Monty
You're TL for Britain to arrive 'too late' doesn't sound too disasterious for me? If France suffers some minor colonial losses its status as a great power and a check in the west to Germany is still in place.
If Germany decided to go for total victory once Britain intervenes they face a similar moral problem to that OTL in 1918 when the US started arriving in force. Fresh troops from a powerful nation just when they think their winning. Coupled with a blockade and the threat to any remaining colonial possessions plus the threat of open British aid to Russia. It could also persuade say Italy or Turkey, if at war, to start thinking about coming to terms.
In terms of the British arriving on time and being effective.
a) The bloodbath in WWI will cause some concern but there will be continued concern about Germany getting too powerful. Don't forget in 1914 we had the Liberals, effectively the peace party, already in power and they were split but considering joining the war even before Belgium decided to fight the Germans. If we have a couple of years of conflict there will be people asking why Britain isn't involved and seeking to secure its interests and help allies. [Especially since propaganda being what it is while there will be reports of heavy losses at the fronts this will almost certainly be glamorised by the various combatants as it was OTL]. Therefore, once France starts to crumble, or before if Britain listens to French warnings, the decision will almost certainly be taken pretty quickly.
b) The successes by both sides in 1918 were dramatic only in comparison with the previous deadlock. If the French are starting to be driven back they will still be putting up resistance and the Germans will have to fight their way forward through defences and all the problems of finding gaps, directing advances through them and the logistical problems of supporting an advance through no man's land. Not to mention, if no right hook through Belgium, the front will be further south with a fair amount of rugged terrain the Germans have to get through.
In comparison the BEF will have updated its plans for mobilisation and deployment and will be advancing across northern France, with its good railway lines. Similarly the French will be doing everything they can to speed its movement.
c) The BEF was pretty good in 1914. It had a couple of weaknesses in terms of insufficient machine-guns and artillery. With close co-operation with the French and observers on the front line lessons will be learnt. Not as much as actually having British forces fighting but expect the force, if say coming in say in 1916, to have material shortages corrected and be 2-3 times the size of the 1914 one. That's still pretty small compared to the forces fighting but could be a serious hammer blow in terms of fresh, well-equipped troops coming into the fray with knowledge of many more behind them. They will have problems of course and take heavier losses than more experience troops but will still be a big problem for the drained German vanguard as well as a huge moral boost for the French.
Hence while they might be too late to prevent a total French collapse I think its highly unlikely.
Steve
You're TL for Britain to arrive 'too late' doesn't sound too disasterious for me? If France suffers some minor colonial losses its status as a great power and a check in the west to Germany is still in place.
If Germany decided to go for total victory once Britain intervenes they face a similar moral problem to that OTL in 1918 when the US started arriving in force. Fresh troops from a powerful nation just when they think their winning. Coupled with a blockade and the threat to any remaining colonial possessions plus the threat of open British aid to Russia. It could also persuade say Italy or Turkey, if at war, to start thinking about coming to terms.
In terms of the British arriving on time and being effective.
a) The bloodbath in WWI will cause some concern but there will be continued concern about Germany getting too powerful. Don't forget in 1914 we had the Liberals, effectively the peace party, already in power and they were split but considering joining the war even before Belgium decided to fight the Germans. If we have a couple of years of conflict there will be people asking why Britain isn't involved and seeking to secure its interests and help allies. [Especially since propaganda being what it is while there will be reports of heavy losses at the fronts this will almost certainly be glamorised by the various combatants as it was OTL]. Therefore, once France starts to crumble, or before if Britain listens to French warnings, the decision will almost certainly be taken pretty quickly.
b) The successes by both sides in 1918 were dramatic only in comparison with the previous deadlock. If the French are starting to be driven back they will still be putting up resistance and the Germans will have to fight their way forward through defences and all the problems of finding gaps, directing advances through them and the logistical problems of supporting an advance through no man's land. Not to mention, if no right hook through Belgium, the front will be further south with a fair amount of rugged terrain the Germans have to get through.
In comparison the BEF will have updated its plans for mobilisation and deployment and will be advancing across northern France, with its good railway lines. Similarly the French will be doing everything they can to speed its movement.
c) The BEF was pretty good in 1914. It had a couple of weaknesses in terms of insufficient machine-guns and artillery. With close co-operation with the French and observers on the front line lessons will be learnt. Not as much as actually having British forces fighting but expect the force, if say coming in say in 1916, to have material shortages corrected and be 2-3 times the size of the 1914 one. That's still pretty small compared to the forces fighting but could be a serious hammer blow in terms of fresh, well-equipped troops coming into the fray with knowledge of many more behind them. They will have problems of course and take heavier losses than more experience troops but will still be a big problem for the drained German vanguard as well as a huge moral boost for the French.
Hence while they might be too late to prevent a total French collapse I think its highly unlikely.
Steve
Agreed.
I'm not saying that Britain will probably be too late, but there's a significant chance for it.
First considering preparation:
That is true. Britain wil be able to wage war.
But they'll still need time to get their troops on the continent and on the front. And even then, the question is whether British troops are that effective early on against German battle-hardened troops. So the question is if the British have time to deploy their troops into France. Now here public opinion comes into play:
All very true.
A first problem, though, is that "defending poor Belgium from the Hun" is perfect to rally the British population for war. "Defending the balance of powers" is less so. Even more important, though, is the question when Britain is really needed to defend the balance of powers? I think it's consensus here that the war in the west will be trench warfare along the French-German border. This is a "stable" situation which does not require immediate British entry - and it will be highly unpopular to send the boys in teh trenches of France. If the Germans break through and trench warfare ends, then you have a situation when Britain must enter the war - but will they be able to deploy their troops fast enough?
Now other situations in which Britain will feel it necessary to join the war could be France lacking money or ressources. But then loans could be negotiated. Would anyone be willing to fight for the French because they went bancrupt?
So, we'd have the problem that brining the population to enter the war after Britain stayed neutral initially and the horror of trench warfare is known becomes more difficult. That doesn't necessarily imply that Britain does not join, but it may delay deployment of troops even further, although bringing Breitish troops to the Front in time and establishing sufficient supply lines would be difficult even without raging - and possible time consuming - discussions at home. I see the real threat here that Britain is to late to keep the trenches.
On the other side, the question is what will happen if the British really were "to late". Actually, I think that the willingness of Britain to enter the war and deployment of troops might be enough to end the war in the west even if the British do not manage to arrive at the frontier in time to hold the German advance. I think about the following scenario: As long as trench warfare goes on, Britain sees no immediate need to enter. Now the Germans manage a surprising breakthrough. Trench warfare in Lorraine collapses. Britain starts mobilization - but there's internal discussion about whether Britain should enter the war. Ultimately, after only a few days, Britain declares war against the CP, British troops land in Northern France, hectic organization sets in to bring the British to a rapidly moving front. The German advance in the mean time went on, due to French troops being sent north, the Italians manage a breakthrough as well (deploying British troops into the Alpes will be even more difficult than into Lorraine). The most likely outcome now I think is France asking for an armistice with British backing - or even the CP offer rather lenient peace terms for France. After all, even if the CP manage to occupy large parts of France, Britain by then will be unharmed by the war - and willing to accept a peace treaty by which France keeps great power status. I'd say Tunisia, a free hadn in Ethiopia and maybe Savoy and Nice (after referendum?) to Italy and French equatorial Africa and Benin to Germany as well as some military restrictions along the border. Britain naturally looses nothing.