Britain Reinforces Belgium in 1914

Random thought brought up by the recent What If France Invades Belgium in 1914 thread but what if the British decided to send the British Expeditionary Force into Belgium instead? The PoD is that in 1904 the Entente cordiale is slightly less cordial in that whilst all the issues that were in our timeline worked out are settled but the British make very clear that they wont automatically come in on France and Russia's side in a war with the Central Powers, they will however observe a one sided neutrality whereby they wont trade or aid Germany during hostilities whilst doing whatever they can for France and Russia. Now in our timeline there was a fair bit of debate over whether to declare war on Germany but protecting Belgian neutrality, the Entente cordiale and self-interest in not wanting to see Germany dominate the continent brought them down on the Allies side. In this one though with less of a commitment to France a month or two before the western front kicked off IOTL the British send the BEF to Belgium to link up with the Belgian army for 'joint training' and a series of 'war games'. Luxembourg's government declines to join the training and French offers of sending troops to participate in the war games is politely rejected as being just a bit too blatant. At the same time both Germany and France are pointedly reminded of Belgiums neutrality and their responsibilities to respect it under the Treaty of London 1839, with the unspoken statement that Britain will take it as an act of war if either violates it and will oppose them with force of arms.

So what happens now? A number of senior German officials apparently didn't believe that Britain would go to war over a "mere scrap of paper" but ITTL are under no such misapprehensions, is having the BEF in Belgium right in the way of the right wing of the Schlieffen Plan enough to make them reconsider? They've still got Luxembourg they could chance going through but that gap is pretty small so the French could probably hold it. If the Germans decide to not provoke the British and the French are able to hold the front line we could see them reverting to an eastern front first plan whilst staying defensive against the French which funnily enough means that the British may have inadvertantly helped them win the war. The Russians get clubbed to death over the course of two years before having to sign something similar to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The war in the west drags on as a stalemate and eventually ends in a negotiated peace - if France had conquered all of Germany's overseas colonies and sunk their navy would Germany agree to return Alsace-Lorraine for getting them back since with their puppet states in the east and Russia crippled they've more than won, or would that be too much? If not then it's status quo ante bellum.

Other knock-on effects could be the Ottomans staying out of the war since Sultan Osman I and Reshadiye wont be seized. The naval war is going to be very different without the Grand Fleet bottling up the High Seas Fleet, it's going to be much more balanced even if the British decide to shadow German ships and/or report their locations back to the French. Most likely no US involvement and its follow on.

So what do people think, is this at all possible or would it require intervention from the ASBs to work? Any ideas or suggestions on how things might turn out that I've missed?
 
While this is not my point of expertess (nor is spelling) I do have some questions.
Would Germany engage in unrestricted Submarine Warfare against Britain or America.
How would the red revoloution in Russia go
After defeating Russia would Germany be able to break the deadlock with France and win?
Which side would produce Tanks first, and which side would use them with the most effectiveness and have the most of them?
 
Random thought brought up by the recent What If France Invades Belgium in 1914 thread but what if the British decided to send the British Expeditionary Force into Belgium instead? The PoD is that in 1904 the Entente cordiale is slightly less cordial in that whilst all the issues that were in our timeline worked out are settled but the British make very clear that they wont automatically come in on France and Russia's side in a war with the Central Powers, they will however observe a one sided neutrality whereby they wont trade or aid Germany during hostilities whilst doing whatever they can for France and Russia.
Err... NEUTRAL Belgium?

Belgium, citing her neutrality, refused to let Entente forces onto her territory until after Germany invaded. So your PoD would have to be something else entirely.

Belgium not claiming neutrality would be a really major difference.
 
Err... NEUTRAL Belgium?

Belgium, citing her neutrality, refused to let Entente forces onto her territory until after Germany invaded. So your PoD would have to be something else entirely.

Belgium not claiming neutrality would be a really major difference.

But, Belgium not claiming neutrality renders the German violation of Belgian sovereignty rather less controversial.
 
But, Belgium not claiming neutrality renders the German violation of Belgian sovereignty rather less controversial.
Ahum, ever heard of the Treaty of London of 1839?

Article 7: La Belgique, dans les limites indiquées aux art. 1, 2 & 4, formera un État indépendant et perpetuellement neutre. Elle sera tenue d'observer cette même neutralité envers tous les autres États.

Belgium, within the limits indicated in art. 1, 2 & 4, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. She will be held to observe the same neutrality towards the other states.
 
[/I]Belgium, within the limits indicated in art. 1, 2 & 4, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. She will be held to observe the same neutrality towards the other states.

In diplomacy 'perpetually' doesn't mean the same thing. It only means until the signing of the next treaty.
 
In diplomacy 'perpetually' doesn't mean the same thing. It only means until the signing of the next treaty.
That, or a Truly Big Event(TM) like WWI, the point being?
There wasn't a next treaty in OTL, and getting one would require some serious policy changes in several capitals. For that to happen you would need to make Belgium absolutely terrified of Germany. (you know, one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality)
 

Cook

Banned
In this one though with less of a commitment to France a month or two before the western front kicked off IOTL the British send the BEF to Belgium...


A month or two before the western front kicked off Europe was at Peace.

World War One was not a planned event, it was a train smash. The trigger, Franz Ferdinand being assassinated in Sarajevo, occurred on June 28th 1914, what followed was a frenzy of diplomatic activity and military mobilisation until on the 3rd of August, only 36 days after Ferdinand’s assassination, the Germans invaded Belgium.
 
That, or a Truly Big Event(TM) like WWI, the point being?
There wasn't a next treaty in OTL, and getting one would require some serious policy changes in several capitals. For that to happen you would need to make Belgium absolutely terrified of Germany. (you know, one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality)

Of course there was no 'next treaty' my point was what 'perpetual' meant in diplomacy.
 
Would Germany engage in unrestricted Submarine Warfare against Britain or America?
Doubtful. Sure the British will be trading with the Allies whilst the government quietly encourages businesses to not trade with the Central Powers, but they'll still be neutral. The Allies did try to stop the trade the Dutch facilitated for the Germans with the world but they never did anything too drastic so I can't see the Germans either, and why go for something extreme like unrestricted warfare if things seem to be going okay.


How would the red revolution in Russia go?
God only knows, the changes from the PoD could butterfly lots of things away or bring about even worse into existence. I'll have to do some reading but if the Germans feel much more secure in their fight on the eastern front they might decline to allow Lenin and the other exiles to transit their territory. If they're stuck in Switzerland that could certainly change things.


After defeating Russia would Germany be able to break the deadlock with France and win?
I generally saw it as a bloody stalemate. The Germans are going to be annoyed with the British blocking their path through Belgium so if that's off they'd have revert to their pre-Schliffen plans of an eastern front first fight, however all their plans have been geared for a west first strategy. Rejigging parts of their greater plans and reorganising their logistics will take a while so you might get something on a pause on their part. The French attack straight out of the gate with Plan 17 only for them to advance a small way into Alsace-Lorraine for horrendous losses before it settles down to trench warfare like IOTL but with a much reduced front. The Germans turn east and wallop the Russians while the French making some fairly useless attempts at advances during this time with the Germans seeing them off, in Africa and Asia though the French take all the German colonial holdings. When the Germans turn back west by this point the French are so dug in they can't make any headway and a stalemate ensues. Eventually I think the French would grow tired of having to fight on alone in an unproductive war and there would have to be a negotiated settlement.


Which side would produce Tanks first, and which side would use them with the most effectiveness and have the most of them?
Not a clue. At an educated guess I'd say the French simply because they'd no doubt be doing most of the attacking whilst the Germans would be content to sit there on the defensive and tanks of that period would be useless on the eastern front. That would give them say two years head start on the Germans until the alt-Treaty of Brest-Litovsk happens and they turn west again and have to start contemplating attacking the French defences and trenches, or at least until they first used them in an attack on the German positions and they noticed what the French had and started looking at making some of their own.


Err... NEUTRAL Belgium?

Belgium, citing her neutrality, refused to let Entente forces onto her territory until after Germany invaded. So your PoD would have to be something else entirely.

Belgium not claiming neutrality would be a really major difference.
Well the Schliffen plan was hardly a secret, hell it was publicly debated in the papers in 1909 from what I remember which caused quite some anxiety in Belgium. If the UK declares itself neutral then it's simply two friendly countries supporting each others neutrality and engaging in military maneuvers.


A month or two before the western front kicked off Europe was at Peace.

World War One was not a planned event, it was a train smash. The trigger, Franz Ferdinand being assassinated in Sarajevo, occurred on June 28th 1914, what followed was a frenzy of diplomatic activity and military mobilisation until on the 3rd of August, only 36 days after Ferdinand’s assassination, the Germans invaded Belgium.
Gah. And this is why even with small random ideas it's never a good idea to post as half past two in the morning when you're sleep deprived and make broad generalisations, you're more than likely to forget things and make major mistakes. :eek: Still might be vaguely doable though if I iron the kinks out though.
 
Ahum, ever heard of the Treaty of London of 1839?

Article 7: La Belgique, dans les limites indiquées aux art. 1, 2 & 4, formera un État indépendant et perpetuellement neutre. Elle sera tenue d'observer cette même neutralité envers tous les autres États.

Belgium, within the limits indicated in art. 1, 2 & 4, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. She will be held to observe the same neutrality towards the other states.

You've missed my point. Belgium is waiving its neutrality by allowing British forces into the country, so any subsequent Belgian claim of neutrality violation against Germany is discredited. This is no different from Belgium having refused entry to German forces in the World War I of our timeline on basically the same basis. In essence, Belgium is no longer neutral if foreign forces are able to use the country to pursue enemies militarily. If perpetuity in international relations meant what you have suggested, then NATO would not be based in Brussels today.
 
Serious question, if the UK is neutral as well and it's presented as two neutral countries making sure that their (armed) neutrality is respected by both sides how does that invalidate Belgium's neutrality? If they're taking no offensive action but merely sitting there saying anyone coming over the border from either direction gets shot I just don't see it.
 
Serious question, if the UK is neutral as well and it's presented as two neutral countries making sure that their (armed) neutrality is respected by both sides how does that invalidate Belgium's neutrality? If they're taking no offensive action but merely sitting there saying anyone coming over the border from either direction gets shot I just don't see it.

Britain is not neutral, and even if it was to be viewed as such, it and Prussia (now Germany) have a dual responsibility to uphold Belgian neutrality. Singular British involvement in Belgium violates the neutrality of the latter, even if the former was not part of the Entente a decade before 1914.
 
Well they're neutal-ish IITL, at least to the same extent as the Dutch were IOTL. As for it only being Britain, well when Germany has a famously well know plan of violating Belgium's neutrality their credibility is a little bit dented to say the least. :)
 
Well they're neutal-ish IITL, at least to the same extent as the Dutch were IOTL. As for it only being Britain, well when Germany has a famously well know plan of violating Belgium's neutrality their credibility is a little bit dented to say the least. :)

The Schlieffen Plan was not public, and the presence of Britons in Belgium discredits her claims to neutrality all the same.
 
The Schlieffen Plan was not public, and the presence of Britons in Belgium discredits her claims to neutrality all the same.

So what if the Belgians, not wanting to be invaded and occupied by Germany simply ignore this flaw in their claims to neutrality? At least with a British presence in the country there's a chance they won't get invaded, while without they definately are.
 
So what if the Belgians, not wanting to be invaded and occupied by Germany simply ignore this flaw in their claims to neutrality? At least with a British presence in the country there's a chance they won't get invaded, while without they definately are.

By doing this, Belgium will have granted Germany an excuse to invade and waives any claim to victimhood it may have had otherwise. Perhaps Germany stays out of Belgium, but in the long term this seems unlikely as I doubt that the French can break into Germany without being able to enter Belgium, thereby cementing German intervantion in the country.
 
The Schlieffen Plan was not public, and the presence of Britons in Belgium discredits her claims to neutrality all the same.
Really? I was always under the impression that it was an open secret. Hell I've come across mentions of Schlieffen himself apparently anonymously publishing his version of it in the the open press in 1909 and criticising the new variant as they were making the right hook too weak in his opinion.

I still don't see how neutral British forces in Belgium helping her defend her neutrality from all comers invalidates her neutrality but I guess we'll just have to disagree.
 
Really? I was always under the impression that it was an open secret. Hell I've come across mentions of Schlieffen himself apparently anonymously publishing his version of it in the the open press in 1909 and criticising the new variant as they were making the right hook too weak in his opinion.

I still don't see how neutral British forces in Belgium helping her defend her neutrality from all comers invalidates her neutrality but I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Neutral states don't occupy other netral states.
 
Neutral by definition means that they don't allow any foreign troops on their soil, Entente, Mittelmächte or other neutrals. If Britain sent troops to Belgium first, the other signatory powers, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Netherlands would be obliged to protect Belgian Neutrality. Such preemptive action by Britain could possibly derail the process leading to WWI completely. To mix metaphors, the 'scrap of paper' would be on the other shoe, too.
 
Top