The whole Anglo-American war scenario is silly politically and a bit of a "no way" what if. But, having said that, having emphasized how there was no way that war would happen, it might have been difficult for the USN to bombard the British coast with battleships that wouldn't exist, built in shipyards that had been razed to the ground years before.
Germany does not invade Belguim in 1914. What does Britain do?
- Thread starter Galba Otho Vitelius
- Start date
The whole Anglo-American war scenario is silly politically and a bit of a "no way" what if. But, having said that, having emphasized how there was no way that war would happen, it might have been difficult for the USN to bombard the British coast with battleships that wouldn't exist, built in shipyards that had been razed to the ground years before.
Grey stated that if Britain remained neutral, he would go. There was no condition, where Germany would be at war with France and Britain neutral, that Grey would be the Foreign Secretary of the UK.
Historically, when USN ships are sunk in a unprovoked attack.... yes, yes I would expect the US to maintain that rage after the cowardly stab in the back the RN and MN are apparently going to throw at them. Unless you think the United States called it quits after Pearl Harbor... With dead sailors across the front page of every single newspaper in America, there is quite frankly no possible way Britain going this batshit insane does not end up with the war she's apparently looking for.
At any rate, I'm going to stop arguing with you two, since this thread is about Britain's actions against Germany, and deciding that she has to go copenhagen the USN out of nowhere is so hilariously ASB it's not even funny.
Last edited:
I would be inclined to see him resigning earlier, after the likely first debate but at least after what debate gets us the ultimatum and its passing without German provocation. So after August 5 Grey is going into retirement. I will take that win.
If this was really his mantra ... how often and how long would he repeat it ?
He didn't resigned on 31st July, not on 1st August and not on 2nd August.
On each of these days he threatened with resignation but did NOT get from cabinet (the "Big Names", not the "beagles" as Asquith named the 'lesser' cabinet members) a firm commitment to support France, only on certain conditions (belgian violation). This was still true on the afternoon/evening Cabinet on 2nd August, when Greys adress to the Commons the next day was discussed.
Well, for the first 12-14 days of August ... most likely there would be no war on the western, the franco-german front.
The germans won't do any mayor things in the east, as they need at least 14 days to move troops sufficient enough for any action. They also won't attack in the west, conducting a kind of "drole du guerre" without any DoW yet. And being keen to keep it that way ... for Britain and its neutzrality/non-belligerency.
In France - as said by Viviani and Poincaré at the night of 1st to 2nd August to the russian ambassador Isvolsky - won't happen much until day 12 of mobilization (end of mobilization) for summoning the National Assambly to decide upon war as demanded by the franco-russian alliance (which IOTL the russians as well as the french on almost every level of diplomacy, Tsar, President, ambassadors, military attaches didn't miss a day to reassure the other of their standing to their alliance commitments in every case ofc.).
So ITTL war might start a fortnight into August earliest, regardless if first in the west or the east by whatever action on the ground.
... but ... what happens in Britain during this fortnight ?
Has Grey hold on until this day ?
Has Kitchener being made war minister ?
Has the King summoned another 'Buckingham Palace conference' on Irish Home Rule ?
Has another 'Bachelors Walk' happened ?
Has another suffragette being incarcerated ?
In the unlikely event that the USA declared war on the UK and the USA invaded Canada the UK can not divert sufficient capital ships to challenge the USN in its home waters. They due have a large number of cruisers which can interdict US trade. A major problem for the UK would be being cutoff from foodstuffs and supplies from the USA and Canada. Another complication is that if the US is at war with the UK the US would not express outrage over German use of USW against Entente shipping.
The USN was second place to the RN but not a token force, even if technically inferior or less experienced, with home field advantages it should hold its own. And I think it is a bit over the top to raze American shipyards, Pearl Harbor was barely known to be American, the Brooklyn Navy Yard is going to have the USA in full bat shit mode, number Eleven. But I think it is a red herring. What is more plausible is the USA getting anti-Empire sooner and thinking Germany might help getting the USA its opening. All very bad for the British and maybe awful for France.
It may not be fun but those two weeks might see the whole war changed beyond recognition, if not called off even past the brink. The Powers had not one ounce of care for Serbia. War drums beating, trains screaming to the front, men marching, horses at fever pitch. Two weeks you say? Without Grey the British might find a solution. Austria just needs to halt at Belgrade and the Tsar needs to get cold feet, Wilhelm can have an ego stroke and Joffre will have a heart attack. Best we let the war go on.
BooNZ
Banned
Someone provides a reference suggesting Grey would have to accept British neutrality in the case of Germany not invading Belgium and you firmly disagree, without providing anything to support your position. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, since you have been participating in this discussion for over a decade, but it is helpful if you could provide the rest of us with some context.
If Germany remains out of Belgium, Grey's resignation is minor matter, unless such a resignation triggers the collapse of the Liberal party. Grey's resignation is routinely linked to the resignation of Asquith, but I doubt this would happen if Grey's position is recognised as being out of step with the British Cabinet, which it would be without the German invasion of Belgium. Asquith is also on record as being willing to work with the Germans, but the German invasion of Belgium made that impossible.
My reading of the tea leaves has Grey hanging on. There is nothing to be gained by his symbolic resignation and neither Asquith nor the French would want to see him go. I would expect Haldane and Grey to ultimately fall back into the flock as it tramples an incessantly barking Churchill. Grey could use his influence to surreptitious make Anglo-German relations as rocky as possible, but based on what has been presented on this thread, a Liberal British Cabinet is not going to war without Belgium.
His resignation means that the liberal party splits, and a portion of it forms a coalition government with the Tories who were very much for supporting France.
Even then this whole argument is a bit moot, because what exactly does "supporting France" mean? IOTL the cabinet affirmed and upheld its naval obligations with France before the German ultimatum to Belgium to Belgium was even delivered, and Grey's aforementioned speech was given before the British ultimatum to Germany.
Last edited:
A lot depends on how the UK defines the "naval obligations". Do they stop at make the Channel a conflict-free zone? Nice, but this is not a war winner for France. Does the RN protect all French merchant traffic outside of the Med and the Bay of Biscay, do they provide protection for the Pacific to include doing away with the East Asia Squadron? If they do that, they go to war with Germany. They can broadcast in the clear every time they see a German warship or merchant raider, however given the limitations of radio in 1914 this will be of minimal use - do they shadow everything flying the German flag they see? Broadcasting they can get away with, shadowing will eventually lead to shooting.Given the limitations of the MN does the RN assist in enforcing some sort of blockade like they had OTL as a belligerent? An ostensibly neutral UK stopping neutral (especially American) merchant traffic to enforce a blockade the French declare - not going to end well.
Britain can support France with credits, arms, and raw materials. They can declare the Channel to be a conflict free zone so that UK-France shipping is unimpeded. You could see the "Beefeater Escadrille" of volunteer pilots.(1) It would be perfectly legitimate to have British medical units under the Red Cross flag in France caring for the wounded (neutrals did this for both sides in the Franco-Prussian War under Red Cross auspices). Anything much beyond this stretches neutrality to the breaking point.
(1) The Americans who joined the French forces before the US was in the war did so by joining the Foreign Legion, and when then posted to flying units perhaps after time in the infantry. British/Imperial personnel who wished to volunteer for France could take this same route, and avoid and official connection to the UK.
Britain can support France with credits, arms, and raw materials. They can declare the Channel to be a conflict free zone so that UK-France shipping is unimpeded. You could see the "Beefeater Escadrille" of volunteer pilots.(1) It would be perfectly legitimate to have British medical units under the Red Cross flag in France caring for the wounded (neutrals did this for both sides in the Franco-Prussian War under Red Cross auspices). Anything much beyond this stretches neutrality to the breaking point.
(1) The Americans who joined the French forces before the US was in the war did so by joining the Foreign Legion, and when then posted to flying units perhaps after time in the infantry. British/Imperial personnel who wished to volunteer for France could take this same route, and avoid and official connection to the UK.
BooNZ
Banned
Split between Winston Churchill and the rest of the Liberals and I doubt the Tories would want Winston back so soon. We have established through July 1914 the Conservatives did not have a consensus (according to Bonar Law) to go to war without an invasion of Belgium. According to private correspondence by Asquith, this was again communicated to Asquith, after the receipt of the letter of support from the Conservatives on 2 August 1914.
Asquith as War Leader makes it clear Liberal-Conservative relations were not conducive to a coalition government. It also makes it clear Asquith did not share Grey's support France at all costs obsession.
Defending the channel is a relatively minor thing and one could argue there was a moral duty - no such duty existed to initiate hostilities against Germany.
Edit
When was that established?
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/27914/1/Cons1914forOA.pdf
Cabinet members don't ever threaten to resign as a matter of "symbolism", but because their registration triggers an overthrow in Parliament. Halifax made the same real threat during the Second World War, and was only sidelined because Churchill railed his outer-cabinet.
When was that established?
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/27914/1/Cons1914forOA.pdf
Cabinet members don't ever threaten to resign as a matter of "symbolism", but because their registration triggers an overthrow in Parliament. Halifax made the same real threat during the Second World War, and was only sidelined because Churchill railed his outer-cabinet.
Last edited:
It can't enforce the declaration if the US decides to escort convoys through it unless it wants to declare war on the US. International law allows neutral ships to sail through international waterways without being stopped so the only way to enforce that is to use the threat of force to override international law, which Britain can do against Germany or other European powers but which will cause a war if the US forces a showdown with Britain over it. They'll just have to hope the US doesn't go far enough to escort ships through the Channel because if the US does that they won't be able to stop it unless they want a war with the US, with or without being at war with Germany.
...Could we finally forget the whole idiocy of the USA vs GBR war in this scenario? Not to mention the who would win that question.
Brittain as a neutral cant conduct a blocade of Germany as at that point its not neutral at all. At that point Brittain will be in the war and than we are back to OTL in regards of the blocade which didnt result in war - because though both side has his idiots neither of the 2 government were as dumb as to go to war. The only difference will be that the USA is less sympathetic to the entente.
Also a point regarding the navies that hasnt been raised: There has been some speculation going about what Germany could use its navy for if Brittain is neutral. However Germany will be painfully aware that though Brittain is neutral its simpathies lie by the French and even if its entry in to the war was avoided in the summer of 1914 it could join later. If the german fleet is in the wrong place when this happens Germany will be in serious trouble. So because of the threat that the british join the Germans will still be cautious with their ships.
Brittain as a neutral cant conduct a blocade of Germany as at that point its not neutral at all. At that point Brittain will be in the war and than we are back to OTL in regards of the blocade which didnt result in war - because though both side has his idiots neither of the 2 government were as dumb as to go to war. The only difference will be that the USA is less sympathetic to the entente.
Also a point regarding the navies that hasnt been raised: There has been some speculation going about what Germany could use its navy for if Brittain is neutral. However Germany will be painfully aware that though Brittain is neutral its simpathies lie by the French and even if its entry in to the war was avoided in the summer of 1914 it could join later. If the german fleet is in the wrong place when this happens Germany will be in serious trouble. So because of the threat that the british join the Germans will still be cautious with their ships.
And I find it an odd quirk of the British government that threat of resignation can hold it hostage and force through a singular vision. A rather half-arsed way to run a democracy. And a rather childish way to win your arguments.
What I gather is that nations are like car buyers, they first fall in love with a war, then shop for one to buy and only later work out how to pay for it. It is not so much that Belgium is in fact important to Britain, but rather the symbolism it provides to quiet the objections and craft the consensus to buy into a new war. Taking away the "Rape of Belgium" leaves open the possibility the consensus itself cannot be had and even if a majority can still get a war the lingering lack of consensus opens up doubt, recrimination and worst of all, political opportunism. As the war gets costly the opposition can steal your voters. And I think the Liberals feared more how the Conservatives would profit from a peace than they could profit from a war. But that does not get a consensus here, Britain has great reasons to pay for the war but it might not buy. And that is good enough for me, it leaves an ATL where the groundwork is set to have a non-belligerent Britain. And I think the consensus is that Britain will be a rather insincere neutral, playing an obvious double game, and losing any pretense to being a fair player.
There appear to be yet more opportunities for Britain to buy into this war but as the war rages on less enthusiasm as we see before you know what a bad buy it is. And we still have Germany able to blunder its way into dragging Britain in, a thing they excel at. If Germany can navigate the waters the British Empire is left in power, intact and the last Great Power standing. Germany has gained a lot on paper but must make good. The USA is in the wings to notch up and Japan as gained a new level. But I still have yet to see how bad the world is with the siren call of German dominance over Europe. And perhaps that is the next debate.
And if we can see past the reluctance and get the UK at war, wholly made of cloth now, we find no consensus for how she uses the BEF. Worse we have scant consideration of how deep in does Britain invest once the Western front stagnates. A valid tangent, each tangent reveals something, but here the British are not fighting a noble war of salvation but a cold war of geo-politics, it is toss men into the grinder daily to play a game, a game that the voters will weigh in on when the war ends, and I think it must end well or the British will find more revolution in their air than they care for. And that too is another debate.
The British are either painted cowards or opportunists, they are perfidious either way really. Without Belgium I find a naked truth.
There appear to be yet more opportunities for Britain to buy into this war but as the war rages on less enthusiasm as we see before you know what a bad buy it is. And we still have Germany able to blunder its way into dragging Britain in, a thing they excel at. If Germany can navigate the waters the British Empire is left in power, intact and the last Great Power standing. Germany has gained a lot on paper but must make good. The USA is in the wings to notch up and Japan as gained a new level. But I still have yet to see how bad the world is with the siren call of German dominance over Europe. And perhaps that is the next debate.
And if we can see past the reluctance and get the UK at war, wholly made of cloth now, we find no consensus for how she uses the BEF. Worse we have scant consideration of how deep in does Britain invest once the Western front stagnates. A valid tangent, each tangent reveals something, but here the British are not fighting a noble war of salvation but a cold war of geo-politics, it is toss men into the grinder daily to play a game, a game that the voters will weigh in on when the war ends, and I think it must end well or the British will find more revolution in their air than they care for. And that too is another debate.
The British are either painted cowards or opportunists, they are perfidious either way really. Without Belgium I find a naked truth.
If you have a treaty and the situation fits the terms and you don't live up to it you are perfidious. If you make a firm commitment as to what you will do, outside of a treaty, and you don't do it, you are perfidious. If country A gets a rather nebulous "we'll support you", which can mean anything, from country B and decides to fight a war based on that, well country A is just plain stupid. Politicians and diplomats should know that agreements like this are like from Alice in Wonderland, the words mean what you want them to mean. Or as Yogi Berra once supposedly said, "verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on." Britain had a treaty obligating it protect the neutrality of Belgium. Period. No Belgium no treaty obligation.
It should be noted that according to this treaty, which the French as well as the Germans (Prussia actually) had signed, that if it was the French who violated Belgian neutrality, even a little by cutting a cross a corner WITHOUT PERMISSION then the UK would be obliged to help Belgium defend against France. Absurd n'est pas?
It should be noted that according to this treaty, which the French as well as the Germans (Prussia actually) had signed, that if it was the French who violated Belgian neutrality, even a little by cutting a cross a corner WITHOUT PERMISSION then the UK would be obliged to help Belgium defend against France. Absurd n'est pas?
It wasn't a singular vision. The only way for the threat to be real is if the cabinet member has the backing of enough members of Parliament. That's why Halifax failed in his attempt.
Grey said he would resign. He never said anything about going into retirement.