Britain stays Neutral in WWI, Effects on her Economy

Does no-one here hold on to the theory that Belgium was just an excuse to enter the war to support the French and the Entente-cordiale?
It was a good excuse, though. There might be a very remote possibility that the Germans could actually manage to win before the Brits can find a sufficiently good excuse to motivate going to war with Germany (after all, the government did nearly fall over going to war in OTL, so just any excuse might not cut it), or at least having reduced the war to a one-front war by that point (which might encourage the Brits to attempt to mediate an end to the war rather than directly entering).
It's probably true that Belgium was an excuse to enter the war in a pro- Entente Britain (OTL), but if we have a Britain not particulary attached to the Entente, they still might intervene due to Belgium being invaded. T change the situation you must have a Britain really not caring about Belgium (i.e. having no treaties supporting her neutrality).
IE, a POD sufficiently far back that German unification is likely to be affected.
 
It was a good excuse, though. There might be a very remote possibility that the Germans could actually manage to win before the Brits can find a sufficiently good excuse to motivate going to war with Germany (after all, the government did nearly fall over going to war in OTL, so just any excuse might not cut it), or at least having reduced the war to a one-front war by that point (which might encourage the Brits to attempt to mediate an end to the war rather than directly entering).
I was always under the assumption it was the honouring of the alliance with France which was the tipping point, which all stems from the Second Boar war. From 1900 to 1914 it is certainly possible to see a less aggravating Germany and a more annoying France.

Weren't the Liberals under Asquith less than thrilled about the idea of military conflict anyway?

At the time, was everyone so sure that Germany fighting a two front war was going to be victorious? Isn't the idea Britain wouldn't let the German's dominate the continent looking at events with a certain amount of hindsight?
 
I was always under the assumption it was the honouring of the alliance with France which was the tipping point, which all stems from the Second Boar war. From 1900 to 1914 it is certainly possible to see a less aggravating Germany and a more annoying France.
Well, they actually were, no creative word-bending needed, obliged to go to war in the case of violations of Belgian neutrality, whereas they weren't under such obligations to France. Thus, without Belgium, they still need to find an excuse to enter the war, even with their relation with France being the same up to that point. Not that they can't find such an excuse, but that won't come at once.
Still, most likely, needs more to keep Britain neutral (such as the changed situation after the Second Boer War you posit), but if you want to keep the Brits neutral, keeping Germany from violating Belgian neutrality is probably a necessity.
 
How about keeping the brits indesicive and there for out of the conflict long enough for the battle of the marn to become an german victory and there for,
a french defeat inevetable.

would they still join a war that they might think they would loose?

could this also be an possibility to keep them neutral?
 

Makty

Banned
Though I suspect that it would eventually result in a pragmatic compromise; free trade with the continental states and in return they gain access to British markets in Africa and India.

Then again whoever is running Britain might be an arse and isolationist.
 
This tread is about Britain being neutral, and your explenation brings it directly into the war. What is there to re-read?

The bit about Britain not accepting German hegonomy over the continent?

They would get involved in the war, if only to contribute in a smaller way
 
...Shame About the Plan...

Germany might consider it wiser not to antagonise Britain by going through Belgium to invade France. The High Seas Fleet was not really a sea-going fleet like the Royal Navy - the crews lived in barracks ashore when not at sea. The consequence means that the HSF was a counter-blockade fleet with the only worthwhile arm being the U-boats.

Yes, I know about Coronel and the Battle of the Falklands.

Point is, the Germans would have been better off holding the French whilst thrashing Tsarist Russia, only then forcing the issue with the French. I could see them going through the southernmost parts of Belgium (with apologies and possible compensation) to catch the French off-guard instead of hitting Verdun head-on. I seem to recall that the French essentially abandoned Foprt Douamont after seeing the way inferior Belgian ferro-concrete was shattered by German shells in the march through Belgium.:)
 
Top