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

[BooNZ]

Returning to the question at hand, "what does Britain do?" The POD is a decision by the Kaiser to honor Belgian neutrality and commit to a more defensive war with France and a more offensive war towards Russia. Grey has entangled Britain with both France and Russia, and at least as France is concerned has committed to supporting her effort to re-take A-L. At minimum the British are expected to cordon the Channel and keep the HSF from attacking the French coast or its coastal shipping. It can be expected to provide monetary and logistical support to both France and Russia. And lastly it is hoped the BEF will contribute to the offensive against Germany and with casualties will get Britain fully into the war to add manpower and resource to the depths of her ability.

Aside from facilitating secured loans with the US or providing those secured loans to France itself, I can't see a neutral Britain doing much more. The French industrial heartland remains under French control and the French do not have the carry the British army through 1915...

Even if you achieve British belligerence, there is no imperative to get the BEF onto the continent. OTL even Churchill was suggesting British belligerence be limited to naval matters. Ultimately the British are likely to become entangled on the continent, but I suspect no time soon.

France wants A-L returned to her control. She likely wants to humiliate Germany and gain something more, the Saar, the Rheinland, colonies, something? The Russians want East Prussia and Posen, the polish lands in Germany. Both want huge reparations monies. And what does Britain want? A balance of power in Europe? A continent too weak or distracted to attack her? A continent that will feed her trade?

You missed the bit about the Germany wanting to dominate the world and force everyone to eat fermented cabbage and sausage...

I'm not aware of any specific war goals initially between Germany and Russia - neither were particularly keen on even more Polish minorities. Germany was intent on propping up A-H, while Russia was intent on re-ordering the Balkans. France certainly wanted the return of A-L and possibly revenge, but anything else would have been gravy.

In my opinion, the majority of the British wanted the status quo. A great continental war in Europe made this improbable and the German invasion of Belgium made it impossible.

Arguments galore persist herein, at some 70 pages and almost 1400 posts the jury is still hung. I am willing to throw out everything I have drafted and have a war open on the POD, I am willing to tact between events to keep Wilhelm looking East and the war begin as above. The coin toss is Britain the belligerent or not. I have a Sovereign to flip.

To be fair, the dissenting jurors routinely ignore the proceedings or seek to manufacture evidence based on their own reality, contrary the actual evidence available. I do not believe British belligerence is a coin toss, but a choice between reality and a good yarn. To make the story even more compelling you will also need to invent Russian competence and Italian courage.

 

[MichaelWest]

Aside from facilitating secured loans with the US or providing those secured loans to France itself, I can't see a neutral Britain doing much more. The French industrial heartland remains under French control and the French do not have the carry the British army through 1915...

Even if you achieve British belligerence, there is no imperative to get the BEF onto the continent. OTL even Churchill was suggesting British belligerence be limited to naval matters. Ultimately the British are likely to become entangled on the continent, but I suspect no time soon.



You missed the bit about the Germany wanting to dominate the world and force everyone to eat fermented cabbage and sausage...

I'm not aware of any specific war goals initially between Germany and Russia - neither were particularly keen on even more Polish minorities. Germany was intent on propping up A-H, while Russia was intent on re-ordering the Balkans. France certainly wanted the return of A-L and possibly revenge, but anything else would have been gravy.

In my opinion, the majority of the British wanted the status quo. A great continental war in Europe made this improbable and the German invasion of Belgium made it impossible.



To be fair, the dissenting jurors routinely ignore the proceedings or seek to manufacture evidence based on their own reality, contrary the actual evidence available. I do not believe British belligerence is a coin toss, but a choice between reality and a good yarn. To make the story even more compelling you will also need to invent Russian competence and Italian courage.

Indeed, without the invasion from the North the bulk of French industry is quite safe and productive. France needs little in material, nitrates are needed, her iron ore must be imported and added coal is needed, likely food stuffs and other supplements but she appears quite self sufficient. I expect France to be exporting to Russia. I think the American affinity for France will get her an initial round of loans but after that London will need to float them and everything for Russia who simply has no good finances.

I honestly see no benefit to France with the BEF sitting defensive, it adds some to the offensive but the front is far more narrow, British manpower is not necessary. And I see no reason the RN will lift the cordon around the British Isles and effective safe harbor to France in the Channel. British bottoms can carry anything as "neutrals" and keep France supplied. There is no blockade here, maybe the black list and pressure to deny Germany access to markets, supplies or shipping, but this should be too little and too late to impede the CPs. A great "cruiser" war will unfold and the submarine will be a quite ancillary weapon. For now I will ponder no deploying BEF even with a belligerent to quasi-belligerent Britain.

Yes, and Germans want to replace vin de pays with beer and demand everyone to be so damned orderly with their waxed mustaches. The irony is how the greatest war in history has no actual aims or ap to victory, it is just a bar room brawl with bragging rights at the end and a huge bill for damages. There aren't even cute girls to impress. Everyone planned the victory parade in the enemy capital better. Thus I am tempted to toss all the fools into the sack and let them get their bloodied noses.

And you are correct, Britain wanted status quo, it wanted Europe focused on getting ready to get ready not the race itself, but unlike math adding a negative and positive is not zero, at some point the continent was getting a German hegemony or a Russian hegemony. But I do not buy that anyone in the Cabinet actually looked into the crystal ball, not one saw that this war was not going to end Europe's dominance and mortally wound Britain, they simply wanted not left out of the tournament.

And I think British belligerence is certainly on the table, the unfolding events can get ahead of better judgment but if I can keep Wilhelm to his decision, then the slippery slope is far less steep. The discussion herein has certainly been useful and does offer a more radical way to alter the course of the Great War. The dissent here has been quite challenging, it shows how seductive is this war, with hindsight they still want Britain to play and Belgium to pay. It does make better fiction, the war broke each of the greatest powers in turn, maybe that is what the gallery craves. I am going to leave it open as I begin to draft out the events from August 1 to August 4, in there I need to find departures that keep Wilhelm focused to the East, that is far more difficult than swaying the Empire, that is the cliff hanger I will write to. I hope this discussion grinds on, I certainly do not prefer to see it end, it mimics for me just how the deliberations might go, finding consensus is a long road.

 

[MichaelWest]

The present vote is that Britain may not enter the war on August 4 without casus belli Belgium but it will enter the war thereafter: Germany does NOT invade Belgium - The Poll

Thus the prevailing mood appears to be that without casus belli Belgium the Asquith Cabinet and Liberal led Government cannot get a consensus to declare war. The leaning of opinion also appears that the prominent hawks being Grey and Churchill will get Asquith (and the King) supporting their minimal measures of closing the Channel, taking in hand preparations for hostilities, opening the way for France to acquire credit, munitions and use the Channel freely in trade with Britain.

First, can the doves gain a stronger neutrality or will the hawks get a Britain openly hostile to Germany? How far does "support" for France really go?

Next, is Kitchener appointed to oversee the Army? Does he pursue expanding the army in anticipation of war later? Or does he weigh in to avoid this war and preserve the cadre for some unknown eventuality?

Can Churchill attempt to create some incident at sea to prove the Germans are a danger? If so will it succeed? Or does any incident appear hollow and backfire on him? Will he attempt to craft some form of embargo on Germany akin to the blockade? Or does he resign in disgust?

And what is the most likely event that can draw Britain into the war? Would a disastrous French opening offensive that falls back under German counter attack persuade Britain that France might fall? Does a disaster in East Prussia with the Russians falling back into Russia, losing against the Austrians and suddenly proving to be a paper tiger persuade Britain that it must intervene before Germany prevails? Or some other event? And will this be a strong consensus or a weak vote subject to political infighting, opposition from the Tories and dissent in the public?

Or will Britain try to mediate a peace? Does she have the credibility to craft a peace? Or is it really inevitable that intervenes in the war to curb the ascendency of Germany?

At bottom, if Britain is sidelined by her domestic political wrangling from August 4 through the actual beginning of warfare on the ground thereafter, say middle August, what is the strongest casus belli to provoke Britain to war?

 

[VoidStalker]

How would a blockade by neutral Britain be handled by the US? OTL there were times the US was upset by the blockade policies and that was with Britain in the war, I can't imagine them liking similar policies if Britain is a neutral and could see a stronger pushback there.

Also if Britain does not would France try the same policies against the US in terms of limiting what could flow into neutral ports such as the Netherlands (and here Belgium as well)

 

[sloreck]

For the UK to "blockade" Germany is an act of war. If Britain is neutral, for the RN to intercept American flagged vessels like OTL is an act of war against the USA with no excuse. OTL The British would intercept ships bound for Holland or Norway not just Germany, and the list of contraband was long and included almost everything but teddy bears. The RN can close the Channel to belligerents who don't have a Channel coastline. They can report in the clear any German raiders they see on the high seas.

Theoretically the French could try the same sort of distant blockade the British did, but they don't have the resources to do it, even if the British let some French ships use the UK for basing and refueling - a major violation of neutrality.

 

[NoMommsen]

How would a blockade by neutral Britain be handled by the US? OTL there were times the US was upset by the blockade policies and that was with Britain in the war, I can't imagine them liking similar policies if Britain is a neutral and could see a stronger pushback there.

Also if Britain does not would France try the same policies against the US in terms of limiting what could flow into neutral ports such as the Netherlands (and here Belgium as well)

For the UK to "blockade" Germany is an act of war.
...

That actually is it : Britain starts blockading (whoever) requires or results in Britain being at war.

The 1909 London Naval Declaration was actually mainly formed and initiated by Britain ... 's more civilian proponents. It was actually in Britains and its economys interests in case of war ... elsewhere.
Its ratification by Britain was eventually prevented by the admirailty realising, that it would greatly hinder the RNs abilities and choices in case of Britain going to war against someone else.

Therefore it seems to be much more probable, that - after war actually has broken out between France and Germany - they would almost insist on the wars participants to respect the regulations of the London Naval Declaration of 1909.
In a nutshell : no british DoW => no british (trade) blockade at all

That would - unfortunatly ? - include british merchants to respekt them also like no shipping of absolute contraband like obvious war material (like artillery pieces and shells). And installing an 'effective' blockade against the baltic as well as the nordic russian harbours as required by the declaration is well within the german navys abilities.
What makes an 'incident' due to british deliveries of war material to especially Russia rather unlikely.



The 'closure' of the channel for any military vessel is a different cattle of fish and still well within international laws and agreements. It is also easily justified with the protection of Britains coast from possible harrassement by "strayfire" or any belligerent action there.

And ... IOTL Tirpitz was rather happy to agree to a respctive request in August 1914.

 

[MichaelWest]

That actually is it : Britain starts blockading (whoever) requires or results in Britain being at war.

The 1909 London Naval Declaration was actually mainly formed and initiated by Britain ... 's more civilian proponents. It was actually in Britains and its economys interests in case of war ... elsewhere.
Its ratification by Britain was eventually prevented by the admirailty realising, that it would greatly hinder the RNs abilities and choices in case of Britain going to war against someone else.

Therefore it seems to be much more probable, that - after war actually has broken out between France and Germany - they would almost insist on the wars participants to respect the regulations of the London Naval Declaration of 1909.
In a nutshell : no british DoW => no british (trade) blockade at all

That would - unfortunatly ? - include british merchants to respekt them also like no shipping of absolute contraband like obvious war material (like artillery pieces and shells). And installing an 'effective' blockade against the baltic as well as the nordic russian harbours as required by the declaration is well within the german navys abilities.
What makes an 'incident' due to british deliveries of war material to especially Russia rather unlikely.



The 'closure' of the channel for any military vessel is a different cattle of fish and still well within international laws and agreements. It is also easily justified with the protection of Britains coast from possible harrassement by "strayfire" or any belligerent action there.

And ... IOTL Tirpitz was rather happy to agree to a respctive request in August 1914.

To get the blockade we need Britain at war, anything else might shape up like an embargo but I am uncertain such a tactic was thought of then, blockade being an act of war rather than diplomacy, such that Kennedy used the term Quarantine to ease the tension so many decades later. Part of my thinking is that the London Declaration gets more traction or more play as the events unfold. Could Tirpitz publically affirm Germany's adherence in an attempt to bully himself and the Navy into the diplomatic moves on the eve of war? I think Churchill would see how this ties his hands, what might Grey think? Could he soft pedal Britain into denying its most potent weapon as he pushes Germany? If we cannot make the London Declaration stick, I think it still guides Germany's "cruiser" war and puts America on course to collide with Britain over any interference with her trade.

And my other ember to fan is if Moltke's stroke on the eve of war is more severe, who might replace him? Say this occurs in June (I do not know when his stroke actually occurred), it is too late to undo his planning but we have a likely new and weaker lackey on the morning of the 1st. Or should we move the hand of fate and have him stoke out after his meeting with the Kaiser thus never being in position to resume the invasion of Belgium? Or am I venturing into the dread ASB realm?

 

[sloreck]

Britain and its Empire can certainly embargo anything and everything to Germany and the other CP. They can also use economic and diplomatic pressure on everyone to get them to not trade with the CP. Unless and until Britain is at war with the CP the RN cannot stop, search, detain, or otherwise interfere with ANY shipping no matter what flag it flies. The RN can push things a bit by asking ships to stop, be inspected, show papers etc. ASK. No matter what flag it is within the rights of any ship so requested to say, "no thanks we shall continue about our legal business" at which point the RN really has to let them go. The only exception to this would be stopping ships suspected of illegal acts such as piracy, slavery, smuggling, etc. Frankly doing this a few times with ships flying various "flags of convenience" might work, although really if nothing is found they have to be released. Stopping US flagged ships using this excuse really won't sit well, and after the first time, if repeated it will get ugly.

The USA takes freedom of navigation very, very seriously. OTL the British distant blockade and the "almost everything" list of contraband was initially quite contentious with the USA, and it only gradually became more accepted as public opinion became more and more pro-Entente. It should be remembered that during the American Civil War the USN blockade of the CSA was a close blockade NOT a distant one, and with the shoe on the other foot the UK would make noise about UK blockade runners being taken.

 

[Catspoke]

The present vote is that Britain may not enter the war on August 4 without casus belli Belgium but it will enter the war thereafter: Germany does NOT invade Belgium - The Poll

Thus the prevailing mood appears to be that without casus belli Belgium the Asquith Cabinet and Liberal led Government cannot get a consensus to declare war. The leaning of opinion also appears that the prominent hawks being Grey and Churchill will get Asquith (and the King) supporting their minimal measures of closing the Channel, taking in hand preparations for hostilities, opening the way for France to acquire credit, munitions and use the Channel freely in trade with Britain.

First, can the doves gain a stronger neutrality or will the hawks get a Britain openly hostile to Germany? How far does "support" for France really go?

Can Churchill attempt to create some incident at sea to prove the Germans are a danger? If so will it succeed? Or does any incident appear hollow and backfire on him? Will he attempt to craft some form of embargo on Germany akin to the blockade? Or does he resign in disgust?

Or will Britain try to mediate a peace? Does she have the credibility to craft a peace? Or is it really inevitable that intervenes in the war to curb the ascendency of Germany?

If we go with the statement in bold italic above as the likely happenings. It seems unlikely the British would go any further toward war than what is listed. The Germans would have to provoke things and they in this TL made such effort not to provoke by skipping Belgium and are reaping good rewards for doing that, I can't see the Germans doing something dumb like sending a force into the channel just because.

Up until this point in History do we have any statecraft with low level undeclared war as an example (I am asking). I can't think of any. Things like the flying Tigers, Lend Lease, Oil embargo, were unprecedented in 1941, much different situation. Wars and conflict up to this point seemed very formal, formal DOWs, In this TL, the Germans DOWed Russia and they didn't really need to yet. If anything it was the opposite, formal declared wars where nothing happens, Russia vs Britain in the Napoleonic wars for example.

If Britain tries a bunch of stuff, short of declared war, and the Germans win anyway (likely), a seething victorious Germany, is the stuff of Britain's nightmares, it just seems unlikely that Britain will try that sort stuff, just declare war if and when it is politically OK and necessary to do so. Otherwise preserve whatever leverage and relations you have with Germany.

 

[NoMommsen]

Britain and its Empire can certainly embargo anything and everything to Germany and the other CP. They can also use economic and diplomatic pressure on everyone to get them to not trade with the CP.
...

Well, AFAIK at least until 1914 there was no embargo, that could be truly called 'successfull'.
Not even Napoleons "Continental System', when he managed to get all european states to obey it.
The Brits found ... other ways, mainly smuggling. And the british economy - as well as the continental - was well able to adjust in shifting its trade from europe to the globe.

Also trying to embargo the second largest economy world wide, short of surpassing yourself in global trade ... not the easiest task and rather risky, as you would drive your own customers with whatever 'pressure' you might (try to) apply right into the army of your economical 'enemy'. ... Don't think the 'City' would like that.

Britain wouldn't have the means to enforce such an embargo. ... as youself well described it in terma of sea trade - not to speak of land based trade of all the countries bordering the CP/Germany including the scnadinavian states with their 'short' trade route far from british naval bases.

 

[sloreck]

To clarify - the British and the Empire could cut off all trade with Germany, or selective items. They can attempt to use diplomacy and economic tactics to get others to join in. What they cannot do is to enforce such an embargo, stopping neutral ships as a non-belligerent is piracy pure and simple.

 

[Athelstane]

If we go with the statement in bold italic above as the likely happenings. It seems unlikely the British would go any further toward war than what is listed.

Especially once it starts to become clear to the British public and policymakers just how horrific and bloody total war of that moment really was.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Molkte was replaced for screwing up the opening of the war and for mental health problems. Falkenhayn, the Prussian minister of war, was told to fill in for him but this wasn't made public until December. Surprisingly later on, Falkenhayn was officially made chief of staff of OKH and left his ministry.

Falkenhayn thought the war would be won by a big offensive in the west but was more flexible than Molkte. He was a relatively junior general who was thought of as Wilhelm II's protege and his appointment was unpopular with the other generals.

ITTL I don't think anything changes related to what I stated above. Molkte quits when his plans aren't being followed and Falkenhayn is the logical replacement. This just happens a month earlier.

 

[NoMommsen]

To clarify - the British and the Empire could cut off all trade with Germany, or selective items. They can attempt to use diplomacy and economic tactics to get others to join in.
...

And that's what I argue Britain could not on 'peace-time' conditions of at least the first few months.

Their very own economy would heavily argue against such an embargo. Also I have only few doubts, that Germany won't find other markets for its goods, increasing the 'pressure' on competing british producers/traders.

Without a reason (the war) you8 also have to convince the british populace to burden some ... shortcommings.For example IIRC about half if not even more of the british isles sugar was importaed from ... Germany.

 

[MichaelWest]

And that's what I argue Britain could not on 'peace-time' conditions of at least the first few months.

Their very own economy would heavily argue against such an embargo. Also I have only few doubts, that Germany won't find other markets for its goods, increasing the 'pressure' on competing british producers/traders.

Without a reason (the war) you8 also have to convince the british populace to burden some ... shortcommings.For example IIRC about half if not even more of the british isles sugar was importaed from ... Germany.

If the crisis over Belgium passes and Asquith faces a divided Cabinet and has no Liberal party consensus then I would find an embargo tough to impose although in modern terms it would be a very effective diplomatic move. If we assume City of London values its business with Germany and has no compelling reason to back the geopolitical faction seeking war then the money men are pushing on the Liberal MPs to further back away from the brink. Given how flat the French bond floats were received, London bankers might offer little without gold or other collateral, reducing the real impact of British financial "alliance" too. The British shipping industry looks more like the American one, poised to profit as neutrals carrying cargos to all comers. The thumb presses against war unless the man in the street is truly afraid the Germans are marching on Buckingham or the business elite truly are compelled to rally around the flag to save England from the Huns. Thus Belgium is both symbol and actual threat, Britain goes to war to gain advantage, not to simply keep France status quo.