Could the Entente win WW1 without the UK?

As the title says. In OTL the answer is obviously no but France and Russia made a very poor start to the war which placed them in a bad position. If they were able to do better could this change? Lets say in the west that the French meet and stalemate the Germans in Belgium while in the east Rennenkampf is replaced with someone more competent (Brusilov?) and Hindenburgs counterattack fails. By the end of 1914 the frontline runs through Belgium while Russia has occupied all of East Prussia. Perhaps they do better against the Austro-Hungarians as well. Can they go on to win or can the Central Powers recover?
 
If they were able to do better could this change? Lets say in the west that the French meet and stalemate the Germans in Belgium while in the east Rennenkampf is replaced with someone more competent (Brusilov?) and Hindenburgs counterattack fails. By the end of 1914 the frontline runs through Belgium while Russia has occupied all of East Prussia. Perhaps they do better against the Austro-Hungarians as well. Can they go on to win or can the Central Powers recover?
No. Is the short answer.

The long answer is the French and Russians are doomed to defeat in a long war even if they did play their hands better in 1914.

IIRC the BEF eventually had 60 divisions (British, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and Portuguese). The French won't be able to hold the Western Front without them.

A neutral UK means no economic blockade of the Central Powers.

The German Navy will be able to conduct cruiser warfare against the French merchant navy. Not having to resort to unrestricted submarine warfare means the Americans won't be provoked into declaring war on the Central Powers. It probably means resources that went into the building up of the U-boat arm IOTL can be used to make more stuff for the German Army ITTL.

The Cameroons and Togo are doomed, but the German Empire gets them back in the peace treaty. The French are probably too preoccupied defending Metropolitan France to take the other German colonies.

With no British Empire to fight the Ottoman Empire declares war on the Russians with or without the Goeben and Breslau forcing them into it by bombarding Sevastopol. They can also concentrate their resources on the Caucasian Front.

If the UK remains neutral Italy at least remains neutral or more probably jumps on the Central Powers bandwagon. In this situation Spain (which AFAIK was in much better physical and economic shape in 1914 than it was in 1940) might join the Central Powers too.
 
Last edited:
If I remember Kennedy correctly the CP enjoyed the sort of economic advantage over the Double Entente that the Triple Entente enjoyed over the CP IOTL, something like a 20-30% greater GDP. So eventually the CP will out produce and outspend the DE.

On top of that without the British blockade the Germans would be able to conduct both international trade and a trade war against French trade.
 
It depends on your PoD. If its around 1911, there would be many. If its during the July crisis, the Franco-Russians must run the table. Highly unlikely, but there is a chance-

Rennemkampf pushes through the cavalry screen at Tannenberg and destroys the 8th army and Conrad doesn't pull out of the trap fast enough and suffers about 150,000 more losses. If the French and Belgians do a better job of destroying the transportation system and Joffre moves fast enough, the French could stabilize the situation. When the Germans pull back to meet the advancing Russians, the French pierce the gaps destroying an army or two. If they can reach the Rhine, they win.

But its highly unlikely and they must do it in the first 3 months
If I remember Kennedy correctly the CP enjoyed the sort of economic advantage over the Double Entente that the Triple Entente enjoyed over the CP IOTL, something like a 20-30% greater GDP. So eventually the CP will out produce and outspend the DE.

On top of that without the British blockade the Germans would be able to conduct both international trade and a trade war against French trade.

Correct but much of German heavy industry is close to the frontiers. If the French can overrun the German iron and coal mines of the Rhineland, that advantage reverses.
 
Correct but much of German heavy industry is close to the frontiers. If the French can overrun the German iron and coal mines of the Rhineland, that advantage reverses.

The OP stated that the French and Belgians cause the Germans to stalemate in Belgium, which is pretty unlikely but certainly not ASB. But IOTL the strongest and freshest French armies went into Germany and were soundly defeated, pushing onto the Rhine is borderline ASB. If they switch to the defensive on shorter lines than OTL they can easily transfer an army to the east without jeopardising the western front.
 
As the title says. In OTL the answer is obviously no but France and Russia made a very poor start to the war which placed them in a bad position. If they were able to do better could this change? Lets say in the west that the French meet and stalemate the Germans in Belgium while in the east Rennenkampf is replaced with someone more competent (Brusilov?) and Hindenburgs counterattack fails. By the end of 1914 the frontline runs through Belgium while Russia has occupied all of East Prussia. Perhaps they do better against the Austro-Hungarians as well. Can they go on to win or can the Central Powers recover?
IIRC the German Army mobilised 98 infantry divisions which it organised into 8 Armies (7 Western Front and one Eastern Front). The French IIRC deployed 72 infantry divisions on the Western Front. They won the Battle of the Marne because of the 6 divisions of the BEF, sending the Garrison of Paris to the Front, reinforcements from North Africa and because (British) air reconnaissance spotted a gap between 2 of the German Armies.

ITTL the French Army doesn't have the BEF to help it slow down the German Army during its advance through Belgium, exploit the gap in the German front at the Marne and help them in the race to the sea. We can't guarantee that a French aircraft will spot the gap in the German front.

We can't guarantee that the reinforcements from North Africa will arrive either. ITTL there British Mediterranean Fleet won't be chasing the Goeben and Breslau to the Dardanelles. The French Navy only had 3 operational dreadnoughts in August 1914 and IIRC 2 were in the Atlantic. ITTL there's a good chance that some of the troop convoys would be intercepted and sunk by the Germans or not sail at all.

Therefore the French are very likely to loose the Battle of the Marne rather than winning it. AFAIK all the French can do to compensate for the absence of the BEF and North African divisions is to remain on the defensive during the Battle of the Frontiers and send more divisions into Belgium. However, I think the most likely result is that they loose the battle, abandon the Channel Ports and form a new defensive line on the Some-Aisne.

Even if they won the Battle of the Marne ITTL I don't see them winning the Race to the Sea.

IIRC from reading Liddell Hart many years ago a German cavalry corps was in the Pas de Calais, covering the right flank of the main German Army while the Battle of the Marne was going on and if it had known the Germans were going to loose that battle had the opportunity to take the channel ports. ITTL they are likely to be even more complacent.

However, ITTL the French had the aid of the 6 infantry divisions in the BEF in this Race to the Sea. The British also formed 3 ad hoc infantry divisions (7th, 8th and RN Divisions). IIRC the 2 army divisions were used to secure the Channel ports and the RN Division went to Antwerp. ITTL there would be no 7th and 8th Divisions to prevent the German cavalry from taking the Channel ports. With no RN Division to support the Belgian Army the German forces besieging Antwerp might occupy the city sooner and be able to turn south to meet the advancing French troops sooner.

Therefore I don't see how the front line at the end of 1914 can be running through Belgium ITTL. That is unless the Germans do something stupid. E.g. if Moltke knew the British would remain neutral he might alter the Scheiffen Plan even further by taking an army's worth of divisions from the Western Front and transferring them to the Eastern Front.
 
Last edited:
I'd say no, barring massive luck.

The CP will have the immediate advantage (the active German military outfights the French, and outclasses the Russian so much it is scary - and while the Russians are better or equal to the A-H armies that doesn't compensate), and the long-term advantage (the CP were historically economically stronger than France+Russia, never mind if French trade is partly interdicted and German trade partly open).

Plus, as said above, the Italians might see which way the wind is blowing and suffer 10-1 losses in the French Alps instead (but also make a mess of France-Africa supply lines).
 
Therefore I don't see how the front line at the end of 1914 can be running through Belgium ITTL. That is unless the Germans do something stupid. E.g. if Moltke knew the British would remain neutral he might alter the Scheiffen Plan even further by taking an army's worth of divisions from the Western Front and transferring them to the Eastern Front

Actually not sending those extra divisions might help the Germans hold a more forwards position in the long run. The Schleiffen plan was already short by some eight corps of the number required to achieve decisive victory in one battle by Schlieffen's own calculations. Thus sending fewer troops and replacing them in that road space with supplies for the frontline units would see the German armies on the Marne, which is about where they would likely bog down/reach their culmination point anyway, better supplied. This might encourage the Germans to hold somewhat forwards, depending on where the defensible terrain was relative to their positions ITL.

I'd say no, barring massive luck.

The CP will have the immediate advantage (the active German military outfights the French, and outclasses the Russian so much it is scary - and while the Russians are better or equal to the A-H armies that doesn't compensate), and the long-term advantage (the CP were historically economically stronger than France+Russia, never mind if French trade is partly interdicted and German trade partly open).

Plus, as said above, the Italians might see which way the wind is blowing and suffer 10-1 losses in the French Alps instead (but also make a mess of France-Africa supply lines).

If the Italians jump in their best target is likely French North Africa and leave the French to try and launch an offensive in Northern Italy. This scenario which of course is not a given, would further tie down French troops in Africa.

As pointed out above however the real change in calculations comes in long term war as the gap in finances and commerce warfare and resources all take effect against the Franco-Russian Alliance.
 
With no British Empire to fight the Ottoman Empire declares war on the Russians with or without the Goeben and Breslau forcing them into it by bombarding Sevastopol. They can also concentrate their resources on the Caucasian Front.

If the UK remains neutral Italy at least remains neutral or more probably jumps on the Central Powers bandwagon. In this situation Spain (which AFAIK was in much better physical and economic shape in 1914 than it was in 1940) might join the Central Powers too.

Plus, as said above, the Italians might see which way the wind is blowing and suffer 10-1 losses in the French Alps instead (but also make a mess of France-Africa supply lines).
We have an Active Sweden Joins The War (on the side of the Central Powers) thread at present. In that TL the Russians provoked them into declaring war. Would the Swedes have "seen which way the wind was blowing" and declared war on the Entente without provocation ITTL?

Are there any other countries that might have jumped on the "Central Powers bandwagon," ITTL?
 
We have an Active Sweden Joins The War (on the side of the Central Powers) thread at present. In that TL the Russians provoked them into declaring war. Would the Swedes have "seen which way the wind was blowing" and declared war on the Entente without provocation ITTL?

Are there any other countries that might have jumped on the "Central Powers bandwagon," ITTL?
Romania seems the logical contender, and Bulgaria might make up its mind faster (or the Greeks might offer their own bid for southern Serbia - though I think Greece is likely to offer too little, too late to the CP, so Bulgaria it is).
 
Top