy gets paid off for being on the entente side with Belgian congo. Maybe this makes Mussolini willing to be neutral in WWII.

What make you think the Entente would win if Belgium allowed the Germans through? It's likely that the Germans would do better in their advance and maybe win the Battle of the Marne and would almost certainly win the Race to the Sea and takes at least Dunkirk and likely Calais and Boulogne. This should be enough of a tilt to the balance to allow the CP to win.
 
would almost certainly win the Race to the Sea and takes at least Dunkirk and likely Calais and Boulogne. This should be enough of a tilt to the balance to allow the CP to win.

It's still not a win, though, it's still all trenches, just a bit further West than OTL
Ax00170.jpg


Even a line from Abbeville to Amiens along the Somme doesn't knock France out
 
It's still not a win, though, it's still all trenches, just a bit further West than OTL

Even a line from Abbeville to Amiens along the Somme doesn't knock France out

It's not a 'home by Christmas' win, not even close. Given the strategic, operational and tactical situation of the time a long war is a virtual certainty.

However the position of the trenches has a strategic outcome. IOTL the trenches kept the German Navy 80+ miles from the British coast with a pair of small and shitty ports, allowed the BEF to occupy Flanders with enough defensive depth for their logistics base and very short, efficient supply lines and allowed coastal shipping through-channel access directly to London. If Belgium allows Germany free passage and the trench line settle along the Abbeville to Amiens then the German Navy is 22 miles from the coast, through-channel shipping to London is in constant danger, the BEF is pushed back away from occupying the part of Europe most damaging to them and relying on longer, less-efficient, more vulnerable to interdiction, supply lines.
 
Well, we know that 2/3 to 3/4 of the liberal MPs of OTL (... quite enough IMHO to deduct an average opinion) were against interventione on the continent, esp. military intervention.
... not to speak of the Labour MPs who were against any kind of war and distraction from trade union matters.
... not to speak of the IPP MPs who were against any distraction from Home Rule matters.

So ... with an anti-interventionist 'explanation before the house' I fail to see any risk for a goverment of OTL composition.
... but iofc again you're free to contruct a different ATL changing the political landscape of Great Britain for this very moment (... if this very moment would then evolve at all ...).

First thing, I mentioned "average" MPs because I was making a general point about how the decision to go to war (or not) would work in any case, for a long period of time, in London.

That said, yes - several parties were against war and plenty of actual MPs were against it personally, regardless of party line. So you are really concluding that they all changed their minds for one reason only, i.e. that Belgium chose to fight? Sorry, but I don't buy that. The real explanation is that even if they were against war on principle as well as on contingent tactical political grounds, they, on average, - as I claimed - also saw the overall long-term British strategic policy interest.

But ... if the 'man of the street' spent any thought at all on this topic ... he dislike tsarist Russia - sending its cossacks into peasant villages and worker quarters for their bloody work they were known for - even more than the germans, provinding them with cheap but still high quality consumer goods.

The glaringly obvious difference being that the cossacks wouldn't come to raid Smallton-upon-Trent, while the German Hochseeflotte and U-Boote could stop Australian beef from arriving in the shops there. The secondary difference was that the Tsar had not called those men in the street "mad as hares".
 
It's still not a win, though, it's still all trenches, just a bit further West than OTL


Even a line from Abbeville to Amiens along the Somme doesn't knock France out
That line would stop France from using the Bethune coal fields at all during the war which with the losses of material production on the frontier would be a big deal. IIRC Bethune was the biggest coal field they had operational that was not overrun by the German advance. That means more supply ships sending in coal and less sending in other goods to keep factories running to produce military equipment. You also increase the supply line from UK to France so any ships are making fewer journeys with more time at sea. Depending on the rail network the Allies might be operating on reduced throughput to the front line which to fix they would have to divert resources and transportation to producing then moving new track.

To keep up OTL levels of supply they will need to import more, now I do not think I have ever seen a usage chart on merchant marines so not sure how much slack there is to be diverted to more supply to France. Some of that supply though would come from increased orders in the US and if fiscal policy remains the same as OTL then that means the allies burn through their collateral faster. To say nothing if purchases change as OTL the British imported supplies to operate more factories to improve what they can produce locally if they reduce or cancel that local increase in favor of more supplies now that stretches the supply line further.
 
That line would stop France from using the Bethune coal fields at all during the war which with the losses of material production on the frontier would be a big deal. IIRC Bethune was the biggest coal field they had operational that was not overrun by the German advance. That means more supply ships sending in coal and less sending in other goods to keep factories running to produce military equipment. You also increase the supply line from UK to France so any ships are making fewer journeys with more time at sea. Depending on the rail network the Allies might be operating on reduced throughput to the front line which to fix they would have to divert resources and transportation to producing then moving new track.

To keep up OTL levels of supply they will need to import more, now I do not think I have ever seen a usage chart on merchant marines so not sure how much slack there is to be diverted to more supply to France. Some of that supply though would come from increased orders in the US and if fiscal policy remains the same as OTL then that means the allies burn through their collateral faster. To say nothing if purchases change as OTL the British imported supplies to operate more factories to improve what they can produce locally if they reduce or cancel that local increase in favor of more supplies now that stretches the supply line further.

Because the Germans would hold a shipping lane on their side of the channel open for warships those longer supply lines more vulnerable to interdiction by uboats and surface ships. ITOL the Germans only stationed small coastal uboats in Belgium, and these operated not far beyond the Dover mine barrage, but ITTL larger patrol uboats could be based on the far side of the Dover narrows and operate deep into the channel. The RN/NM would have to expend resources to protect these longer supply lines, which again would come from the resources that IOTL were deployed in the trenches.
 
That line would stop France from using the Bethune coal fields at all during the war which with the losses of material production on the frontier would be a big deal. IIRC Bethune was the biggest coal field they had operational that was not overrun by the German advance. That means more supply ships sending in coal and less sending in other goods to keep factories running to produce military equipment. You also increase the supply line from UK to France so any ships are making fewer journeys with more time at sea. Depending on the rail network the Allies might be operating on reduced throughput to the front line which to fix they would have to divert resources and transportation to producing then moving new track.

To keep up OTL levels of supply they will need to import more, now I do not think I have ever seen a usage chart on merchant marines so not sure how much slack there is to be diverted to more supply to France. Some of that supply though would come from increased orders in the US and if fiscal policy remains the same as OTL then that means the allies burn through their collateral faster. To say nothing if purchases change as OTL the British imported supplies to operate more factories to improve what they can produce locally if they reduce or cancel that local increase in favor of more supplies now that stretches the supply line further.

Wrote a timeline with a 1918 CP partially on this premise.
 
Top