Germany does not invade Belguim in 1914. What does Britain do?

[Anchises]

Russia lost economically in total isolation . As soon as Britian joins in this ATL the Ottomans are opened up by the BEF and Russia gets a steriod injection of global capital.

Nevermind the fact that their prewar armies dont get mauled in frontier battles.

1) Why do you assume that the BEF would "open up" the Ottoman Empire?

2) Throwing money at Russia won't solve its economic and structural problems. Britsh pounds aren't going to feed starving Petrograd workers unless somehow food distribution and the transport network of Russia are magically fixed.

And why did Russia never recieve that injection IOTL?

3) Even if Russias struggling war effort continues: They were unable to stop the German advance even with enough artillery and munition. British money is not going to change that.

And why would the Russian population accept the mounting casualties?

 

[Hammurabi]

1) Why do you assume that the BEF would "open up" the Ottoman Empire?

2) Throwing money at Russia won't solve its economic and structural problems. Britsh pounds aren't going to feed starving Petrograd workers unless somehow food distribution and the transport network of Russia are magically fixed.

And why did Russia never recieve that injection IOTL?

3) Even if Russias struggling war effort continues: They were unable to stop the German advance even with enough artillery and munition. British money is not going to change that.

And why would the Russian population accept the mounting casualties?

1) Because there is no Western Front without a Belgian invasion, so the full might of the British is directed at the Ottomans.

2) Transport issues can be solved by foreign capital injection just as Russias entire rail network was built by the French before the war

3) They were very much able to stop German offensives IOTL.

Asking why the Russian people would fight is as silly as asking why the German people would.

 

[Athelstane]

Don't you think it might be possible that illiberal democracy arisis?

In 1916-18?

The "illiberal" part, certainly.

Any democratic features may end up rather pro forma.

 

[Athelstane]

1) Because there is no Western Front without a Belgian invasion, so the full might of the British is directed at the Ottomans.

There *is* a Western Front - it's just in Alsace-Lorraine. At least at first.

But the longer the war drags on, the greater the chances that Belgian neutrality is violated. if Britain declares war on Germany, there's a significant chance that Germany, fearing a British entry into Belgium, preemptively invades - assuming that a desperate France has not already done so.

But the straits are a hard nut to crack, if the Turks are determined to defend them - which they will be.

And of course, all this assumes that the British enter the war at all. As the carnage piles up, that seems less likely an easy sell to the British public and the Commons.

 

[Hammurabi]

There *is* a Western Front - it's just in Alsace-Lorraine. At least at first.

But the longer the war drags on, the greater the chances that Belgian neutrality is violated. if Britain declares war on Germany, there's a significant chance that Germany, fearing a British entry into Belgium, preemptively invades - assuming that a desperate France has not already done so.

But the straits are a hard nut to crack, if the Turks are determined to defend them - which they will be.

And of course, all this assumes that the British enter the war at all. As the carnage piles up, that seems less likely an easy sell to the British public and the Commons.

So theres no Western Front. The French economy is not under occupation, the German iron mines in Alasace are bombed to smithereens. The disruption of the latter alone means the halting od Germanys war effort.

The British not entering WW1 on the side of the entente is akin to saying that the US wouldnt enter WW2. There is too much built up preceding the POD which makes it impossible to happen otherwise.

The straits, along with the rest of the Ottoman empire, will quickly crack given enough effort; effort which would most readily be expended without the British investment in France IOTL.

 

[Athelstane]

The disruption of the latter alone means the halting of Germanys war effort.

Not at all.

 

[Hammurabi]

Not at all.

How? Almost all of Germanys iron production is concentrated next to the French border.

 

[Glenn239]

More to the point is the politics that will flow from the dramatic change in German society that would flow from even this more limited war. Demands will be very loud for more Reichstag power. The SPD would likely win the next election. Their interest will be far more on domestic reform than a new naval race with Britain.

Either way, Germany holds the whip hand - if no naval race develops it's from the German side this decision is taken, not the British.

 

[Riain]

Actually no. The absence of the Germans in Belgium would likely result in the Germans initially utilising well established counter attack doctrines.

Actually no, in their final mobilisation plan with an large eastern deployment they send 3 armies on the offensive into Poland within 2 weeks of mobilisation with another hard on their heels when it arrives.

With the benefit of hindsight, most of us recognise any offensive before 1916 was ill conceived, unless there was a total mismatch like the eastern front in 1915.

Quite the contrary, even in 'failure ' the SP got close several times to destroying several allied armies, got to within artillery range of Paris and held an large and important part of France for 4 years and gave Germany the initiative the whole time. The 1915 success in the east failed to knock out the Russians, in stra it merely duplicated what was achieved in the west in 1914.

Actually, 68 German divisions against 62 French Divisions, 6 Belgian divisions and 6 British Divisions. The German invasion of Belgium ensured the Germans were outnumbered

Pretty sure those numbers are wrong, certainly the BEF started with 5 divisions and didn't send another until 23 August which didn't see action until 30 August. All armies did this.

The shortfall of french indirect artillery was far less critical on defense than it was on attack.

But it was critical.

War is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. Clausewitz

Moltke was not a politician, although Falkenhayen was Prussian Minister of War, decision on war and peace were made by the government for Moltke to carry out. As for Clausewitz, he aslo said that if you defeat the enemy army all political benefits will follow, and the SP was the best chance of that.

post 125] The immediate destruction of Russia's two best armies, saving the majority of the A-H pre-war army, promptly liberating fortresses and territory of Russian Poland and ensuring Italy's neutrality is the bare bones starting point...

The mechanics of Russian plan 19 July 1914 meant that 4 armies were irreversibly on their way to the AH front before the Russians would learn that the Germans had more or less than the 15-25 divisions they planned to engage. Deployment of 33 divisions isn't going to alter this. In any case the 8th army did 3/4 of what a large eastern deployment would have done so its hardly worth send 3 or 4 times the troops to make up the difference.

Molke the Elder and much of Schlieffen's work advocated counter attack, which by its nature leaves the initiative in the hands of the enemy.

Moltke the younger faced drastically different circumstances than his predecessors and adapted his plans accordingly. 1914 is not 1870 or even 1905 and its ludicrous to think that the solution to different problems will be identical.

 

[Glenn239]

... her erstwhile ally in Vienna is still badly wounded and asking for more than her fair share in spoils, France is very unlikely conquered, merely reduced to irrelevance, and Russia might not have collapsed into civil war and emerged the USSR.

So best case scenario is that eventually France or Russia might be strong enough to support Britain at a future date, worst case scenario l they switch sides.

Britain was annoying in her lack of true friendship but then the English were regarded as unreliable, but her Empire is the market place, London is still the world's banker, Germany is going to sit at the table a peer, she might bluster and act a bit more pompous, but what does Wilhelm want?

Naval supremacy. Wilhelm wants the biggest navy.

 

[MichaelWest]

So theres no Western Front. The French economy is not under occupation, the German iron mines in Alasace are bombed to smithereens. The disruption of the latter alone means the halting od Germanys war effort.

The British not entering WW1 on the side of the entente is akin to saying that the US wouldnt enter WW2. There is too much built up preceding the POD which makes it impossible to happen otherwise.

The straits, along with the rest of the Ottoman empire, will quickly crack given enough effort; effort which would most readily be expended without the British investment in France IOTL.

Here the Western Front is solely the Franco-German border, OTL Battle of the Frontiers, with maybe some allowances for violating some sliver of Belgium opposite Luxembourg. This will be France attacking A-L to defeat a defending Germany. I argue for five German Armies deployed to defend the West and three used in the East with more if not all Cavalry deployed East and new formations used to shore up A-H, further invade Russia or deployed as the war evolves. Germany did import nearly all of French iron ore produced but was able to import substitute ore, the other big deposit at risk is in Luxembourg, that is why I cannot agree that Germany fails to secure her from day one, a move that in my estimation should compel the fear of an invasion of Belgium too. Thus when this Germany fails to invade the set up for the Western Front looks virtually the same on the Entente side except for the BEF.

So please elaborate on where the British act and the effect on the ruling Government and the next elections coming soon.

So I take it the British are going full tilt war on the OE?

 

[sloreck]

Several things:
(1) France has zero capacity to bomb German iron/steel regions until 1916 at the soonest with anything more than an occasional 25kg bomb. To the extent iron ore and coal needs to be imported the resources of Norway and Sweden are completely open - the MN cannot interdict anything from Norway, and entering the Baltic - forget it. Even in 1939/40 the French air force was not a potentially strategic arm.
(2) With Germany standing on the defensive in the west, things will go much worse for the Russians. If they go against A-H the way they did OTL they will end up with their northern flank hugely exposed and their logistics in grave jeopardy. The reality the Russians don't have enough small arms for their manpower, let alone machine guns, artillery etc. Their ammunition supplies are deficient. Their logistics are bad on their best day, the rest of the time a complete shambles. A large proportion of the officer corps is incompetent or corrupt or both from top to bottom. Yes there are some very good officers, but they are swimming against the tide. In WWI the Germans are not Nazis, and the Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and others are likely to see the Germans ousting the Tsar in their vicinity as a good thing.
(3) Italy is a bit of a wild card, but the best France can hope for is they remain neutral. France will need to have some troops on the Italian frontier, and enough of the MN kept in the Med to protect merchant traffic in case the Italians decide to honor their alliance. With Italy neutral, and if leaning any way leaning CP, the A-H Navy can have free access to the Med, and since the RN is not playing this makes things worse for the MN.
(4) The Ottomans: Absent a threat from the UK, they have many options. Neutral leaning CP, and close the straits to any "belligerent" vessels - so any supplies to Russia need to come on neutral vessels so the British need to risk their vessels to bring supplies to Russia this way. They can jump in, attack the Caucasus, and of course now the Straits are firmly shut.
(5) Other neutrals: The Balkan states are for sure going to lean CP, some may decide to join in to carve off a bit of Serbia or Russia. Greece is going to be nervous, and strict neutrality while worrying about the Turks is where they are going - they might even join the CP so that the CP keep the Ottomans off their backs..."we're on the same side" - the Megali idea never gets traction. Scandinavians and the Dutch - "pay cash, we sell. You transport & take the risk".
(6) Belgians: They are looking in every direction and using lots of toilet paper.
(7) The USA: Officially, "not our issue". Various groups will try and help one way or another. Arms and raw materials will be sold to whomever can pay for them, preferably in valuta.

If Germany has large gains in the east with some additional territory and client states in the Baltics, some sort of Poland, and perhaps the Ukraine they will be happy. France will have been humbled, they won't want or need much territory if any, and by the time France might want another go Alsace-Lorraine has been German for 60-70 years and by now throughoroly German. Germany keeps its overseas colonies, it might take a ittle thing here or there from France but unlikely.

 

[MichaelWest]

So best case scenario is that eventually France or Russia might be strong enough to support Britain at a future date, worst case scenario l they switch sides.

Naval supremacy. Wilhelm wants the biggest navy.

Not best case, rather the most defensible outcome before we open yet another round of debate on just how well Germany might do. Frankly I think France never returns to more than an unruly has been, and with luck Russia eads off to work towards some decently representative form of free market government and finds both democracy and prosperity. I allow for the USSR since the rebuttal is Germany cannot win this, so OTL Russia went down the drain, I will concede that for argument here but Russia is still badly damaged and no longer at war.

Wilhelm lost that ambition by 1912 or 1913, few here seem inclined to see him getting another big navy unless Britain forces the issue. But I will say that Germany likely can build to parity just as the USA demanded and as my English friends like to say "there is fuck all they can do about it." A protracted cold war with Germany might be just as destructive to Britain as victory, a race with USA and Japan, another war and the Cold War that followed. Here the UK has not gained the USA as an ally and lost both Russia and France, alienated the Ottomans, disappointed Italy and proved the Westminster way is weaker to Japan. Now if that is why British visionaries are going to war for you duly noted, I will gladly take Germany's modest victory and open future.

 

[Hammurabi]

Several things:
(1) France has zero capacity to bomb German iron/steel regions until 1916 at the soonest with anything more than an occasional 25kg bomb. To the extent iron ore and coal needs to be imported the resources of Norway and Sweden are completely open - the MN cannot interdict anything from Norway, and entering the Baltic - forget it. Even in 1939/40 the French air force was not a potentially strategic arm.
(2) With Germany standing on the defensive in the west, things will go much worse for the Russians. If they go against A-H the way they did OTL they will end up with their northern flank hugely exposed and their logistics in grave jeopardy. The reality the Russians don't have enough small arms for their manpower, let alone machine guns, artillery etc. Their ammunition supplies are deficient. Their logistics are bad on their best day, the rest of the time a complete shambles. A large proportion of the officer corps is incompetent or corrupt or both from top to bottom. Yes there are some very good officers, but they are swimming against the tide. In WWI the Germans are not Nazis, and the Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and others are likely to see the Germans ousting the Tsar in their vicinity as a good thing.
(3) Italy is a bit of a wild card, but the best France can hope for is they remain neutral. France will need to have some troops on the Italian frontier, and enough of the MN kept in the Med to protect merchant traffic in case the Italians decide to honor their alliance. With Italy neutral, and if leaning any way leaning CP, the A-H Navy can have free access to the Med, and since the RN is not playing this makes things worse for the MN.
(4) The Ottomans: Absent a threat from the UK, they have many options. Neutral leaning CP, and close the straits to any "belligerent" vessels - so any supplies to Russia need to come on neutral vessels so the British need to risk their vessels to bring supplies to Russia this way. They can jump in, attack the Caucasus, and of course now the Straits are firmly shut.
(5) Other neutrals: The Balkan states are for sure going to lean CP, some may decide to join in to carve off a bit of Serbia or Russia. Greece is going to be nervous, and strict neutrality while worrying about the Turks is where they are going - they might even join the CP so that the CP keep the Ottomans off their backs..."we're on the same side" - the Megali idea never gets traction. Scandinavians and the Dutch - "pay cash, we sell. You transport & take the risk".
(6) Belgians: They are looking in every direction and using lots of toilet paper.
(7) The USA: Officially, "not our issue". Various groups will try and help one way or another. Arms and raw materials will be sold to whomever can pay for them, preferably in valuta.

If Germany has large gains in the east with some additional territory and client states in the Baltics, some sort of Poland, and perhaps the Ukraine they will be happy. France will have been humbled, they won't want or need much territory if any, and by the time France might want another go Alsace-Lorraine has been German for 60-70 years and by now throughoroly German. Germany keeps its overseas colonies, it might take a ittle thing here or there from France but unlikely.

France needs to push 12 km and the mines are history. Without a German invasion of Belgium, the French high command is going to be pushing the basin even without an understanding of its stratrgic importance. 12km isnt a long distance in those opening months of the war.

Also, Britian is entering the war as soon as they acquire a CB, and a find it hard to believe the Germans wont give them one given what the British are going to demand of the high seas fleet.

As soon as Britian enters the war, with a much stronger France, they are going full force into the Turks without the same need to throw everything into France IOTL. As soon as thosr straights open, the war in the East is lost for Germany.

 

[sloreck]

12km not long, however this will be in the teeth of a dense fixed defense. The whole point of this is that Britain does not have a causus belli absent Belgium being invaded. In this scenario the Germans will be careful not to have an incident at sea.

 

[Hammurabi]

12km not long, however this will be in the teeth of a dense fixed defense. The whole point of this is that Britain does not have a causus belli absent Belgium being invaded. In this scenario the Germans will be careful not to have an incident at sea.

Only way thats gonna have a chance of happening is if the entire German fleet, submarines and all, sits in port for the whole war. Is that possible while the German merchant marine is blockaded by the French?

 

[marathag]

12km isnt a long distance in those opening months of the war.

Note how well French Elan worked against prepared positions.

 

[Riain]

12km not long, however this will be in the teeth of a dense fixed defense. The whole point of this is that Britain does not have a causus belli absent Belgium being invaded. In this scenario the Germans will be careful not to have an incident at sea.

Only way thats gonna have a chance of happening is if the entire German fleet, submarines and all, sits in port for the whole war. Is that possible while the German merchant marine is blockaded by the French?

That's an interesting point that will become increasingly important once a 'battle rhythm' is established after the first fortnight or so, once Britain rescinds her guarantee to France over the Channel and replaces it with something more sustainable in a neutral and security sense.

Once Britain's neutral position is firmly established I doubt Germany will cede control of the world's oceans to France; instead she will stretch her naval legs, possibly reinforce the colonies with Marines and other troops and conduct colonial campaigns if possible. I think she might well convoy some shipping against the French surface threat in the Atlantic among other things while Britain stands idly by.

 

[Zheng He]

That's an interesting point that will become increasingly important once a 'battle rhythm' is established after the first fortnight or so, once Britain rescinds her guarantee to France over the Channel and replaces it with something more sustainable in a neutral and security sense.

Once Britain's neutral position is firmly established I doubt Germany will cede control of the world's oceans to France; instead she will stretch her naval legs, possibly reinforce the colonies with Marines and other troops and conduct colonial campaigns if possible. I think she might well convoy some shipping against the French surface threat in the Atlantic among other things while Britain stands idly by.

The question is where? The Pacific, the Western Hemisphere, or Africa? I don't see the Germans going to the Western Hemisphere because that could bring them up against the British and the Americans who are both powerful in that part of the world. I could see the Germans trying to pick off a number of the French islands in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean that are a long way from anything but could also be useful ports of call for the High Seas Fleet. Africa could get interesting.

 

[sloreck]

The MN cannot blockade Germany. Even if they pull all of their ships from the Med they can't do it, and with Italy potentially throwing in per alliance with the CP they have to worry about that. As long as the Germans don't attack a British ship, they can hunt French shipping. They can afford to ignore neutrals, at least with U-boats, and surface raiders can stop neutrals to check for contraband.