England entering WW1

Would Britain enter the War


  • Total voters
    141
  • Poll closed .

Perkeo

Banned
Congratulations, you have effectively established that the outcome of WWI was bad.

This is not the same as establishing that the choice to enter WWI was better than the alternatives, which could have been equally bad. Or that the powers could have reasonably expected the outcome without hindsight.

IMHO Germany COULD AND SHOULD have forseen the outcome of WWI without hindsight. OK, once the July crisis was there, Germany might indeed have thought that a preemptive strike was the lesser evil, but in the years before they must not have failed to prevent loosing all their allies one by one and be surrounded by an alliance they couldn't beat.

Also, I get the impression that you think that being a subordinate state in some other state's hegemonic orbit is not such a bad thing compared to hundreds of thousands of casualties. But this is a value judgment, not a strategic judgment.

At the very least you should not end ub with both, as all of Europe did.
 
IMHO Germany COULD AND SHOULD have forseen the outcome of WWI without hindsight. OK, once the July crisis was there, Germany might indeed have thought that a preemptive strike was the lesser evil, but in the years before they must not have failed to prevent loosing all their allies one by one and be surrounded by an alliance they couldn't beat.



At the very least you should not end ub with both, as all of Europe did.

With Germany, I agree that if you move back in time, their choices start looking pretty stupid.

With the rest of them, you are once again making the mistake of arguing that their strategic judgment was bad by pointing out that the outcome was bad. Thi is hindsight bias and ignores any realistic evaluation of the alternatives.
 
Eevn if Germany doesn't invade Belgium, Franco-British co-operation was so in depth that neutrality wasn't really possible. Plus, Germany had antagonized Britain so much that there really wasn't a reason to stay neutral for any length of time.
 
Depends on the POD. If the only thing which changes is not to invade Belgium chances are that at some point later on Britain will enter on Frances side. One should note that Britain had already committed to protect the French Channel coast and that this commitment for some of Britain's decision-makers already encompassed a general commitment on France's side. There were also a large chunk of Liberals advocating war entry regardless of a casus belli and they had a strong ally in the Conservatives. Only the Libereal Radicals were against a war entry and with the Agadir Crisis they lost their most important leaders and supporters to the Imperialists, namely Churchill and Lloyd George.

Now, with an earlier POD which removes Agadir (not necessarily the whole crisis) and leaves the following Anglo-German detente intact than there is a chance of Britain to stay outside. It really depends a lot on German diplomatic conduct. Not declaring war on France seems to be another quiet important precondition. And declaring war on Russia after they declared war on A-H would also help.

Still Britain would not accept an all-out defeat of France even after these changes - balance of powers and the channel ports are the important arguments here. Although the Irish issue growing hot could have prevented a late war entry.

Kind regards,
G.
 

Perkeo

Banned
With Germany, I agree that if you move back in time, their choices start looking pretty stupid.

Especially since the basic thread was far from new: Prussia/Germany had always been surrounded by major powers, they just hadn't been stupid enough to antagonize them all so far.

I also wonder what they expected to gain even if they HAD won WWI: They sould still remain stuck between France/Britain and Russia, and every shift of power in favor of Germany would have been compensated by revanchism on the other side. Were they already fool enough to think they could PERMANENTLY bring down Russia AND France AND any possible ally of the two???

WWI only makes sense if you regard the existing web of alliances an accomplished fact - and that is clearly not true if you have the Germans start to think early enough.

With the rest of them, you are once again making the mistake of arguing that their strategic judgment was bad by pointing out that the outcome was bad. Thi is hindsight bias and ignores any realistic evaluation of the alternatives.

I did not make that mistake, because all my critizism on strategic judgement refers to Germany.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Especially since the basic thread was far from new: Prussia/Germany had always been surrounded by major powers, they just hadn't been stupid enough to antagonize them all so far.

I also wonder what they expected to gain even if they HAD won WWI: They sould still remain stuck between France/Britain and Russia, and every shift of power in favor of Germany would have been compensated by revanchism on the other side. Were they already fool enough to think they could PERMANENTLY bring down Russia AND France AND any possible ally of the two???

WWI only makes sense if you regard the existing web of alliances an accomplished fact - and that is clearly not true if you have the Germans start to think early enough.



I did not make that mistake, because all my critizism on strategic judgement refers to Germany.

I depends on if you count Prussia as German history, but Prussia had Sweden, Russia, France and Austria at the same time, and won. Prussia won a 4 front war, so it is understandable they thought a 3 front war was winnable.

Germany's basic plan was to cripple France. Broadly speaking, they are likely to want something like what Hitler got, but without Paris. France would be a permanently disarmed client/colony state of Germany. The Germany and A-H would be strong enough to hold of Russia permanently, and with access to the middle east by rail, they would have enough resources. The combined population of Germany, A-H, and Ottoman empire is close enough to Russia, and they would have a much larger economy.

Would it have worked? Maybe.

Did many sincerely believe it would work? Yes.

It would be as likely to work out well as the ToV did. All parties in WW1 had deep strategic flaws, but since the CP lost, we talk about the CP flaws a lot. If Conrad had focused Russia first, Russia mobilizes a little slower or the USA stays out, there would be hundreds of books talking about how dumb the French and British strategy was.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I depends on if you count Prussia as German history, but Prussia had Sweden, Russia, France and Austria at the same time, and won. Prussia won a 4 front war, so it is understandable they thought a 3 front war was winnable.

Prussia at least had Britain on their side, and still they would have been crushed if Russia hadn't switched sides in the last moment. Besides, they didn't win, all they accomplished was status quo ante bellum.

Germany's basic plan was to cripple France. Broadly speaking, they are likely to want something like what Hitler got, but without Paris. France would be a permanently disarmed client/colony state of Germany.

The Germany and A-H would be strong enough to hold of Russia permanently, and with access to the middle east by rail, they would have enough resources. The combined population of Germany, A-H, and Ottoman empire is close enough to Russia, and they would have a much larger economy.

France was already crippled enough to be no thread on it's own, and the thread of a Franco-British alliance is not removed by this victory scenario. A WWII by revanchist Enteinte is very likely.

Would it have worked? Maybe.

Did many sincerely believe it would work? Yes.

I'm not denying that it MIGHT have worked. I'm denying that a reasonable German leadership could have denied that it MIGHT not. And you don't start wars just because they MIGHT not ruin your country.

Bismarck was too clever for this, France (AFTER 1871) was too clever for this, why excuse Wilhelm II for not being clever as well?

They should have made sure they didn't face all opponents at once - which WOULD have been possible if they had worked hard enough on that.

It would be as likely to work out well as the ToV did. All parties in WW1 had deep strategic flaws, but since the CP lost, we talk about the CP flaws a lot. If Conrad had focused Russia first, Russia mobilizes a little slower or the USA stays out, there would be hundreds of books talking about how dumb the French and British strategy was.

But even in theese cases, they wouldn't praise German or criticise diplomacy. Forming such a huge alliance is even then an undiniable masterpiece of the French - and allowing this to happen an undeniable failure of the Germans. They would praise the German military for making good diplomacy obsolete - and criticise French military for ruining the fruits of excellent diplomacy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
France was already crippled enough to be no thread on it's own, and the thread of a Franco-British alliance is not removed by this victory scenario. A WWII by revanchist Enteinte is very likely.



I'm not denying that it MIGHT have worked. I'm denying that a reasonable German leadership could have denied that it MIGHT not. And you don't start wars just because they MIGHT not ruin your country.

Bismarck was too clever for this, France (AFTER 1871) was too clever for this, why excuse Wilhelm II for not being clever as well?

They should have made sure they didn't face all opponents at once - which WOULD have been possible if they had worked hard enough on that.



But even in theese cases, they wouldn't praise German or criticise diplomacy. Forming such a huge alliance is even then an undiniable masterpiece of the French - and allowing this to happen an undeniable failure of the Germans. They would praise the German military for making good diplomacy obsolete - and criticise French military for ruining the fruits of excellent diplomacy.

They would be more crippled by a loss and German occupation, and probably ToV like restrictions on the size of the French army.

BTW, Serbia started the war. Serbia intelligence was involved in the assassination. IMO, any other major nation whose #2 leader was assassinated by a minor power goes to war. It was true in 1914, and it is still true. If Iranians assassinated Biden or Taiwan assassinated the #2 in China, the odds of a hot war is over 99% within 30 days.

The Bismark, Willie II comment strikes me as a bit odd. Bismark was an exceptionally good leader, and Willie II was a poor leader. But the same can be said for Tsar Nicholas. Would Peter the Great have handle WW1 so badly? Or would FDR do as badly as Wilson? I understand better decision could have been made than OTL, and I understand Bismark likely makes a different call. But how does what Bismark might have done change what the Kaiser actually believed? or Moltke? I see you Bolded words, but i don't see your comments relevance to either my post or the general topic of the thread.

Winners write the history books. I do believe the post-war German books in the 1920's would praise the German brilliance and make fun of British and German dumbness. Also, there would be a bunch of blame the other General/Admiral books written by the French/English. I expected Churchill's book in this ATL to be very witty and persuasive, and to show that none of the loss was the result of any of his decisions.
 

elkarlo

Banned
I think the UK would have trolled for a CB as hard as they could till they got one.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
They would be more crippled by a loss and German occupation, and probably ToV like restrictions on the size of the French army.

Similar restrictions didn't keep Germany from coming back stronger than ever, and France might have equaly revanchist Britain and Russia on it's side.

The basic rule of game would not have changed: None of the Enteinte nations is a thread on it's own, but all of them are - before WWI AND after any realistic CP-win-scenario. Germany HAD to brake up the Enteinte or prevent its formation in the first place.

BTW, Serbia started the war. Serbia intelligence was involved in the assassination. IMO, any other major nation whose #2 leader was assassinated by a minor power goes to war. It was true in 1914, and it is still true. If Iranians assassinated Biden or Taiwan assassinated the #2 in China, the odds of a hot war is over 99% within 30 days.

Quite true, IF the evidence is solid - but how solid was it? AFAIK it is doubtful wether even the Austrians themselves believed that.

The Bismark, Willie II comment strikes me as a bit odd. Bismark was an exceptionally good leader, and Willie II was a poor leader. But the same can be said for Tsar Nicholas. Would Peter the Great have handle WW1 so badly? Or would FDR do as badly as Wilson? I understand better decision could have been made than OTL, and I understand Bismark likely makes a different call. But how does what Bismark might have done change what the Kaiser actually believed? or Moltke? I see you Bolded words, but i don't see your comments relevance to either my post or the general topic of the thread.

The difference is: Tsar Nicholas failed to build something that hadn't been there before, Wilhelm failed to keep up something that Bismarck had built for him. The latter is much less of a challenge.

As for Woodrow Wilson, I do not understand what wrong he's meant to have done. He was the one of the few voices of reason in a world that had lost its head.

Winners write the history books. I do believe the post-war German books in the 1920's would praise the German brilliance and make fun of British and German dumbness. Also, there would be a bunch of blame the other General/Admiral books written by the French/English. I expected Churchill's book in this ATL to be very witty and persuasive, and to show that none of the loss was the result of any of his decisions.

Of course history books are biased by the hindsight perspective. But that doesn't mean that they are always wrong. There are mistakes that were nearly impossible to avoid, such as overestimating the strategic advantage of a first strike, but there are also mistakes that anyone who's read his Clausewitz would have avoided, such as IMHO antagonizing Britain AND Russia due to useless saber-rattling.
 

Sior

Banned
It was an unstated war aim for Britain to kick the bejesus out of a trade and world power rival while she had some allies to do the heavy lifting. Notice that about the time Britain secured all of the worldwide CP posessions she went full tilt on the western front, and not before.

What allies doing the heavy lifting? if you mean the Yanks they were late and two bob short.
 
BTW, Serbia started the war. Serbia intelligence was involved in the assassination.

It seems odd that they'd choose to start a war in 1914 given that the army hasn't had any new artillery or rifle ammunition since 1912, the majority of the army is in Macedonia and they only have 1,597 of the 2,023 freight cars needed to move them to the front, and they're in the process of introducing M1891 Mosin-Nagant is being introduced to replace the Mauser (also considering that between one quarter and one third of a divisions personnel don't even have the Mauser). It seems even odder that they'd choose to start it in the middle of an election campaign, at a point when the Chief of the General Staff is on holiday in Austria along with the only keys to the safe holding the mobilisation plans. Maybe they just felt confident.
 
Similar restrictions didn't keep Germany from coming back stronger than ever, and France might have equaly revanchist Britain and Russia on it's side.

Germany only came back because of a utter collapse of will on the part of France and Britain. I don't expect that the same thing would happen to Germany in a CP victory scenario, and certainly without the benefit of hindsight France would have no reason to expect it.

BTW, Serbia started the war. Serbia intelligence was involved in the assassination.
Radical elements in Serbian intelligence were involved, but that isn't the same as Serbia being involved. Especially since Serbia agreed to hand over any officials who were implicated in the plot, agreed to suppress the radical group that was affiliated with the assassins, and agreed to suppress books or newspapers that agitated against Austria-Hungary. To my mind, an assassination supported by elements of a foreign power need not mean war if the foreign power sufficiently agrees to clean house. And its not clear to me what Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to do to clean house that Serbia hadn't agreed to do.
And, quite clearly, the Austro-Hungarian government was not internally concerned that Serbia hadn't offered to clean house enough. Their concern was the mere existence of Serbia. They thought that the assassination offered a handy excuse.

P.S. Don't ask me why this text is partially italicized and in different font sizes. I didn't input it this way and the buggy software here won't let me fix it using the edit function.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Germany only came back because of a utter collapse of will on the part of France and Britain. I don't expect that the same thing would happen to Germany in a CP victory scenario, and certainly without the benefit of hindsight France would have no reason to expect it.

Before 1914, France had no reason to expect an utter collapse of Germany's will to remain on friendly terms with as many of its neighbors as possible. But even without the
benefit of hindsight, France did wait for its opportunity and got it - as they would have done in any CP victory scenario. Even when their strategic potential is reduced to a mere deployment zone for British troops, France remains a threat to Germany, and Germany cannot occupy France forever.

Napoleon won war after war and still lost in the end because he couldn't stop antagonizing everybody. IMO Germans would have suffered a similar fate unless they had a leap in insight that - had in come early enough - would have prevented WWI as we know it in the first place.

Radical elements in Serbian intelligence were involved, but that isn't the same as Serbia being involved. Especially since Serbia agreed to hand over any officials who were implicated in the plot, agreed to suppress the radical group that was affiliated with the assassins, and agreed to suppress books or newspapers that agitated against Austria-Hungary. To my mind, an assassination supported by elements of a foreign power need not mean war if the foreign power sufficiently agrees to clean house. And its not clear to me what Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to do to clean house that Serbia hadn't agreed to do.
And, quite clearly, the Austro-Hungarian government was not internally concerned that Serbia hadn't offered to clean house enough. Their concern was the mere existence of Serbia. They thought that the assassination offered a handy excuse.


I agree. WWI was no more and no less than a preemptive strike against the enteinte. And the long story made short, I think they were better ways (NOT only better in hindsight) to handle this, especially for Germany. All Wilhelm II had to do was to keep at somewhat friendly terms with Britain OR Russia.

 
Top