British Neutrality--August 1914

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


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.
 
...an afterthought on OTL's war winner

If British entry into the war gets delayed by two years - how much further down the road will American involvement be compared to OTL?

There is a high probability that a neutral Royal Navy would have secured the safety of the sea - to the benefit of the arms manufacturers in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States. Thus, no Lusitania, no or very little submarine warfare.
If the US and the UK have sold enough equipment to both sides of the fronts, their overwhelming economical interest might become to group together to broker a compromise peace which keeps both sides able to pay their bills afterwards.

Also, there would be less lobbying on behalf of the Entente nations in the US, whereas the German-Americans would be quite active; in case of a CP-Italy the Italian-Americans as well.

Possible butterfly of a limited European war: Woodrow Wilson might become a one-term president. The election of 1913 was rather close and Wilson's stance on US neutrality was considered decisive, this might play less of a role with the British Empire out of the war.
 
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.

That'S the point. No matter what the OHL might want or plan, the ordinary soldiers wouldn'T like to get into yet other trenches just to prolongue the war that seems to be won.

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.

First problem here is that the decision to not go to war already changes a lot. For once, the question is whether the French are still considered Allies - if so, why didn't Britain join from the start? (True, that's kind of a circular argument without specifying the POD which left Britain out of the war).

Considering British interest - a balance in trench warfare is not necessarily bad for Britain. The balance of power requires neither France nor Germany to dominate the continent. If they bleed each other out, maybe buying heavily from Britain to do so, that's not that bad.

Considering propaganda: that might work less and less the longer Britain stays out of the war. As I mentioned earlier, I think the balance of power is too abstract to make good propaganda from it. And considering "heroic sacrifices" - the more you have, the lesser convincing the propaganda gets.

And then you could have a situation in which anti-war politicians may exploit diffuse feelings in the population. In 1914, this had no chance.

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.

But the question is if there's the impression that France could fall in such a situation. IF the front moves a couple of kilometers into France to secondary defense lines, that's no reason to join the war. There will many offensives of the Germans - and of the French - which result in some territorial gains. The question is if the British recognize in time that one offensive that is different.

Now you could add in that the French will inform the British of their efforts and might alert them - but due to national pride that's not sure.

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.

Now first, the British will have to cross the channel. Then, they have to employ hundrets of thousands of men - including supplies - to the front. They can prepare to do so, true, but they'll still require several days until they arrive in force. And that's not counting in possible delays due to discussions at home and simply surprise.

And then, my point was that the French lines break significantly to bring in Britain. If that is the case, the French will require thier rail lines for their own plans as well. Adding in hundrets of new trains will not go smoothly. It's even worse if there are refugees around. So the question might be what the French atually can do to speed up mvement.

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.

I have no doubt that the BEF will be larger and better trained than what we saw in 1914. But there's still a difference between training and actual fighting. If we assume that the Germans achieve a surprising breakthrough, one reason might be new tactics or new weapons employed by the Germans, which should prove disastrous for the British as well. Then we have the problem that the German front lines will not meet the BEF in bulk, but likely the BEF in movement and still in employment, maybe supply lines are not established yet - or at least not established to provide the supplies needed for trench warfare. That's only a matter of days to be managed, true, but in these days the Germans will have an advantage.

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.

True - although the Germans will also have a morale boost as I assume them on the advance and the French on the retreat. The general feeling in Germany would be that they defeated the French already. And remember that until then there was no blockade, hence German troops will be supplied better than IOTL.



To conclude, I think that if Britain decides not to join immediately, they'll have difficulties to get in later. First is the timing problem. If they do not join immediately, the main question, also for our discussion here, is what would actually bring the British into the war? Then there domestic problems. In 1914, they could easily rally the population for war. ITTL, they wouldn't have it that easy. Then, there are transportation problems. They'll still require some time to arrive at the front in sufficient numbers and with supply lines established, which leaves the Germasn with days before they'll have to face the BEF in full might. Not enough to conquer France, but enough to advance further and fight the French already there.

So, maybe we should specify the events that might bring in Britain before we continue our discussion. Assuming trench warfare in Lorraine, I think that event would be that the Germans break through decisively, that is they break not only through the first line of trenches, but through the secondary lines as well. Something like the German spring offensive in 1918.

Now that I'm thinking of it, as soon as the Russian require an armistice, Britain would join as well - and consequently the Russians quite likely wouldn't want that armistice anymore. Maybe I'll have to think that over again...
 
British mediation

Could a British effort for mediation at a point when the CP feel the strain of war while France/Russia can see the oncoming train at the end of the tunnel, but are not yet breaking, be successful? [depending on the course of war, especially the question whether the Entente employs a defensive strategy esp. in Russia this would be somewhen between mid-1915 to mid-1916, IMHO]

Britain has a bit more weight than semi-private initiatives, the pope or the (under-estimated) USA - plus, they are not a belligerent.

How about a peace which is not status quo ante, but defuses Europe a bit:

- (if necessary) re-establishment of Belgium (but maybe not Luxemburg)
- establishment of a Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania (therefore no German-Russian and a greatly reduced Austrian-Russian border, Polish access to the Baltic granted) under a Catholic German dynasty
- Austria-Hungary may do what they want with Serbia
- Status Quo Ante for the Ottomans and Italians (in case they joined the war), unless they made huge gains against the Entente (which I would not expect)
- France does a swap - the parts of Cameroon they gave away in 1911 against a new partition of Marocco, giving the Atlantic coast to Germany, maybe also giving up a base in the Indian Ocean (Reunion?); however nothing too vital
- maybe a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine, but only if the Germans are sure to win :cool:
 
Could a British effort for mediation at a point when the CP feel the strain of war while France/Russia can see the oncoming train at the end of the tunnel, but are not yet breaking, be successful? [depending on the course of war, especially the question whether the Entente employs a defensive strategy esp. in Russia this would be somewhen between mid-1915 to mid-1916, IMHO]

Britain has a bit more weight than semi-private initiatives, the pope or the (under-estimated) USA - plus, they are not a belligerent.

How about a peace which is not status quo ante, but defuses Europe a bit:

- (if necessary) re-establishment of Belgium (but maybe not Luxemburg)
- establishment of a Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania (therefore no German-Russian and a greatly reduced Austrian-Russian border, Polish access to the Baltic granted) under a Catholic German dynasty
- Austria-Hungary may do what they want with Serbia
- Status Quo Ante for the Ottomans and Italians (in case they joined the war), unless they made huge gains against the Entente (which I would not expect)
- France does a swap - the parts of Cameroon they gave away in 1911 against a new partition of Marocco, giving the Atlantic coast to Germany, maybe also giving up a base in the Indian Ocean (Reunion?); however nothing too vital
- maybe a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine, but only if the Germans are sure to win :cool:

I like your proposal, was the most realisitic and best write for now, but i have some objection:

1. I think not Invasion of Belgium is the POD, Luxemburg care little for the british and that means the german can do what they want with that(become a new german state in the Empire)

3 About Status Quo ante if both nation join(i thinks the ottomans, the Italians hate so much the Austrias to try to help them) are an stabed in the back for them... some minor colonial rewars(Italian case) and some Territory from russia(Ottoman one) are the only demands can make and the most easily to fullify.

The plebicty is an ASB and i said that directly, Eltass-Lothrigen is a part of germany as prussia or bavaria, if the german won in the war, the french will be obligated to renounce forever any claim in the german territory... even the german will want some border correction as his favor to keep a better line.


In fact,all the topic remember me this timeline/AAR who is a unfinished master piece:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185531
 
British neutrality is ASB in ww1... they had been engaging in a cold war with Germany since the 1870's; they couldn't afford to let Germany establish continental hedgemony... any conflict was going to bring them in on the other side.

Belgium was a conveinent excuse; they where not going to let the Germans march on France and not intervene anymore than the US would have let the Russians march on West Germany in 1985
 
British neutrality is ASB in ww1... they had been engaging in a cold war with Germany since the 1870's; they couldn't afford to let Germany establish continental hedgemony... any conflict was going to bring them in on the other side.

Belgium was a conveinent excuse; they where not going to let the Germans march on France and not intervene anymore than the US would have let the Russians march on West Germany in 1985

In the little of I know you, i know you gonna said that... and in general try to sell one of the most bloodiest & hard war in the history so far to a population who felt safe thanks to the channel and have more fear of a shooting civil war in Ireland than fighting for imperialism.

But that was not the premise, is the debated of they going neutral(with not Belgium as a conveinent excuse as you recongnize) and what will try to do in that scenario....
 
Hörnla

I think under those circumstances, as British 'neutrality' is bias towards the allies rather than central powers, there will be few if any British sells to Germany. However with the political situation of no formal blockade by Britain you could see Americans selling to Germany, which could create some problems if/when Britain joins the war. Most admit that's one point I hadn't considered.

Steve



If British entry into the war gets delayed by two years - how much further down the road will American involvement be compared to OTL?

There is a high probability that a neutral Royal Navy would have secured the safety of the sea - to the benefit of the arms manufacturers in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States. Thus, no Lusitania, no or very little submarine warfare.
If the US and the UK have sold enough equipment to both sides of the fronts, their overwhelming economical interest might become to group together to broker a compromise peace which keeps both sides able to pay their bills afterwards.

Also, there would be less lobbying on behalf of the Entente nations in the US, whereas the German-Americans would be quite active; in case of a CP-Italy the Italian-Americans as well.

Possible butterfly of a limited European war: Woodrow Wilson might become a one-term president. The election of 1913 was rather close and Wilson's stance on US neutrality was considered decisive, this might play less of a role with the British Empire out of the war.
 
That'S the point. No matter what the OHL might want or plan, the ordinary soldiers wouldn'T like to get into yet other trenches just to prolongue the war that seems to be won.



First problem here is that the decision to not go to war already changes a lot. For once, the question is whether the French are still considered Allies - if so, why didn't Britain join from the start? (True, that's kind of a circular argument without specifying the POD which left Britain out of the war).

Considering British interest - a balance in trench warfare is not necessarily bad for Britain. The balance of power requires neither France nor Germany to dominate the continent. If they bleed each other out, maybe buying heavily from Britain to do so, that's not that bad.

Considering propaganda: that might work less and less the longer Britain stays out of the war. As I mentioned earlier, I think the balance of power is too abstract to make good propaganda from it. And considering "heroic sacrifices" - the more you have, the lesser convincing the propaganda gets.

And then you could have a situation in which anti-war politicians may exploit diffuse feelings in the population. In 1914, this had no chance.



But the question is if there's the impression that France could fall in such a situation. IF the front moves a couple of kilometers into France to secondary defense lines, that's no reason to join the war. There will many offensives of the Germans - and of the French - which result in some territorial gains. The question is if the British recognize in time that one offensive that is different.

Now you could add in that the French will inform the British of their efforts and might alert them - but due to national pride that's not sure.



Now first, the British will have to cross the channel. Then, they have to employ hundrets of thousands of men - including supplies - to the front. They can prepare to do so, true, but they'll still require several days until they arrive in force. And that's not counting in possible delays due to discussions at home and simply surprise.

And then, my point was that the French lines break significantly to bring in Britain. If that is the case, the French will require thier rail lines for their own plans as well. Adding in hundrets of new trains will not go smoothly. It's even worse if there are refugees around. So the question might be what the French atually can do to speed up mvement.



I have no doubt that the BEF will be larger and better trained than what we saw in 1914. But there's still a difference between training and actual fighting. If we assume that the Germans achieve a surprising breakthrough, one reason might be new tactics or new weapons employed by the Germans, which should prove disastrous for the British as well. Then we have the problem that the German front lines will not meet the BEF in bulk, but likely the BEF in movement and still in employment, maybe supply lines are not established yet - or at least not established to provide the supplies needed for trench warfare. That's only a matter of days to be managed, true, but in these days the Germans will have an advantage.



True - although the Germans will also have a morale boost as I assume them on the advance and the French on the retreat. The general feeling in Germany would be that they defeated the French already. And remember that until then there was no blockade, hence German troops will be supplied better than IOTL.



To conclude, I think that if Britain decides not to join immediately, they'll have difficulties to get in later. First is the timing problem. If they do not join immediately, the main question, also for our discussion here, is what would actually bring the British into the war? Then there domestic problems. In 1914, they could easily rally the population for war. ITTL, they wouldn't have it that easy. Then, there are transportation problems. They'll still require some time to arrive at the front in sufficient numbers and with supply lines established, which leaves the Germasn with days before they'll have to face the BEF in full might. Not enough to conquer France, but enough to advance further and fight the French already there.

So, maybe we should specify the events that might bring in Britain before we continue our discussion. Assuming trench warfare in Lorraine, I think that event would be that the Germans break through decisively, that is they break not only through the first line of trenches, but through the secondary lines as well. Something like the German spring offensive in 1918.

Now that I'm thinking of it, as soon as the Russian require an armistice, Britain would join as well - and consequently the Russians quite likely wouldn't want that armistice anymore. Maybe I'll have to think that over again...

Monty

I think we will have to disagree here. Everything I know about history in the past few centuries suggests that if it looks like Germany is going to win big Britain will intervene.

If it was the case of Russia seeking an armistice before France starts to crumble that is a possibly trigger, as I could see Britain at a minimum seeking to preserve a strong France as a balance in the west to Germany. Probably also involved in conflict with Italy and the Ottomans if they have joined the conflict. Whether or not Russia actually maintained a role in the conflict. [If it got a fairly moderate peace and managed to maintain a moderate government - presuming such a one comes to power - that would be a good outcome for the world].

Steve
 
Hörnla

It's a possibility, although it might be partly a make peace or we join the allies as while Britain might be technically neutral I think it would definitely be biased, fairly openly so, to the allies.

It could however be the basis of an agreement as by this time, even with the central powers winning, they will be hurting. Also the fact the allies are openly losing means that they would be more willing to make concessions.

This could be the best solution for most people. Germany would be more dominant but still not overly so and with all the continental powers fairly war weary a decent chance of a lasting peace.

Steve

Could a British effort for mediation at a point when the CP feel the strain of war while France/Russia can see the oncoming train at the end of the tunnel, but are not yet breaking, be successful? [depending on the course of war, especially the question whether the Entente employs a defensive strategy esp. in Russia this would be somewhen between mid-1915 to mid-1916, IMHO]

Britain has a bit more weight than semi-private initiatives, the pope or the (under-estimated) USA - plus, they are not a belligerent.

How about a peace which is not status quo ante, but defuses Europe a bit:

- (if necessary) re-establishment of Belgium (but maybe not Luxemburg)
- establishment of a Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania (therefore no German-Russian and a greatly reduced Austrian-Russian border, Polish access to the Baltic granted) under a Catholic German dynasty
- Austria-Hungary may do what they want with Serbia
- Status Quo Ante for the Ottomans and Italians (in case they joined the war), unless they made huge gains against the Entente (which I would not expect)
- France does a swap - the parts of Cameroon they gave away in 1911 against a new partition of Marocco, giving the Atlantic coast to Germany, maybe also giving up a base in the Indian Ocean (Reunion?); however nothing too vital
- maybe a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine, but only if the Germans are sure to win :cool:
 
In the little of I know you, i know you gonna said that... and in general try to sell one of the most bloodiest & hard war in the history so far to a population who felt safe thanks to the channel and have more fear of a shooting civil war in Ireland than fighting for imperialism.

But that was not the premise, is the debated of they going neutral(with not Belgium as a conveinent excuse as you recongnize) and what will try to do in that scenario....

The entire premise of British neutrality in WW1 likely requires POD's that butterfly away the war anyway; which is my main point

You can't have a Britain comfortable with neutrality in a general european conflict in 1914 without making them see German victory as unthreatening, which is generally impossible

The politics and rivalry are impossible to handwaive
 
I like your proposal, was the most realisitic and best write for now, but i have some objection
1. I think not Invasion of Belgium is the POD, Luxemburg care little for the british and that means the german can do what they want with that(become a new german state in the Empire)

Thank you, firstly. The whole thread is a bit weakened by the uncertainty whether there is a Schlieffen plan or not in this timeline. I agree on Luxemburg, it had been part of the German federation and would create a nice, soft, round Western border (with a potential railway-hub for future mobilisations plus a modern fortress in connection with Metz-Diedenhofen).

3 About Status Quo ante if both nation join(i thinks the ottomans, the Italians hate so much the Austrias to try to help them) are an stabed in the back for them... some minor colonial rewars(Italian case) and some Territory from russia(Ottoman one) are the only demands can make and the most easily to fullify.

I assume that both these states would, if at all, not have been in the war for long - and not have accomplished decisive breakthroughs.

For Italy anything is a stab in the back. They will also get very little because they are most vulnerable to a potential British entry on the side of the Entente. They won't get any part of continental France as Germany won't either. Tunis is too big a gain, IMHO - rather imaginable as a desperate French bait for Rome to make them switch sides. French-Somaliland would be a good idea for a mediated peace.

Same about the Ottomans. Neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary get Russian territory either. Also, for Constantinopel, not losing a war against Russia is already a stabilizing win IMHO. But Kars might be a possibility.

The plebicty is an ASB and i said that directly, Eltass-Lothrigen is a part of germany as prussia or bavaria, if the german won in the war, the french will be obligated to renounce forever any claim in the german territory... even the german will want some border correction as his favor to keep a better line.

The argument against a plebisicite is the fear that the Polish minority would want one as well to join the Kingdom of Poland.

But if you look at Elsaß-Lothringen in an isolated way, it would be an incredibly smart move on German behalf. Maybe the smartness makes it ASB. Of course, there would be no consequences county by county, but only the whole of the Reichsland would be counted.

A plebiscite, which an even halfway victorious Germany would win with a clear majority (my guess would be something in the 70s percentage-wise) would drive the message home to the French a lot more solidly than an enforced renouncement.

------

Hello Steve!

Yes, I do not expect Germany to buy a lot of stuff from Britain, and if so, at a higher price. However, I do not see a technically, even biased, Britain enforce the novel mean of a trade embargo in such a case. If there are profits to be made, there will be people who will trade.

I agree that Britain would intervene before the Germans win too big. However, the latter would not happen in 1914. And even before Britain would join such a war it would try to mediate a peace which would be satisfactory for Britain and sellable to all sides. It would be common sense.

Britain would have been spared the high death toll the other powers would certainly inflict on each other.
Britain’s economy would be in a much better shape post-war than in it had been in 1914 when compared to its main European rival, Germany.

Now I agree that there would still be circumstances when Britain would intervene. But I assume that they would try otherwise first. I think we are on common ground here.

Christian
 
Top