But if I recall correctly, the decision to enter the war wasn't that clear-cut. Many British politicians were pro-peace, after all, since the days of Napoleon the British largely avoided fighting in Europe and had been fine. As for France and Russia - it is silly to think that they will turn into German lapdogs. Russia may go Communist, and they are unlikely to like the Germans (they didn't either OTL), and who knows, France may do the same. After all, the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war didn't stop them from eventually turning on the Germans.
British Reward for WWI Neutrality
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
But if I recall correctly, the decision to enter the war wasn't that clear-cut. Many British politicians were pro-peace, after all, since the days of Napoleon the British largely avoided fighting in Europe and had been fine. As for France and Russia - it is silly to think that they will turn into German lapdogs. Russia may go Communist, and they are unlikely to like the Germans (they didn't either OTL), and who knows, France may do the same. After all, the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war didn't stop them from eventually turning on the Germans.
Britain has just saved thousands of its own citizens, and thats gotta help their economy. If they play their cards right and modernize/federalize (not a crazy idea, there were serious proposals to do so) the Empire, they can vastly accelerate their growth - though the US is still likely to overtake them in the short term. Nevertheless, without Britain in the war there is no Lusitania or Zimmerman Telegraph, and thus the US is likely to remain isolationist. Not to mention that Britain and the US were trading partners - so a future war between them is unlikely.
If France had lost the war against Germany then we would have become so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things that revanchism would have been impossible forever!
The German war plans openly called for the annexation of significant parts of Lorraine into Germany and of Calais as well as Dunkerque. I would not be surprised to be honest if the entire Nord Pas de Calais region had been snatched away from France as part of peace treaty and given to rump Belgium or even to Germany itself if it had annexed Belgium. Both Lorraine and the Nord were the main industrial areas of France then, without them France would lose its main access to coal and iron as well as several key steel, chemical and armament factories. Factor into that possible rewards to Italy as well such as Corsica, Nice and Savoy plus the likely lost of our most profitable colony to the German (Indochina).
In essence France would have been reduced to the status of a larger Spain, a mainly rural country lacking in ressources and whose power projection capabilities worldwide would be nonexistent. In such a scenario it would be utter madness to call for another revanche and as it is likely that trade between France and the British Empire would have been prohibited, looking to Germay would be our one and only option.
Russia would likely have lost the Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus and Poland. Again Russia would have lost most of its industries and significant coal deposits. Russia will still have a lot of potency in reserve ready to be used (look at OTL 2010 Russia) but it will take decades to bring the country up to standards and moreover the country will likely be massively unstable.
As I have said before in such a scenario Germany would dominate the entire European continent, economic penetration into the Ottoman Empire would continue apace and Berlin-Baghdad railway will likely be finished sooner rather than later. In Afrika Germany will get its MittleAfrika and I believe that they would be determined enough to make something profitable out of it. In Asia they will get Indochina and bases to project power accross the entire Pacific Ocean.
All in all a strategic defeat for the United Kingdom!
abc123
Banned
First, it's true that Europe is better market than Empire or China. But, why do you think that the market for british goods will remain open if Germany is crushed? If Britain can offer a good product by a reasonable price, there wouldn't be any problems. Also, British market was wide open. Why not to close him? 1/5 of the world is pretty good market for british industry, don't you think? And with closed market of the British Empire you can negotiate with other powers about opening markets.
Second, about India, there is no need to remain british forever. But Britain can have a predominant influnce on India for decades, and that's enough.
where on earth do you all get the idea that Germany would have wanted to have stayed in occupation of a defeated France/Belguim as a result of winninhg WW1? It might have for a relatively short while as in FPW and as the allies actually did post WW1 (the old BAOR for example). If the Germans had just avoided going via Belguim or of we hadn't have bothered signing the agreement in 1830...Oh and as for not standing up to a treaty demands-come on this was real life. We didn't have to mobilse in 1914 at all--it could quite easily have been avoided and we should have NEVER have signed an entente of any kind with any nation-that previously was always British policy. Signing that damn entente made France far too bold and far too strident. Don't sign it and WW1 might never have occured.
abc123
Banned
Old myths die hard.
You forgot that Germanz also eat Belgian kids for breakfast.
I agree with the post.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
India has been mentioned a couple of times -- IOTL, the India Home Rule Movement got its start in 1916 in the midst of WWI, but was sidestepped by Gahndi's movement; would this process be different if Britain were not at war during these years?
Also what of British possessions in Africa?
Also what of British possessions in Africa?
Some British politicians are always pro-peace, whatever the circumstances. It says a lot for how serious the situation was that Liberals of Asquith's government were willing to go to war to preserve Belgian neutrality and support France.
We avoided fighting in Europe (apart from Crimea) because after Napoleon there was no one country that threatened to be dominant. We were quite happy when France, Prussia and Russia roughly balanced themselves out.
British policy was when one country threatened to dominate Europe to ally herself with the weaker of the two main powers, or form a coalition. Although 'Splendid Isolation' is often talked about it is a myth that Britain stayed out of continental affairs. It must also be remembered that the Entente with France and later Russia was not really about war in Europe, but about tidying up colonial disputes, the agreement was after all just a 'Cordial Agreement', there was no alliance, or commitment.
The British Empire went to war in 1914 because its leaders thought it was the morally right thing to do.
If you want to save British lives then we should have stayed out of WW2 and every conflict since. Sometimes the worst thing a nation can do is not fight.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Seems a big part of this debate is to what degree the growth of German power is bad for the British Empire is bad in and of itself -- to the extent that it is, any benefits the Brits may acquire (economically from not fighting the war, geopolitically from not being overstretched afterword, etc) are counterbalanced, potentially to the point of making them meaningless.
So maybe the question should be: Can British power, after WWI, coexist with German power, or are they destined to become rivals?
So maybe the question should be: Can British power, after WWI, coexist with German power, or are they destined to become rivals?
You don't seem to realise that the Germans aimed at the time to completely exclude Britain from as many markets as possible for their own benefit. In the event that Germany would be crushed (unlikely of the UK stays out) the French would not try to establish their own MittleEuropa in the way ther German had carefully planned to do years before the war started. The European market would stay open for British industry in this scenario.
One fifth of the world is peanut if this one fifth is made up of worthless countries like Nigeria and the like. I frankly fail to see how British industry could exports cars, locomotives and the like to its colonies simply because there was no market for such products. Bringing up the colonies to standard would be immensely costly and create other issues as well.
Maintaining an influence on India for decades would be very difficult since the Indians will rightly want to find their own way in the world as an independant power. Whether you like it or not maintaing a strong influence requires subservience and there is simply no way that a relationship which mainly benefit Britain can be established. Sure you could have free trade and the like, but in the long run it will be a double edged sword as India can easily outproduce Britain.
Shackel said:
In a nutshell yes, except that unlike OTL Versailles this reverse treaty would be harsher and properly enforced.
KillerT said:
If Germany wins WW1 they will remains in Belgium forever that what they planned as part of the Bethmann-Hollweg Septemberprogramm. It makes perfect sense for them on a strategic basis to neutralise or even annex Belgium outright:
-Easier access to the Channel
-Control of the iron deposits of Luxembourg and of the coal deposits of Belgium
-Increased ability to project power against the British Isles
As for France the Prussians and the German occupied the country for years both after 1815 and after the Franco-Prussian war and asked for hefty reparations in the later as well proportionaly more important than the one demanded from Germany at Versailles. A fact rather conveniently forgotten by the Kaiserreich apologetics
.A ten to twenty years occupation of France, at the very least of the northern parts seems very likely to me. In any case the remainder of Lorraine and possibly the Nord Pas de Calais would be lost. France is effectively neutralised for a long time in such a scenario and the wisest move whatever French government is in power could do would be to openly make France a giant Switzerland permanently putting the country out of harm way.
John Fredrick Parker said:
They are destined to become rivals and in the long term the German block will outpace the British Empire. For coexistence to happen Britain will have to acknowledge German supremacy in some areas.
To repeat myself, a strategic defeat for Britain!
However Germany might have ended up subject to a Bolshy uprising-far too many what ifs really. I think the problem dates back to 1830 and Belguim. Forego the creation of that state (which aint loved by the Flemish) and stick with the Dutch retaining control (maybe get shot of Walonia to the French) and jobs a gud'un. Then KEEP the policy of non interference (ahem) on the Continent whilest retaining key strategic bases in Heligoland (along with all others) (I'd have kept Minorca and Cuba too but thats all even earlier). Then ensure that your future King never gets too pally with any Froggie and offer promises he should NEVER have made. That way France also keeps things in perspective.
You left out the Prussian-Franco War of 1870, where Britain stayed neutral and the Prussians took Paris. Everything reverted back to normal in a few years.
I'll be diplomatic and NOT comment on the morally right motivation. More likely is that British leadership thought it would be a short war (finished by Xmas 1914) and there'd be some rich loot along with the opportunity to finish off an up-and-coming competitor.
If Germany crushes France by October 1914 then Bolshevik uprisings in Germany are unlikely. If this is a long slog to victory until 1918 then things could be different.
I must admit that I fail to understand your point on the Entente Cordiale having forced France to "keep things in perspective". By 1914 the vast majority of the French politicians were against the idea of an agressive war to recover Alsace-Lorraine and the same is true for the population at large. There was a wish to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful that's for sure, but only a minority favoured agression in order to do so.
KillerT
Put bluntly you don't seem to know much history of the last few centuries. Britain has not had a non-interference policy. In fact it has repeatedly been drawn into conflicts because it's primary interests have been to stop one militaristic and expansionist power dominating the continent.
The independence of Belgium is an example of this in a way. Dutch rule had proved impractical but the most likely alternative was French control of what became Belgium, either directly or indirectly. Since this was something that Britain didn't want, because of the opposition to a major power controlling the region it supported an independent state and the treaty that establish Belgium's neutrality was to secure this. Similarly Britain was the main supporter of the combined Netherlands kingdom established in 1815 for the same reason.
As such Britain, if it wished to protect it's political and economic independence, had to intervene when a single power, in this case Imperial Germany, threatened to overrun the continent. The invasion of Belgium made that easier for some politicians but if some other path had been followed and Germany had won a continental war within say a couple of years it would have been a disaster both for Europe and for Britain. [A longer war, which sees a pyrrhic victory and a Germany which suffered serious, possibly fatal, overstretch may have been survivable for Britain and even have economic benefits but it's not something I would like to reply on].
Steve
If Germany wins WW1 they will remains in Belgium forever that what they planned as part of the Bethmann-Hollweg Septemberprogramm. It makes perfect sense for them on a strategic basis to neutralise or even annex Belgium outright:
-Easier access to the Channel
-Control of the iron deposits of Luxembourg and of the coal deposits of Belgium
-Increased ability to project power against the British Isles
As for France the Prussians and the German occupied the country for years both after 1815 and after the Franco-Prussian war and asked for hefty reparations in the later as well proportionaly more important than the one demanded from Germany at Versailles. A fact rather conveniently forgotten by the Kaiserreich apologetics
Oooh, poor Frenchy. Never mind the fact that both 1815 and 1871 were the result of YOUR AGGRESSION. I may sound like Hurgan, but we Rhinelanders did not want to learn your language in 1800, and neither did we in 1860 or 1870 and 1918. So I think it's better to be a Kaiserreich apologist than being a Bonaparte-scum apologist.
Eurofed
Banned
What disaster for Europe whatsoever ? What the Kaiserreich planned for Europe after the victory was to set up a proto-EU, you know that kind of thing that has kept the continent peaceful and prosperous for the last two generations and half. No German Nazism, no Holocaust, no Stalinist domination of half Europe. Either no WWII, or at worst one with a Red or Black Russia in the shoes of Hitler, and ending with a united continent. There are very good reasons to argue that for Europe, Entente victory was a tragedy. British Empire apologists should really stop thinking like the paranoia of the UK ruling elite about continental unity aligned with the real long-term interest of the continent. For Europe's greater good, it would have been much, much better if unity had been achieved decades or centuries earlier by the victory of an enlightened, civil hegemon like Bonapartist France or the Kaiserreich. In all evidence, a lot of unnecessary suffering would have been spared. British victories in 1815 and 1918 may have been good to delay the fall of the British Empire, but were not good for the continent at all. They gave us nothing but nationalist strife, the Holy Alliance reactionary oppression, fascism, and communism.
Last edited:
Frankly it is quite cocky to say that the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 stems from French agression. While I agree entirely with the fact that Napoleon III could have tossed asside the Hohenzollern on the throne of Spain affair and accepted the whole thing. You have to admit that this was just to good an opportunity to pass up for Bismark to best Napoleon III and fulfill his dream of uniting Germany.
Did Napoleon III wanted to annex Rheinland, he sure did without a shadow of a doubt. Is this a good thing or a bad thing. Well unless the French government would have been willing to offer significant concessions to the local population like billingualism and autonomy, the province would likely have been restive and a drain on the treasury.
I must admit however despite the fact that I consider the Kaiserreich to have been a rival of France and Britain I do have some admiration for it. What you guys did what amazing and we would have (and still do to an extent) benefited a lot by implementing some of your policies.
Let us not start WW3 over Saarland and Elssas-Lothringen shall we
?