Colonial/naval warfare if WW1 proceeds without British intervention?

As per the title. I understand that the German military establishment had little confidence in the Schlieffen plan, and that there was a great deal of uncertainty over whether Britain would actually intervene in response to a Belgian invasion. So for the sake of this scenario, let's say that Britain makes it's objections clearer. Even then their will be an anti-German constituency in Britain... but OTOH the cabinet was narrowly divided on whether to enter even with the Belgian invasion. So in addition to not invading Belgium, let's assume the Germans make an active and successful effort at avoiding a cassus belli that would put wind in the sails of the anti-German faction.

Of course the Germans without Belgium to pass through would be unable to launch a meaningful assault on France proper. But OTOH France would be similarly unable to assault Germany, le.aving Germany free to tear into Russia. And, importantly, a long drawn out war with France would be far less problematic for the Germans in this scenario. On the A-L front they could simply hold a (mostly)defensive line and let the French throw their troops into the meat grinder. The greatest source of urgency for the Germans came from the British blockading the German access to overseas trade(for example, nitrates). But the French couldn't perform a comparable blockade given their inferior navy, so the Germans could safely focus on Russia and let the French beat themselves bloody on the trenches until they gave up.

However, a static front in Europe doesn't mean the French and Germans couldn't duke it out at sea or in the colonies. And so we've arrived at the title
question: how is this likely to proceed?

Looking at a 1914 map of the world, the only direct borders between the German and French empires are between Cameroon-French Equatorial Africa and Togo-French West Africa. The latter looks completely indefensible at first, being swamped by FWA... but on further consideration I can't imagine the supply chain through FWA would be developed enough to be of much initial use, which means the French strip between Togo and Nigeria is in much the same troubled position of having to be supplied by sea via a narrow stretch of coast.

The French would probably have a first mover advantage though, due to having a larger number of troops in West Africa and far more colonial resources to draw upon. So it becomes a question of whether the Germans are able to rush forces to Togo and or Cameroon in time to shore them up(and whether they'd bother). Beyond that I'd imagine any assaults on other colonies would target strategic islands and ports... although if the French are frustrated by their inability to confront Germany in Europe, they might shift full bore into invasions of German colonies, with Germans feeling compelled to match them. The downside for the French here is that the German navy clearly outclassed their's, so if they were smart they'd limit direct engagement as much as possible.

One thing I've overlooked. Britain not intervening doesn't mean nobody else will. Presumably the Ottomans still side the Germans against their Russian nemesis... and I could see the French launching a massive assault into the Levant in lieu of having a worthwhile front in Europe... which might actually mean the Ottomans being in a worse position then they were OTL facing only what France and Britain bothered to scrape out of the barrel. Then there's Japan and Italy, which both face an interesting choice.

For Italy, their craving for the ethnically Italian A-H territories still stands. But at the same time they had designs on Corsica, Savoy and French North Africa. OTL they waited for nearly a year whether out of uncertainty or just to haggle for a better deal, but realistically they would never have backed the CP when that meant facing off against the British navy. Since that's not a concern in this scenario, they may give more thought to the possibility of joining the CP.

As for Japan, they were principally Britain's ally and Russia's nemesis. Without the British participation in the war, I imagine joining the CP looks rather tempting- on the one hand they might snap up the German concessions in China and some German Pacific islands. On the other hand they might snap up the French concessions in China, French Pacific islands and Indochina, while weakening Russia and grabbing Russian Sakhalin and Manchuria in the bargain. The latter is higher reward, but also higher risk- the French in Indochina and Russians in Siberia will be far tougher to overcome then Germany's limited Pacific possessions.

Of course, Britain not entering the war doesn't mean they're neutral. I imagine the French would have access to the Suez canal while the CP would be denied, with the excuse being that the French are half-owners of it. And they might well lobby the Japanese and Italians to "not pick the wrong side".
 
I decided to run with a scenario where the Japanese and Italians back Germany. Mostly because I found that a more interesting scenario then the reverse. Made a quick and dirty map of late 1915/early 1916, which you can see posted below. My thought process was that:

-Germany would do slightly better in the East, with much more of their forces devoted to the Eastern front and the Romanians throwing in with the CP early on. Therefore Western Ukraine has fallen.
-Italy would do poorly. Not only because of their generally poor performance OTL, but because their hold on Libya was loose(while France had a strong base in Algeria). As for their East African territories, they're cut off by the Suez canal. I also envisioned Ethiopia jumping at the opportunity.
-The Hashemites still revolt, incited by France, which succesfully occupies Palestine and Lebanon with troops that OTL were stuck on the Western front.
-The situation in East Asia is completely pulled out my ass. No idea how effective the distracted French are likely to be at resisting in Indochina, ditto for the Russians in Manchuria.
-The situation with Germany's West African colonies is also an ass pull. My assumption is that with the French having the first mover advantage Togo would fall quickly. However Cameroon had sufficient strategic depth(managing to hold until 1916 even with the OTL British intervention) that the Germans would have time to transport troops there, and perhaps turn the tide.

ww1 scenario.png
 
I also envisioned Ethiopia jumping at the opportunity.

Much of the Ethiopian nobility and commoners were rather pro-CP IOTL.

-The Hashemites still revolt, incited by France, which successfully occupies Palestine and Lebanon with troops that OTL were stuck on the Western front.

The ottomans would likely be able to suppress this revolt. Assistance from the RN was key in a number of battles, and the French wouldn't have been able to send the supplies or men to aid in the revolt like they did OTL. The ottomans also would have additional forces that weren't being used around Kuwait in TTL.

ditto for the Russians in Manchuria.
Chinese, the area was still under Chinese control until the early 30's.
 
Crossposting from the original Thread ( but in the wrong forum):


Reading the strategic possibilities of the Japanese ... the question arises me it's if a possible or hypothetical attack on Indochinese is based on real plans or It's a trope based in the events of the Second World War? ... The question that military and naval resources in Indochina France had available and which was able to send the Metropolitan territory and / or from their colonies in Africa in an emergency ...

Another question is whether the Japanese had in 1914-18 naval and military capabilities to be able to raise the military and logistical effort needed to attack and try to win the French Indochina whole or in part and if they do ... could do successfully and preserve their conquests of the inevitable French counterattack? As would affect a hypothetical massive French military effort in Southeast Asia to war in Europe ...

Not to mention the British and Americans reactions to the possible development of this hypothetical scenario created in the wake of a possible attempt of Japanese conquest of the French Indochina.


I think it would be an interesting scenario to explore.

I only quoted my post because I think it's not correct to quote the post from another user in other thread...
 
first,i am assuming the ottomans stay out,but italy joins the CP.

in this scenario,the cp wins. there is nothing to suggest russia would fare any better,probably significantly worse with more cp power directed against it. the balkans will also be secured relativly quickly,serbia will be crushed,romania and greece wont enter the allies.

France,while probably holding out on land first due to the narrower border,will be very hard stressed for manpower and material. they will be likely able to buy from britain and the US,but on their onwn may well lack the cash,and even if they get what they need,the manpower issue remains.
The naval war will also see france lose,they face both the italian and the austrian navy in the med on their own,and the HSF in the Atlantic. They will loose their connection to North Africa,and won't be able to impose a blockade on the CP.

The colonies will be a sideshow,with togo falling to France,but kamerun holding out until german reinforcment arrives (if they bother)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Interesting - a "limited" Great War

As per the title. I understand that the German military establishment had little confidence in the Schlieffen plan, and that there was a great deal of uncertainty over whether Britain would actually intervene in response to a Belgian invasion. So for the sake of this scenario, let's say that Britain makes it's objections clearer. Even then their will be an anti-German constituency in Britain... but OTOH the cabinet was narrowly divided on whether to enter even with the Belgian invasion. So in addition to not invading Belgium, let's assume the Germans make an active and successful effort at avoiding a cassus belli that would put wind in the sails of the anti-German faction.

Of course the Germans without Belgium to pass through would be unable to launch a meaningful assault on France proper. But OTOH France would be similarly unable to assault Germany, le.aving Germany free to tear into Russia. And, importantly, a long drawn out war with France would be far less problematic for the Germans in this scenario. On the A-L front they could simply hold a (mostly)defensive line and let the French throw their troops into the meat grinder. The greatest source of urgency for the Germans came from the British blockading the German access to overseas trade(for example, nitrates). But the French couldn't perform a comparable blockade given their inferior navy, so the Germans could safely focus on Russia and let the French beat themselves bloody on the trenches until they gave up.

However, a static front in Europe doesn't mean the French and Germans couldn't duke it out at sea or in the colonies. And so we've arrived at the title
question: how is this likely to proceed?

Looking at a 1914 map of the world, the only direct borders between the German and French empires are between Cameroon-French Equatorial Africa and Togo-French West Africa. The latter looks completely indefensible at first, being swamped by FWA... but on further consideration I can't imagine the supply chain through FWA would be developed enough to be of much initial use, which means the French strip between Togo and Nigeria is in much the same troubled position of having to be supplied by sea via a narrow stretch of coast.

The French would probably have a first mover advantage though, due to having a larger number of troops in West Africa and far more colonial resources to draw upon. So it becomes a question of whether the Germans are able to rush forces to Togo and or Cameroon in time to shore them up(and whether they'd bother). Beyond that I'd imagine any assaults on other colonies would target strategic islands and ports... although if the French are frustrated by their inability to confront Germany in Europe, they might shift full bore into invasions of German colonies, with Germans feeling compelled to match them. The downside for the French here is that the German navy clearly outclassed their's, so if they were smart they'd limit direct engagement as much as possible.

One thing I've overlooked. Britain not intervening doesn't mean nobody else will. Presumably the Ottomans still side the Germans against their Russian nemesis... and I could see the French launching a massive assault into the Levant in lieu of having a worthwhile front in Europe... which might actually mean the Ottomans being in a worse position then they were OTL facing only what France and Britain bothered to scrape out of the barrel. Then there's Japan and Italy, which both face an interesting choice.

For Italy, their craving for the ethnically Italian A-H territories still stands. But at the same time they had designs on Corsica, Savoy and French North Africa. OTL they waited for nearly a year whether out of uncertainty or just to haggle for a better deal, but realistically they would never have backed the CP when that meant facing off against the British navy. Since that's not a concern in this scenario, they may give more thought to the possibility of joining the CP.

As for Japan, they were principally Britain's ally and Russia's nemesis. Without the British participation in the war, I imagine joining the CP looks rather tempting- on the one hand they might snap up the German concessions in China and some German Pacific islands. On the other hand they might snap up the French concessions in China, French Pacific islands and Indochina, while weakening Russia and grabbing Russian Sakhalin and Manchuria in the bargain. The latter is higher reward, but also higher risk- the French in Indochina and Russians in Siberia will be far tougher to overcome then Germany's limited Pacific possessions.

Of course, Britain not entering the war doesn't mean they're neutral. I imagine the French would have access to the Suez canal while the CP would be denied, with the excuse being that the French are half-owners of it. And they might well lobby the Japanese and Italians to "not pick the wrong side".

Interesting - a "limited" Great War...

The French, after the initial Plan XVII battles, showed themselves quite capable of adjusting to a more defensive strategy, and if the British are essentially friendly neutrals, seems likely they (the French, that is) would avoid simply grinding away; one possibility - as opposed to fighting some sort of "umpteenth battle of the Isonzo" effort back and forth in the Moselle-Meurthe-Saar region would be to make an effort east of the Vosges, driving northeast from Belfort toward Mulhouse and the upper Rhine.

It would not be easy, but the French mountain troops certainly seem to have been as capable as their German and Austrian enemies, and it makes for less of a campaign of artillery and more of manever - at least in the high country.

The other possibility is, as you suggest, are a maritime war, which is an interesting point of departure. The French had overwhelming superiority at sea in 1870-71 and even attempted to blockade the North Sea German coast, but had little success, largely because of the requirements of coal burning navies for replenishment in harbor.

That's far less likely because of the much stronger German navy, but at the same time, the HSF can't really try to move into the Channel for fear of British reaction to German squadrons off the coasts of the Netherlands and Belgium.

The French can certainly close the Bay of Biscay to German traffic, and the Germans can close the eastern North Sea to the French, but that's about it. The French had four modern dreadnoughts in commission, with six more under construction, plus 12 large semi-dreadnoughts and six predreadnoughts, plus a few even older ships in reserve. Not exactly the Grand Fleet, but certainly enough to give the Germans pause about any operations outside of the North Sea, including trying to force the Channel, even with their battlecruisers...the Germans, of course, had a much stronger force of dreadnuughts, but since the entire point of the HSF was to deter the British, risking much of it against the French would be questionable in the event of even a neutral Britain.

The French could try a very distant blockade of the western North Sea, but the French cruiser forces are not especially strong.

The secondary element is, of course, a colonial-maritime war, and the French are capable of overwhelming the German colonial empire, given the general balance of access and the stronger French colonial forces. Togoland will go quickly; the Allies took it with a few thousand men from all sides and the French could muster the equivalent, using Dahomey; given the approach, the Germans can probably defend a little longer, but not for that long. Presume they surrender in August or September.

Kamerun will last a longer; as it was, it took the Allies 18,000 men and until the final German post surrendered in March, 1916. It will take time for the French alone to assemble an equivalently-sized force, so the Germans might last well into 1916 in Kamerun.

Southwest and Southeast Africa would both be daunting, even with the French position in Madagascar; probably simply a blockade and a guarantee from the British in the interim before a major expeditionary force could be assembled by the French there, sometime in 1915 or even 1916. At that point, probably a French campaign in Southeast Africa, but Southwest Africa is simply blockaded by the French.

The German Pacific territories are interesting; German Samoa could be overrun fairly quickly, and NE New Guinea and the Solomons eventually, in 1914-15 by expeditionary forces from French Indochina and Polynesia. The German territories in Micronesia and China would be more challenging, and a Japanese interest would be high. The US might negotiate for a purchase, simply to guarantee the sea lanes from Hawaii to the Philippines, but whether that could forestall a Japanese military operation is an open question.

The joker in the deck in the Pacific is the German Pacific Squadron, of course; as it was, von Spee et al dodged most of the Allied sea power and destroyed Cradock's RN squadron off Coronel, and the French would be very hard put to get the equivalent of the Allied forces historically needed in the theater out to the Pacific in a timely fashion.

The same question has to be asked of Souchon's squadron in the Med; one might expect they'd have been pulled out before the balloon went up, or they'd run for Austrian harbors, at which point the French would be pushing the Italians hard to enter the war on the Franco-Russian side. The Turks might never enter the war, actually; they have no formal alliance with either side and little to gain, especially if the British don't seize the Turkish dreadnoughts and the Germans are not in a position to influence the Turks.

The French would certainly make the navy more of a priority than it was, historically, and so that might also push them toward a defensive strategy; fewer heavy guns for the army, obviously. They may also sound out the British and US about purchasing existing ships; certainly that would provide a quicker method to bolster the Marine Nationale than waiting for the French yards to get the battleships under construction into commission.

As it was, "modern" French cruisers (defined as commissioned since 1894, which is sort of a push anyway) amounted to 20 armored cruisers of various classes (dating from 1894 all the way to Edgar Quinet and Waldeck-Rosseau, commissioned in 1911) and a dozen elderly protected cruisers, plus about five even older armored cruisers, in second-line service or reserve.

To be charitable, call it 36 ships, with the 12 most modern armored cruisers reserved for the French Atlantic (Channel) Fleet; that leaves 8-12 older armored cruisers and as many protected cruisers for West African, Southeast African, and Pacific waters, facing a German force of two modern armored cruisers and six modern light cruisers; the French may decide to send out some of their older predreadnoughts to back them up.

All things being equal, if the French are conservative on the "Western Front" one would expect the colonial war to drag out to 1916 or thereabouts, but the French would win the various campaigns. Distance and position is in their favor, given the German and Austrian preoccupation with Russia...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing is, the Italians really wanted the Adriatic territories

I decided to run with a scenario where the Japanese and Italians back Germany.

The thing is, the Italians really wanted the Adriatic territories and would be very exposed - absent neutrality - to the British and French; Italy's coal production was limited (Greece and Spain produced more, for example) and had no POL.

Any attack into the Maritime Alps is likely to be as forlorn as the 1940 version was; if the French keep their fleet in the Med in strength, Sardinia, Sicily, and Libya are all at risk.

And for the Japanese to go in against the Russians in northeast Asia and the French in southeast Asia is a recipe for disaster; as demonstrated in the aftermath of WW I, they could not sustain an expeditionary force in the Russian Far East, and if the British are friendly neutrals to the French, they're not going to quietly accept the Japanese jumping the French in the Pacific.

The thing is, even if the British stay out, they still don't want the Germans to beat France; the French (and Russian) armies are what's standing between the Germans and continental hegemony, certainly in Western and Central Europe, and the British don't want that...

I could see Italian and Japanese neutrality; but joining the CP? Very doubtful.

Best,
 
I think you are overestimating the threat to italy. without the british the French are very much screwed in the med against Italy+Austria (or screwed against germany in the atlantic if they throw everything south). and the scenario is britain staying out of the war...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except the thing is:

I think you are overestimating the threat to italy. without the british the French are very much screwed in the med against Italy+Austria (or screwed against germany in the atlantic if they throw everything south). and the scenario is britain staying out of the war...

Except the thing is, as it was, the Italians abrogated their alliance with Germany and Austria and the French and British persuaded them to join in for reasons, historically; the British certainly aren't going to withdraw from the Med, even if neutral, so they will still have influence and the French will promise everything they can - at Austria's expense, of course - to get the Italians to come in...

The Italians have much more to gain in the Trentino, Tirol, Dalmatia, etc from the Austrians then they could hope to get anywhere else... as per the Treaty of London:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1915.htm

The Italians at least have the theoretical capability to operate sucessfully against the Austrians; they do not against the French backed by a friendly if neutral Britain.

For the Italians to wade in against the French, they basically are playing Germany's game and become the prime target of the French Navy and colonial forces, and for what? A chance - rather remote - at Savoy and Corsica, while certainly losing Libya and Eritrea? Especially because - as sketched in the OP - the Germans are simply fighting a defensive war in the West against France, anyway? The Germans are not marching on Paris, after all; why should the Italians try and march on Toulon?

If they wade in against the Austrians, however, they keep what they have in Africa and have a much more likely shot at the northeastern and Dalmatia territories that Italian nationalists had made a priority for decades ... and, for that matter, continued to do so through to WW II?

Best,
 
Last edited:
what "influence" apart from treat of war,does britain have?

by the point the italians entered the war otl (and they certainly wont enter before),russia will hanging well in the ropes while france has no perspective at all of defeating germany,and AH has only a single front to worry. the entente simply lost half its power compared to otl,and they needed every bit of it otl. By 1916 germany will turn to france,which has zero hope of surviving,and italy will jump in.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Money, shipping, trade, and coal...

what "influence" apart from treat of war,does britain have? ... by the point the italians entered the war otl (and they certainly wont enter before),russia will hanging well in the ropes while france has no perspective at all of defeating germany,and AH has only a single front to worry. the entente simply lost half its power compared to otl,and they needed every bit of it otl. By 1916 germany will turn to france,which has zero hope of surviving,and italy will jump in.

Money, shipping, trade, and coal... kind of important in 1915.

There are a couple of things inherent in a "limited" (as in no British entry) Great War that need to be considered:

1) The British may be neutral, but they are going to be friendly neutrals to the French and Russians, because of what the French and Russian armies prevent - German suzerainty over the Continent. Basically, this is the classic British strategy of keeping their continental Allies in the fight through economic support; the commitment of a huge expeditionary force to the Continent in 1914-18 was ahistorical, actually, and only resulted because the Germans threatened control of the Channel by invading Belgium. So, yes, the British will fund and supply the French and Russians as far as they can, and try and get the Italians and Greeks and anyone else imaginable to wade in, and the Turks etc to stay out. Anything less would be foolish, and ahistorical, and - given their success with just such strategies in the past - fairly inexplicable, actually.

2) Because of 1), the French can actually fight somewhat "smarter" than they did, historically; the French know they can prevent a re-run of 1871 by staying on the defensive, and after the initial Plan XVII attacks, are likely to make that choice; as it is, rather than having six armies in the front lines because of the need to cover Belgium, they can cover the Franco-German border with four, keep one in reserve in the east, and dedicate the sixth to the Alpine front and the threat to the Upper Rhine. Likewise, the Germans, if they make their main effort in the east, can only face the French with (presumably) a similarly-sized force.

3) Likewise, the Russians, who will presumably understand pretty quickly they face the main effort of the Germans and Austrians, can fight "smarter" as well; there's no requirement the Russians mount the East Prussia campaign (which historically led to Tannenberg) and plenty of reasons to stand on the defensive and wait for the Germans to move out of their fortifications; in the meantime, they can mount the offensive into southwestern Poland against the Austrians. If nothing else, they can trade space for time - which is, after all, the default Russian defensive strategy when faced by an invader from the west.

No German invasion of Belgium and no British entry into the war is a huge point of departure, and the ripples include the French and Russians not obligingly doing exactly what benefits the Germans the most...

There's also the prospect of the British, although remaining neutral, can bribe the Japanese into supporting the French by sweeping up after the Germans in the Pacific - which given the Anglo-Japanese treaty, makes more strategic sense than expecting the Japanese to attack the French for no particular reason.

Best,
 
Last edited:
I decided to run with a scenario where the Japanese and Italians back Germany. Mostly because I found that a more interesting scenario then the reverse. Made a quick and dirty map of late 1915/early 1916, which you can see posted below. My thought process was that:

-Germany would do slightly better in the East, with much more of their forces devoted to the Eastern front and the Romanians throwing in with the CP early on. Therefore Western Ukraine has fallen.
-Italy would do poorly. Not only because of their generally poor performance OTL, but because their hold on Libya was loose(while France had a strong base in Algeria). As for their East African territories, they're cut off by the Suez canal. I also envisioned Ethiopia jumping at the opportunity.
-The Hashemites still revolt, incited by France, which succesfully occupies Palestine and Lebanon with troops that OTL were stuck on the Western front.
-The situation in East Asia is completely pulled out my ass. No idea how effective the distracted French are likely to be at resisting in Indochina, ditto for the Russians in Manchuria.
-The situation with Germany's West African colonies is also an ass pull. My assumption is that with the French having the first mover advantage Togo would fall quickly. However Cameroon had sufficient strategic depth(managing to hold until 1916 even with the OTL British intervention) that the Germans would have time to transport troops there, and perhaps turn the tide.

Well, for Japan to even turn to Germany, you'd likely have to push your PoD to before the Triple Intervention, and make it so that the Germans choose not to intervene. This, might hurt the Germans' ability to gain concessions in China, thus Germany warming up to Japan to utilize them as a proxy.

But, I don't know about your idea, so...
 
The Germans could mobilize their reservists in South America and such places very effectively in this TL.

There will be no British blockade squadron off of New York. No Iceland-Scotland cruiser patrol. The various liners and merchants in all the neutral ports are free to move about. Likely merchants sent out of Hamburg would make it to the colonies.

Togo seems to be the only colony in play for the French. OTL a British cruiser occupied Lome very early. The Germany could order cruiser Strasbourg to go straight there upon DOW and secure the port awaiting a supply ship from Germany.

What the German colonies need to defend themselves are machine guns and ammo from Germany and reservists from South America to be officers. Seems like it would be easy to get them there.
 
The biggest thing to me is that British (and probably by extension, US) neutrality means that a negotiated peace rather than a war to the death might be possible for all parties but Serbia.

In such a situation, I could well see both sides trying for some flashy victories out on the seas (on the continent, both sides will understand that massive defeats can still turn it into a war to THEIR death).

So, say, the French might try for a quick invasion of some big-name colony, or the Germans deploy their ROTW fleets to isolate and defeat some specific French colonies - in the end, uti possidetis in the colonies is a quite reasonable alternative if the war ends because Germany forces Russia to surrender while the Alsatian front hasn't budged much (and Britain swoops in diplomatically to ensure France isn't crushed after Russia surrenders - TTL Germany won't know they can kind of almost match Britain+France after they figure out how hard beating Russia+France has been).
 
Top