Britain fights on in 1917 -1918 ?

I have often thought about this. If France collapsed in 1917 -1918, and the USA had not joined the conflict, would the British and the Dominions, have fought on? Could they have fought on and how would such a confllict go?
 

MrP

Banned
I can't imagine any serious fighting continuing with just the British against the Germans. The UK and Empire by definition lack the manpower, production and funds of UK & Empire plus France plus America.
 
If your POD was perhaps the French mutiny of 1917 turning violent and uncontrollable to the point where france couldn't particpate anymore the war would be over

Britiain would get all of Germany's colonies and the Germans would get some nice territorial adjustments in their favor and a relatively free hand to smash the bolsheviks
 

Typo

Banned
The UK can keep up the blockade up indefinitely though, that's gonna hurt. And the US might enter at some point

I can see Allied support for whoever is fighting the Germans in Russia if they invade.
 
I could see a similar situation to 1940-1941 situation developing, ie the u boat war, strategicbombing - by late 1918 both sides had 4 engined heavy bombers and a ground war in the mid east.

The major question would be if the French collapsed would the BEF be able to evacuate or would it be captured?
 
Stalemate, the UK can't do much against Germany on the Continent and is being bankrupted by continuing and Germany can't do much against Britain and is starving.

Germany may try a last ditch attempt to take on the RN, maybe that leads to a butterflied Kiel mutiny. Fairly likely that both sides end up in a cold war with each other and end official 'declared' war.
 

MrP

Banned
Well, I wouldn't suspect that the British would immediately call for terms. However, as bobbis says, in the long-term the situation benefits neither side. In 1918 IOTL the French were frightfully worried that the Brits would retreat to cover their own lines of supply, which means the Channel Ports. If the French collapse like a house of cards (which scenario I shall make grumbling noises about, but let pass), then the British will be forced to do so ITTL in 1917. British manpower will be less stretched than in OTL's Kaiserschlacht, since I assume that this 1917 event prevents Passchendaele &c. There will be definite problems, since a French collapse exposes the British flank. An exposed flank and a stronger German army means the British must retire or suffer envelopment. Haig, even if one has a very low opinion of him, is not so stupid as to allow the BEF to be encircled in such a fashion.*

So one gets a certain amount of open warfare. Quite how much depends on the direction of the British retreat. I can't say precisely how it would look, since I need greater strategic knowledge than I possess! But it would mean retiring toward the coast. Once on the coast the BEF can fortify their new position, and the Germans will have to throw them out of it. But the BEF was supposed to operate offensively against the German Army. If she is penned in on the coast with no prospect of French support, I really don't see what option any reasonable politician in Britain would have but to suggest talks. As BlairWitch says, the British can't throw the Germans out of France, but nor can the Germans retain their extra-European empire.

I don't know that we should expect too much of the German Army in terms of anti-Red campaigning, though. I'd expect the lion's share of the army to be released to civilian life once more.

* Just look at his 1914 actions for proof of his wariness of German flanking manoeuvres.
 
Just to point out I am by know means, stereotyping the French when I talk of a French collapse.

I got this thought from a naval strategy computer game, I saw 8-9 years ago, which was based on this scenario. It also had the Japanese fighting alongside the Brits in the Atlantic!

What do people think the attitude of the public be, war weariness or too many have died for us to give up?
 
I can't imagine any serious fighting continuing with just the British against the Germans. The UK and Empire by definition lack the manpower, production and funds of UK & Empire plus France plus America.

Not really relevant, though. Germany also lacks " the manpower, production and funds of UK & Empire plus France plus America".

We may consider war aims, capability and vulnerability.

Britain's war aims in WW I were far more pragmatic in WWI than in WW II. Pretty much the classic policy that she had followed since Tudor times: don't allow a naval power to occupy the Low Country ports. If Germany were willing to withdrawn from the Low Countries, then an accommodation should be possible. If not, Britain will fight on.

As regards capabilities, by 1918 both countries would be exhausted. But Britain, with the Dominions to draw on , and access to world markets would be in a better position than Germany . Assuming that the British troops had been evacuated (ie, France had truly capitulated, not just been partially occupied) then there would be little fighting on the Continent. We would have very much the situation of the Napoleonic Wars. Britain would not be able to field an army powerful to take on Germany. Germany would not be able to deliver her powerful army to where it could seriously hurt Britain (that "moat defensive to a house" again). The bombing capability of the day was not sufficient to be more than an irritant.

So long as the Fleet is in being, Britain is safe. So long as the Army is in being Germany is safe. They will cast about for places of combat on the periphery - like Spain in the Nap. Wars. Maybe Italy? Or another go at Turkey?

As to vulnerability, as noted above neither is vulnerable. The HSF could not take out the Grand Fleet (and Britain can reinforce it from the foreign stations). Neither country is going to be in a financial position to seriously increase naval capacity quickly (though Britain would win such a race) . "I do not say they cannot come, my Lords. merely that they cannot come by sea".

Sooner or later sensible chaps would realise the futility of such an exercise in attrition and sit down to work out a solution. The major stumbling block to that would be the extraordinary stupidity of Wilhelm II. And the extraordinary stupidity of that little Welsh git.

The only caveat in this is , what happens to the French fleet? if it is handed over intact to Germany, then the case is altered. The HSF plus the French fleet would be an interesting challenge for the Admiralty. Though personally I have no doubt that the Senior Service would come through trumps.

If the French fleet makes a bolt for the safety of a British channel port, then the stalemate is even more certain.
 
. An exposed flank and a stronger German army means the British must retire or suffer envelopment. Haig, even if one has a very low opinion of him, is not so stupid as to allow the BEF to be encircled in such a fashion.*

Agreed, flanking manoevers and open warfare was one of the areas that both allied and CP generals were skilled in, note this had been the first time any kind of static front had existed.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that the RN sinks the French fleet to avoid it falling into German hands.

Simiarly it should be noted that the Germans taking Paris doesn't necessarily mean France is out, I mean they dealt with the loss of the majority of Northern France (their Industrial base) IOTL and I'm sure can continue fighting.
 
Top